Venomous Political Discord in Gaza Revealed through America

 

The difference was made starkly evident by the interview of Senator Bernie Sanders and the speech to the Senate made by Senator Ted Cruz when referring to Israel and the Gaza confrontation. Before we post the two videos, please bear with our rehashing some items, a few new ones, and too many we have covered before, just for those who are reading only this article. The first item one need understand and even take care to remember when listening to new coverage is that the moving of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem has absolutely no bearing on the violence on the Gaza border. The recent violence on the Gaza border is the latest tactic of the Hamas terror group which rules Gaza by threat and intimidation. The last round of warfare about three years ago Hamas realized their rockets were no longer much of a threat as the Israeli defensive Iron Dome system was capable of intercepting nearly ninety percent and that they were wasting their efforts with rockets. They also realized that they are not capable of fighting a ground war against Israel as even when the IDF had dropped leaflets telling the people in one area that they would be moving through their area in two hours and Hamas set up what they believed was a well designed and impenetrable ambush, they were still roundly defeated by the IDF infantry with the Israelis taking only minor casualties. This is the new weapon which Hamas hopes to destroy Israel. Their design is to have masses of humanity breach the border fence and storm into Israel murdering every Israeli they come across. These mass rushing of the border fence have had some presumably innocent and possibly overly zealous people join with the terrorists, but the claims by Hamas and Islamic Jihad have shown that the vast majority have been their own fighters, their terrorist members. Below are two videos, one an actual Hamas spokesperson speaking on Hamas television admitting that fifty-two of the sixty fatalities on the Gaza border were Hamas operatives, Hamas terrorists. We have read elsewhere that Islamic Jihad has stated that three more of those killed were their people, Islamic Jihad terrorists. Put all these claims together and the totals become very telling. Before jumping to immediately condemning Israel for killing, even murdering as some have put it, sixty innocent, unarmed, peaceful protesters, look further and the truth, the reality is that fifty-five of the sixty killed that day were members of one of the two main terror groups which control Gaza. That comes out to over ninety percent of those killed by Israel were terrorists. The videos below are both quite short, so give them a quick perusal.

 

Good, now that we have established the reality, let us look at it a little deeper. One of the main detractors of Israel in this confrontation had been the BBC. We thought it might be enlightening to compare coverage from England news when they had their own terror war in Belfast Ireland. We managed to find a video of one such report which is posted below. The report is done very solemn and straight without any hint of feelings for the terrorists responsible for the act. Below is another report, this from the BBC, where the terrorists are referred to as innocent citizens and they attempt to tie it to the opening of the United States Embassy but at least were honest about the reason behind the coming day, that it was to protest the existence of Israel and the Nakba. There was mention that Hamas was asking that the most innocent, women and children, not attend the Nakba protest but no reference to Hamas telling their people to bring concealed knives and firearms to use should they breach the border and reach Israeli communities or to the fact that Hamas had distributed maps on the fastest and shortest routes for reaching the Israeli communities (see image below videos). These maps and the instruction that they were intended to be used in order to reach and murder or kidnap Israeli citizens should their “innocent” protesters breach the border fence and swarm the IDF position reaching open areas, they were not to attack military targets, but are to slaughter civilians as their main objective. This is what the IDF is preventing and yet the world demands that the Israelis be investigated for protecting their border from an invasion while Hamas is being depicted as the victims. Hamas is intending to cause two results, both war crimes, they intend to murder civilians as their main objective and failing that show the pictures of dead and injured Gazans, portrayed by the world’s media, in step with Hamas propaganda, as innocent civilians in a peaceful protest. These are not peaceful protests and are an act of warfare by a different and obscene means with Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists guiding the offensive hoping to destroy Israel.

 

 

Hamas Maps Showing Closest Israeli Communities and Directions to use in Potential Attacks

 

Let us now interject with the two sides as represented by two United States Senators, first Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont who was Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the recent Democrat primaries to be the Presidential candidate, and the second Senator Ted Cruz from Texas who was also a primary candidate for the Republican Presidential race.

 

The misnamed protests on the Gaza-Israeli border are simply an attempt to have a swarm infiltrate Israel and then spread out hunting down civilians killing every Israeli possible and possibly kidnapping some Israelis in order to trade them for the release of hundreds, if not thousands or possibly demanding all, of the terror prisoners held in Israeli custody. There is no humanitarian aspect to these actions as they are done with full malice and hatred one could imagine. The Arabs have used one means or another since 1922 to prevent the formation of the Jewish State and for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel since 1948 and her founding. Israel was attacked by six Arab armies assisted by several militias and partial forces from three or more other Arab states on the day of her founding. There have been two more Arab-Israeli wars with the intent of erasing the Jewish State. Realizing that the Arab nations were not going to be able to destroy Israel with brute military force, the Arab world has since used a different tactic, they returned to the terrorism which they had used before the founding of Israel. Here are a few links, the first to coverage of the 1929 Hevron Pogrom, next about the 1933 Jerusalem riots, then about the 1936 through 1939 Arab uprisings and lastly an overall article written by a British Officer, Colonel Richard Kemp.

 

The current rage has nothing to do with the United States Embassy move to Jerusalem, it has everything to do with the fact that Israel exists. That has been the problem since before Israel came to be as even the thought of the Jews residing on lands claimed by the Arabs was an anathema to the Arabs. The reason there has never been peace is that the Arabs are only willing to accept one solution, Israel under Arab rule and the Jews gone. This has been the root of why every attempt at finding a solution has failed and why every attempt in the future will fail. There is no solution which can be reached where the Jews are permitted to live in any border no matter how small, the entirety of the Jewish existence must be erased for the Arabs to believe a proper solution has been attained. Even if, Heaven forbid, such an eventuality were to come into being and all the Jews built a space-faring nation to go look for a home on another planet, two results would ensue, the Arabs would claim whatever planet the Jews settle upon and the Arabs would continue slaughtering one another as they are doing now currently in Syria, Turkey with the Kurds, Yemen, Libya, and along the African Transition Zone (map can be found here where Islam meets the Christian world. That is the unfortunate reality and is why Israel must defend her borders, because the alternative is just too horrifying to even contemplate.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Now the Presidency Has Too Much Power

 

It is simply astonishing to hear left leaning politicians vested in Democrat power and maintaining the government regulatory monster are all of a sudden all awash with examples all about the extent that Presidential power has reached. The latest scream is the rescinding of the President Obama Net Neutrality four-hundred plus regulations being touted as how far President Trump has been capable of reaching. When President Obama imposed these regulations out of the blue with absolutely no Congressional authorization, that was simply wonderful as it gave the government the ability to monitor the internet and assure that it remained free from being overtaken by some evil corporate menace and other undefined catastrophes which only the Federal Government was capable of harnessing and protecting the world from. There was no care or worry that four-hundred plus regulations might be crippling internet freedoms and having the government running herd on the internet might be placing a completely different menace loose on the freedoms the internet should have. The actual main effect of these regulations was to limit information of political manner making it that any internet provider who might have been detected providing conservative sites an overly preponderance or heavy presence, then they could be forced to also find an equal number of left leaning sites. Of all the providers struck by these regulations, over eighty-five percent were sited for not providing sufficient voice to liberal web sites especially in the news they provide. Thank all that is holy that we are advertised as an editorial site and not news source.

 

The rescinding of these four-hundred plus regulations was a great step in freeing the internet as now providers may carry those news sites which provide the best content and the greatest return on their space provided. They can no longer be forced to provide a web presence to news sites which do not generate sufficient traffic to warrant the resources provided by the providers. Simplified, web providers can now use their web resources to maximize their profit and not have to worry that the government might demand that they waste resources on a web presence which does not carry the weight of the resources invested in such a site. Why should a web provider be required by government to provide equal web presence and resources and bandwidth to sites which do not generate the traffic by which these providers are able to sell commercial and attach advertising space wasting bandwidth and losing money with some of their resources just to satisfy some preconceived government idea of fairness. Web providers are not in business to be fair, they are in business to garner traffic and have profitable web sites and balance be damned. That is the hard cold fact just as other media are in business to turn a profit. Imagine if the New York Times or the New York Post were required to have reporters and editorialists which represented the opposing views from their normative political perspectives. Their readers would not be served and such a requirement would eventually drive both newspapers out of business. Neither newspaper would be able to retain their readership. The same should be permitted for when providers, as they also have, in some form, a readership, and if having a balanced view is profitable, then such will become the norm and there would be no government regulations to enforce such a result.

 

Net Neutrality was sold as assuring that all web presence has sufficient bandwidth for fairness, whatever that means. That could be interpreted as requiring that we here at Beyond the Cusp have a similar bandwidth to Netflix. That would be ridiculous, as we are not streaming movies and television shows for thousands of people simultaneously and do not require even the smallest percentage of bandwidth as Netflix. Even if we had a similar number of visitors as Netflix, if only, we still would not require anywhere near their required bandwidth as we provide largely text with occasional videos and some images but not constant streaming once the article is loaded. There would be no reason for the two sites; Beyond the Cusp and Netflix, to be given anywhere near the same bandwidth or memory space and that is also why Netflix pays a premium price and has their own servers and we publish here at WordPress. Oh, and we chose Netflix as our example as one of the great scare tactics used by the left was that many companies and users whose services people love, like Netflix, were all of a sudden not going to get the necessary resources and that competing internet providers were now going to make Netflix no longer available to their users. We can think of no faster way to push away users than to provide shoddy service or by blocking desired services to your customers. When you are using Netflix, two items determine how well it will function beyond the capability of your computer, the baud rate your service provider has available and that will be as high as you pay for and any limit is hardwired into the type of service you buy, and second the ability of the Netflix servers to handle the demand load placed on them, which Netflix will make sure is comfortably above the demanded ability or somebody else will provide the same service with better quality and Netflix will join Blockbuster as a former company providing movies on demand. The idea that your internet provider would block Netflix because they do not provide it with servers if the government was not there to protect you was ridiculous from the start as Netflix was doing just fine before President Obama “guaranteed” through four-hundred plus regulations that did nothing except strangle competition thus making progress and new start-ups from gaining any traction. Net neutrality was simply another vehicle for government to decide what was best for the customers instead of the companies providing service doing so as customer demand required.

 

There is one glaring example of how going from government fully regulated to private provider has brought faster innovations at less cost to the taxpayer with a far greater variety of choices. This example is spaceflight. We used to have a very simple regulation about spaceflight which was used presumably to make spaceflight safe. That regulation was that the government would provide all space related services. That was what gave NASA the freedom to control risk to the public. It worked great as NASA never risked the public until they had an accident and a teacher was killed, Christa McAuliffe (see image below). But other than crewmembers, NASA kept all on the ground safe. Having NASA as the sole provider of entry into space also made numerous companies go overseas to launch their payloads, as it was less expensive and their payloads and satellites reached space faster. Since space has been opened to private competition there has been a virtual explosion of directions being taken and there has not been any loss of life as of yet. Will that change, of course as space is dangerous. The United States did not build a coast-to-coast railway system without a few thousand casualties along the way and that was expected as part of the price for progress. Somehow, the world, specifically the developed world, has come to expect that any venture into the future be conducted with absolutely no cost in human lives. That expectation is ridiculous and if permitted to be pervasive, it will make space travel impossible as well as any development of space. The one item that we can guarantee despite having no ability to influence outcomes is that people will die making any Mars base into an actual working and self-sufficient inhabitance. Eventually going to Mars will be relatively safe and affordable as that is the next frontier but getting there and establishing mankind as a fact will be costly in more than just money, there will be risk to human life and possible catastrophes. It is even likely that the initial settlement on Mars will result in the same end as the Jamestown, Virginia, failed; but future attempt after attempt eventually built a city of that name which served as the capital of Virginia for some years.

 

From left to right the space shuttle Challenger’s STS-51L mission astronauts are
Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Dick Scobee,
Ronald McNair, Michael Smith and Ellison Onizuka

 

Government regulations do not expand service or make something more free. Removing regulations does and that is what cancelling net neutrality did, it made providing a free and open internet experience more possible for those residing in the United States and with time will benefit the rest of the world as well. If net neutrality actually provided what it claimed by those defending the four-hundred plus regulations, then how did people outside the United States have their service survive without net neutrality in their respective countries? The answer was they saw no change with or without for the most part but now that the United States has taken a live and let live approach by removing burdensome regulations from the internet, the world will see improved service largely in the area of variety of available features as new internet companies of all types no longer must wade through four-hundred plus regulations to assure they were compliant with government regulatory demands and restrictions. This is true of every regulation that the government can shed from its overregulated society. Regulations do not necessarily make one safe, as no company actually desires killing off their customers with certain obvious exceptions such as those items posing health risks such as cigarettes. Does anybody believe that any number of government regulations short of a total ban could make cigarettes safe to use? Of course not and cigarette smoking has decreased as awareness has increased and that would be true with or without regulation. The one service the government provided which reduced the numbers of smokers was the public service spots on television and radio. Even the warnings regulated to appear on cigarette packages had minimal effect, and many here are former smokers and can attest to this fact.

 

Government helps when it provides independent and unencumbered scientific investigations and releases true facts. This means that government need provide funds for research into public health issues free of preconceived notions or targeted results. Nowhere is this more obvious than the concept of global warming. Since the initial discovery that the Earth was warming, the idea was hatched that it was caused by man. This gave rise to the concept of anthropogenic global warming or mankind causes global warming. This became “scientific unchallengeable fact” after Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration testified after being sought out and handpicked by Senator Timothy E. Wirth, the Colorado Democrat who presided at the hearing. This bombshell led to the United Nations becoming involved despite almost no witnesses were ever allowed to testify who denied the “scientific unchallengeable fact” of anthropogenic global warming. The United Nations jumped in with both feet and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has paid scientists to prove that their concerns over anthropogenic global warming were and is true. Funding without a predetermined outcome was difficult to find as the United States, European Union, United Nations and several European and other governments were all paying exclusively for proof of anthropogenic global warming, so that was what the world got an preponderance of evidence proving. The evidence against anthropogenic global warming came almost exclusively from individual scientists who investigated global warming independent of government funding. Private funded scientists found no or next to no proof of anthropogenic global warming outside of the government funded research which was predisposed to finding proof if they desired continued funding. The media acted like an echo chamber for the government-funded research and the public bought that as the truth. Only now are people actually starting to question these results and rightfully so. The reason is that the only evidence for anthropogenic global warming comes from computer models which all thus far have failed to give results which mirror reality.

 

Al Gore with his hockey stick graph of global temperatures which would have had the Earth now at a balmy 150o Fahrenheit, or there about, proved completely false as have the other predictions of higher average temperatures and the Earth having a fever. The hysteria caused by government-funded research with a presupposed result and the media echo chamber along with anthropogenic global warming being taught from kindergarten through college paid for with government funding has all combined to taint the scientific research in one direction, scare people into doing whatever the governments demand of them to solve this terrible guilt they have had foist upon them by the false results proving anthropogenic global warming. This was what fueled the brouhaha over President Trump pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have required a tax on carbon, which translates to a tax on any fuel source, including electricity, and eventual restrictions on fuel use most especially on vehicle use. Cities would ban cars from morning to night if not all together and eventually complete travel bans making people pay for a license to take a trip on vacation. This would permit government to predetermine where people would be permitted to reside and skyrocketing cost for housing as building would be restricted with choking regulations. For an example simply look to California and more accurately, San Francisco where new construction has been next to nil for two decades or longer. Steadily the truth is emerging and people are starting to listen and question the government bought-and-paid-for research. The truth is, in science, skepticism is presumably a good thing as a part of science, which was all but starved out in this debate. Questioning every hypothesis and every conclusion should be researched, both to support and find faults, and the latter was lacking in research on anthropogenic global warming. One thing which almost always proves out in the end is truth; the only question is how long it takes us to get there. Government always has an angle where it takes the side of whatever provides it a route for growth and greater control. Emergency crisis give government powers they would not otherwise have and anthropogenic global warming has been a powerful emergency, life or death according to government research, and that is permitting further regulation on business and private lives and has been used to promote a single world power which regulates everyone out of Turtle Bay, the headquarters of the United Nations.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

News You Can Use and For You to Abuse

 

News today is written not so much to inform as it is to support your cause or side. We hear claims that the other news sources are using “Fake News” and that the stories they carry are not to be believed. What we do not read is that our side is purported to be putting out “Fake News” simply written to support our narrative. The reason for this is simple, we tend to read news sites which support those ideas and ideals that we believe and ignore news sites which ridicule our innermost thoughts and beliefs. We are all to a large extent guilty of reading only the partisan news sites which echo what we already know and poke at those things of which we disapprove. Think that Planned Parenthood is a wonderful service provider and that the abortions they perform would be done in back alleys with clothes hangers and the number of deaths due to botched abortions would be an abysmal reflection on our society, then you read papers or sources which support the “Woman’s right to choose” and avoid those which do not. On the other side you believe that Planned Parenthood is performing infanticide and is an abortion mill pretending to offer a full range of services you read those articles at sources supporting the position that “Even the unborn have a right to life and are protected and loved by G-d” and avoid those which do not. That is the simple truth for all too many people who literally choose their news such that it pleases them, strokes their pet beliefs and infers that the other side is “all wet” and “contain no facts as we do on your side.”

 

We must confess that even we provide some news which fits this definition as we are self-admitted Zionists and support Israel and what is defined by treaties which many others claim hold no relevance in the world today yet we refuse to retire those treaties which delivered and defined the Mandate System as even the United Nations accepted those definitions in its Charter. The opposite side is obvious; they claim the “Palestinian” Arabs have resided on the lands where Israel stands since long before Jews ever existed. Where the debate is never really held is for their side and ours to sit in a court of International Law and present each side’s argument and proofs and then let reality and law decide the validity of each cause. This will never be allowed to occur as neither side feels assured of victory. Our thoughts on that are that many supporters of the Israeli claims for the Jewish People to posit their claim to the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea suffer timidity and lack faith in their proofs fearing that anti-Semitism would win the day in any tribunal where the Arabs and Europeans present a majority view and place judges to decide cases. The other side fears that the Jewish claims are too well documented to challenge and that their best route to victory is to force through political and societal pressures Israel into signing away sufficient amounts of land which will make Israel indefensible and then finish off the remnant that remains with one swift war sealing their fate. We, of course, will present the promise that a new breed of Zionist leadership is forming in both Jewish Home Party, the Likud Party and new parties or reestablished parties and will soon take their place leading the nation of Israel and then that better day where we assert our Zionist and valid claims to our lands and end the sorry state of affairs we are presented with today. There is your supportive news you can use, provided you are a Zionist, otherwise we just pressed your buttons and you are seeking a news site that supports your side and explains why we are “all wet.”

 

That is the unfortunate reality and also part of why the United States and much of the world have become so partisan and each side is unable to compromise. Both sides believe they have the mandate from the people to lead and impose what they believe is right. Those supportive of the Trump agenda point to the crushing victory he received through the election and the Electoral College. The other side argues that the Electoral College was a system put in place by slave owning white men in order to further their domination over what they believed were inferiors and that the United States needs to go to a modern system where the popular vote wins the President and that as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote she should be President. Both arguments are simple with obvious points which define where each stands. Both sides are mutually exclusive and only one can stand. What is frightening is that both sides are ready and willing to back their position with force if need be and some on either side are ready to confront the others with force immediately. Such a situation is what germinates revolution and not the good variety as whichever side wins such contests in the past have then sealed their rule and sent the others off to be reeducated, which actually should read indoctrinated, submitted or murdered.

 

This was especially validated by the French Revolution where two factions joined forces to overthrow the monarchy and then turned on one another and started using their form of justice, the guillotine on their respective sides until one of them triumphed which led all but directly to the next revolution where Napoleon Bonaparte became Emperor of France and virtually of Europe from Paris to Moscow. The French are on their Fifth Republic established by Charles de Gaulle under the Constitution of the Fifth Republic on October 4, 1958. Then there were the other two revolutions which followed near exact routes and brought the world two of the most lethal, repressive and totalitarian systems of governance since Rome itself turned into a dictatorship after they went through a cataclysmic series of civil strife upon the murder of Julius Caesar which began the series of transitions which led to naming the leader of their dictatorship Caesar as a title. The other two are the German and Russian revolutions.

 

After World War I the Germans were facing a failed government which had lost the war and been ravaged in peace by a treaty which all but guaranteed there would come a next great war. The Germans attempted to install a democracy, the Weimar Republic, which floundered and was ineffective. This led to great need for new leadership which could promise the sun, the moon and the stars. Then German people turned to a great orator with a gift for speaking and making grand promises sound achievable and they allowed this leader near total power which he turned into complete power under his elite guards. The fact is it has been shown that his own party had been the author of those exact acts he promised to thwart and save Germans from. These were his goons and thugs run loose in the streets and his secret core force which started the Reichstag fire. Then he sent a new secretive force into the streets and his new SS murdered much of the SA which were not its commanders who simply were folded into the SS and the Nazis rose to power.

 

Just before World War I there was a revolution in Russia where the Communists and the forces supporting democratic governance joined forces and overthrew the Czar and the privileged ruling elites. Once they had purged the governance, they formed the Russian Provisional Government (Russian: Временное правительство России) which was first led by Prince Georgy Lvov and then by Alexander Kerensky with this government eventually being known as the Kerensky Government despite it being a democracy. This was largely due to this government not even lasting a full year as the Communist Revolution overthrew them and established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The first Revolution was named the February Revolution (March outside Russia as their calendar was different) which was followed by the October Revolution or Soviet Revolution.

 

Czarist Russian Flag, Provisional Government Flag
1917 Russian Flag, Soviet Union Flag 1923
Soviet Union Flag, Current Russian Flag

 

History may one day reveal that a similar fate befell the United States after a political upheaval resulting in the election of an unsuitable President, who was illegitimate in the eyes of his opponents, in Donald Trump which led to a coup in which he was overthrown and a socialist democracy was put in place where the popular vote ruled and the Trump core supporters were arrested for treason and sent to reeducation centers where they were kindly reoriented into productive members of the new governance. This core of workers served the ruling elite and never returned to having a vote in elections as they had proven unworthy. Well, that is what the extremes on both sides are reporting and is one of the few universal articles of opinion passed off as news. One side holds this line as there being hope and the other side is warning of a disastrous revolution run initially by the “Deep Government” or “Shadow Government” which were left in place by the previous administration and are the real power in Washington.

 

Sure most readers are claiming that we have simply murdered and butchered their side’s opinions and facts making a mockery of their honest and truthful points and arguments. We confess, yes we did and will continue to ridicule both sides until they decide to work for the benefit of all the people together instead of heading headlong into a civil war. The two opposing sides in the United States today refuse to cooperate and each blames the other for the lack of civility. One side claims that Trump supporters are just like Trump, ignorant, boastful, loudmouth, arrogant imbeciles. The other side claims that the Hillary supporters are just like Ms. Clinton and are aggravating, screeching, obnoxious totalitarian socialist leftists who if permitted power would be worse than Stalin with their reign of terror. The fun thing is that both sides are correct but are pointing to a small minority on the other side which can be used to pump their supporters up to believing they have the moral high-ground and that the other side is full of bullies who are absolutely going to destroy everything worth saving for the future of the nation and that the other side needs medical help with their obsessions. So, you say it is not really that bad and things will calm down given a little more time. Will they now?!

 

With two diametrically opposed views in the nation and a split where both sides claim the other is being aided by forces from outside the country, how can this end well? One side is yelling about Russian collusions to out Hillary with false reports on her record and that she never committed any crime with her e-mail server and was not directly responsible for Benghazi and further they purport that she was instrumental in mounting the effort to get Osama ben Laden. The other side is accusing the disrupting forces at conservative candidates’ town hall meetings as being out of state actors hired in many cases to disrupt and that these are professionals who are paid by George Soros, the bogey man on the other side, and that they are fabricated astro-turf and not a grassroots organized group and thus are breaking the law and need to be kept from destroying the nation. Some are defending Trump not on what he says but by pointing to what he is doing. Here is the one item both sides might actually agree upon; Trump is intentionally baiting people, especially the liberal and leftist media establishment, with his Tweets and that ruse works every time. Where the left are concentrated on everything Trump says or Tweets, along with his two livewires, Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, the conservatives are more concerned with what Trump actually does and whether or not he is keeping his promises, well, at least those promises of which they approved. These viewpoints will never be capable of meeting in the middle as they have absolutely no overlapping middle on which to meet, and that is a very big problem.

 

Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon

 

When two sides of a political fight have grown so far apart that there exists no middle ground then the only solution found throughout history has been revolutions. The “Revolution” group will never agree with anything that Trump does or says and will take any opportunity to shout their message and call for storming the ramparts. These extremophiles are geared-up and ready to rumble and would not require much to spark an incident which would lead to riots in the streets across every major city in the country. There would not be much time from such rioting to calls for the military to be utilized to quell the disturbances and restore order. How far the nation is from such an eventuality depends on where you live and which viewpoints you hold dear. If you are a conservative residing in a major city in the north or along either coast or if you are a leftist caught in fly-over country, then you sit amongst a majority population holding opposing view to your own and may not have many friends or acquaintances who share your views. The rare few such friends you do have are just as concerned as are you as to the path the nation is traveling towards. The fact that your everyday experiences place you in constant contact with people who loudly proclaim the merits of something you see as meritless. You feel desperate and fear you are losing your country and may soon find oneself residing in a desperate place. The problem will exacerbate should people begin moving in numbers to places where their views are in the majority and then each side will be residing in an echo-chamber with their beliefs simply amplified and that is a situation where succession becomes a viable option.

 

So let us seek to find a happy place where there is some degree of reconciliation between the two sides. We all know or have read about Republicans agreeing to work with the Democrats on a balanced or centrist series of legislation which might mitigate some differences. One glaring individual in this group is Senator John McCain. The problem with people like Senator McCain and others of his ilk is that they have long played on the left side of the aisle while campaigning at home as a great and strong conservative man of principle. He is rumored to be in possession of a war chest worth billions of dollars in campaign funding which makes his reelection nearly guaranteed as he can outspend any opponent. Many of the Republicans who are offered as potential arbiters for a middle ground are actually more of a false flag group of RINOS who continue to be reelected time after time and have become entrenched and supporting the leftist dreams of more government with government running the lives of its subjects simply because these entrenched politicians honestly believe they are far more intelligent and know what you need better than you know.

 

These people and their counterparts on the right and anybody in political office anywhere and at any level who believes they are better suited for deciding any other individual’s life better than they can do for themselves given the opportunity are a dangerous force. These are the big government progressives and whether they believe government should provide for your care in all things and even dictate a healthy life style for every individual (usually except them and their fellow superior peoples) or they believe it is upon the government to force a moral lifestyle on every American even if that means forcing them to a particular religion or to accept particular set of moral code. Both groups want a huge behemoth of a government with absolute power and they will between them beat out the definition of what makes one a human and then they will enforce exactly that form of body and mind over every person in the nation, the world even given the opening. These are a dangerous sort of people and the saving grace is that they disagree on some very basic principles which means they will eventually have a falling out and will become one another’s opposition.

 

The problem will come when one extreme takes power and believes they must retain power at any cost as allowing the other side to be in power will destroy everything they believe in and will make the nation ungovernable in the future. This is the kind of thinking which leads to a megalomaniac taking over the government, dissolving the Congress and proceeding to rule with a pen and a phone. This is what one side believes their opposition is trying to install right now. The question becomes which side is feeling that way about the other side. Here is the good news, which in reality is bad news, the two opposing sides agree on this point and they both are pointing at the other side as the culprit. The supporters of President Trump even go as far as to quote President Barack Obama having stated, “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…” The other side simply point to the great number of executive orders already signed by President Trump and to his Tweets as his pen and a phone where the Tweets are the new phone for getting out the messages spurring his side into action. And perhaps the problem is we are all looking at this as my side and your side and there is no our side where we all gain something.

 

Beyond the Cusp