Two States for One People Solution

 

The world through governments, leaders, politicians, statesmen, reporters and editorialists all tout the “Two States for Two People” as the agreed upon mantra for the solution of the Arab Palestinian-Israel Conflict. As an example, under the heading “What is the two-state solution?” New York Times journalist Max Fisher defined the two principles as being the same: “The two-state solution would establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel — two states for two peoples.” Would but such be true the conflict would have very long ago been settled. Unfortunately, this is the side taken by only one of the sides in the debate, the Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leadership has a very different set of parameters for a solution. Perhaps a short list of their favorites would be in order. There is their “River to the Sea, Palestine must be free” solution in which there is one Arab state named Palestine founded upon the graves of over six-million dead Israeli Jews. Even then the Arab Palestinians would have another set of problems, what to do with these Jewish bodies and what to do with the Jewish bodies which have been interred within these borders throughout history back into antiquity. One need understand that when the Arabs claim there must not be one Jew on their precious and pure lands that includes on top, alive or dead, or beneath it no matter how long dead. When Israel surrendered Gaza they were forced to reinter their dead which only added to the calamity and sociological shock suffered by the Jewish communities which were uprooted even unto their dead friends and relatives. Imagine being forced from your home, your place of work being destroyed and having to dig up friends and family from their resting places and rebury them locating them sometimes a great distance from where they resettled making their graves now difficult to visit and tend. That was part of the horror of the plan to solve everything by simply giving the Arab Palestinians the Gaza Strip so they could prove how they could be productive and live peaceably beside Israel. Simply stated, that experiment was a dismal failure.

 

The New York Times once again in an article, “The Two-State Solution: What It Is and Why It Hasn’t Happened,” would have one believe that the Palestinian Authority government fully supports the idea of “Two States for Two People” solution to the conflict with Israel. But what do Arab Palestinian leaders have to say on the Two State Solution? Back in July 2011, Senior Palestinian Official Nabil Shaath slammed the French peace initiative because it called on them to recognize the Jewish State, so he told ANB TV that the French Initiative had,

reshaped the issue of the ‘Jewish state’ into a formula that is also unacceptable to us — two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of ‘two states for two peoples’ means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this — not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative.

Additionally Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also was quoted in 2011 stating, “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a ‘Jewish state.’” Both of these were statements directly contradicted what French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in 2012 where he clearly underscored this difference between the statements made by Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership and the generally accepted beliefs of the Western World when he posited,

It is not enough to have two states; there must be two states for two nations. I know very well that there are two ways to destroy Israel: from without and from within. This is why the two-state solution is not enough. We need to have two states for two separate nations. One for the Jewish people and one for the Palestinians.

There is an additional slander which claims that Israeli complaints about the PA instigating violence have no basis in credibility. This has been the mantra of many reporters, editorialists, and largely European political leaders. This can be proven ridiculous simply by playing this now infamous video of Mahmoud Abbas and others speaking in the language nobody outside of a select few Westerners are capable of translating, Arabic (see videos below). These two videos are but a small example of the horrific statements almost always stated in Arabic knowing full-well that the European and American leftist and mainstream medias will pretend they are unable of making heads or tails of such statements only quoting that which these leaders of the Arab Palestinians feed them in English. We wish we could attribute this to their being lazy except with the proof of what was said already translated by MEMRI, they have no excuse other than a severe anti-Israel and thus anti-Semitic bias. Finding the lies could not be easier either, simply visit CAMERA and read almost any coverage they show about Israel and the Palestinians. Be prepared for news you may not have seen before and for much of what the nightly news has fed you to be upended with quotes and references.

 

 

 

Now prepare yourself for our small dose of food for thought. In the December of 2000 as President William Jefferson Clinton was desperately attempting to solve the unsolvable Arab-Israeli Conflict he held a series of meetings. The crux of these attempts to bridge the gap between Yassir Arafat and Ehud Barak led to an interesting turn of events during the desperate days in Paris. President Clinton met for hours with Yassir Arafat finally getting him to actually state what terms he would accept believing the Israelis would never in a million years meet these demands. They were for Israel to turn over 90% of the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) and all of the Gaza Strip as well as half of Jerusalem to become the Capital City for Palestine. Late in the evening President Clinton visited Ehud Barak and set forth the terms which Arafat had given him. It took some time and arm twisting but in order to make peace Ehud Barak agreed to returning 95% of Judea and Samaria along with all of the Gaza Strip and dividing Jerusalem. Once receiving Barak agreement, President Clinton sent word to Arafat’s delegation that they were to meet early the next morning for a joint session to negotiate face-to-face. Yassir Arafat smelled that he was a rat trapped by his own admissions and ordered secretively for his car to be brought around to the front entrance fully packed, door open, and driver ready to hit the gas as soon as Arafat was in the vehicle. When President Clinton presented copies of the agreement to the two leaders, Ehud Barak reached for a pen while Yassir Arafat bolted out the long corridor. Immediately afterward, Madeline Albright dashed after the fleeing Arafat in an ungainly and borderline hideous limping gallop never closing the distance. She cleared the door to have the cameras of the news reporters recording over her shoulder the black limousine circling out of the drive with Arafat seated in the back seat. A subsequent offer was tendered from Taba later that week which was not even dignified with a response and thus ended the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. But wait, there’s more.

 

Next comes along President George W. Bush and the ending of his term. He has successfully forced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to turn the Gaza Strip over to the PA in exchange for some sweet words and fourteen promises written in a letter as an understanding between the two offices. This was supposedly an agreement between governments and this one won overwhelming affirmation from both houses of Congress garnering a total of comfortably over five-hundred votes from the combined Congress. These were the fourteen conditions under which the release of the Gaza Strip was performed and their refutation could have led to Israel retaking all of Gaza or some sections thereof. President Obama did indeed crumple up this agreement and trashed it completely with his assisting the passage of UNSC Res. 2334 during the closing days of his administration. This act will likely leave an unpleasant taste in any world leader’s mouth and be seen as a dire warning against accepting the world of any American President for the foreseeable future, especially one would hope Israeli leaders if no others. So, in late 2008 President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were pressing Israel once again to make the necessary sacrifices for peace. Again an Israeli Prime Minister, this time Ehud Olmert, made the supreme sacrificial offering of dividing Jerusalem and again over 90% of Judea and Samaria with land swaps for the remaining lands. This time they were dealing with Mahmoud Abbas, presumably a more reasonable and honest broker simply because instead of wearing fatigues and having a revolver strapped to his side, Abbas wears a business suit. Well, the apple did not fall far from the tree and Mahmoud Abbas proved to be a suitable (all inferences to a pun intentional) follow-up to Yassir Arafat as he officially received the offer and never even bothered to reply or make a counter offer. Instead he simply closed the negotiations with no further communication except to threaten to take the entire matter to the United Nations and the Court of The Hague and internationalize the conflict.

 

Division of lands between Israel
and Semiautonomous Arab Zone

 

With the ample assistance proffered by President Barack Hussein Obama, Mahmoud Abbas has done exactly that, internationalized the conflict such that any European nations, the United Nations in any of its near infinite capacities and anyone or anywhere else can jump in and demand Israel make concession after concession receiving nothing but threats and violence in return. The world is internationalizing the conflict quite adequately with city after city in Europe and numerous colleges conducting some level of boycott against Israel, often all Israel claiming all of Israel is responsible for there being no solution. Technically, from the Arab point of view, they are correct; the fact that there is an Israel which makes the statement that it is the Jewish Homeland, that is sufficient to make peacemaking impossible as the Arabs of the PA and the Arab World demand the end of Israel as Jewish. They will accept an Israel provided the Arabs rule and the Jews, if permitted, remain as Dhimmis, second class citizens with restricted rights who may be executed at any time by whim of any with the authority to do so, often meaning any Muslim. Since this United Nations Security Council Chapter Six Resolution 2334 which blames Israel, particularly the “settlements” which are simply Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, legal under International Law, for blocking the path to peace, the Arab Palestinians are free to demand anything while doing nothing and the world gets to blame Israel for not appeasing the Arabs sufficiently through boycotts and calls for “Kill the Jews.” What is surprisingly illegal are any claims made by the PA and other Arab representatives as while they have legal rights to their property, they have no legal leg to stand upon claiming self-rule or requiring an independent state. The reality, as we have stated near endlessly, and are working on endlessly, is the lands all belong to Israel for use as the Jewish State and that the only means by which any of the land can become an Arab State is if Israel signs a treaty relegating our claims and rights to these lands. And one does not need believe us, but one might feel inclined to take the wording of a decision made by the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles in a case brought by the PA against the French companies Alstom and Veolia for building Jerusalem’s light rail system. Their final decision was also a warning to the PA that Israel has the sole claim to all of Judea and Samaria and that they would do best not to take this into any court of law. The fact this came from the friendliest court system the PA was able to find makes this all the more impressively important. Please take our kind invitation to read for yourself a copy of the Court Ruling. Furthermore, in an earlier case brought before Egyptian Judge, Justice El Araby, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who sat in judgement as part of the panel which heard the case where the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sought an advisory opinion in 2003 from the ICJ on the legality of the security barrier erected by Israel; the Honorable Justice El Araby warned the UNGA and others, including Mahmoud Abbas and the whole of the PA, that filing further ran some risks, as he stated,

“The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain.”

 

Mandate of San Remo for French and British including actual treaty demarcations for each nation

 

Things are not only not as they are portrayed by far too many in the Western Media Enterprise, but actually quite the opposite. Israel is not the occupier; the Arab Palestinians are the actual occupiers. International Law which is constructed from treaties, conferences, agreements and other contracts between men and nations is usually understood to have some leeway or allowance for differing opinions. The fact that Israel is defined on her east by the Jordan River and on the west by the Mediterranean Sea is an exception as it is delineated and spelled out with diagrams and maps in several agreements, conferences, treaties, Mandates and even Article 80 of the United Nations Charter. As the border of Israel is accepted as stated above in the United Nations Charter Article 80, the recent UNSC Res 2334 is invalid as the United Nations individual bodies cannot overrule the Charter thus in any instance where there might be a conflict, such as the statement that the Jewish communities defined as “settlements” due to their location east of the 1949 Armistice Line, also called the Green Line, is invalid as these communities are all west of the Jordan River and thus legally on Israeli lands. All of Judea and Samaria by default are Israeli lands unless Israel gives them away in a treaty, not agrees to talk about the possibility but actually agrees, until then the lands remain as an integral part of Israel. Those are the hard and true facts and the only lands that Israel signed away has been Gaza. How anybody can even think for a second after the catastrophic results of the Gaza giveaway that repeating the same motions this time with Judea and Samaria including the tactically significant Judean Heights and the Jordan Valley and its overlooking mountains has to be suffering from some severely debilitating mental disorder or actually desire to plot the end of Israel and her Jewish population. Gaza has proven that once the land has been signed away, no matter how severe the resulting rocket barrages and other acts of warfare committed against Israel, any reaction by Israel will be condemned by the world bodies and numerous governments where the best Israel can expect is half a dozen friendly nations, possibly the protection of the United States Veto in the Security Council (not an automatic despite what anybody says as Presidents change) and the great sacrifice some European nations and a few others might take by abstaining from a vote to condemn Israeli defense of her citizens from attacks. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Abba Eban said it best stating, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” Abba Eban, having resided for a period in New York City, was able and took the opportunity to enlighten and grant the New York Times a singular piece of literary brilliance along with a moment of fresh air in the form of actual truth concerning Israel when he was quoted stating,

“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ”right to exist.” It is disturbing to find so many people well-disposed to Israel giving currency to this contemptuous formulation. Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement by the royal house in Riyadh. Nor does a group such as the Palestine Liberation Organization have any juridical competence to accord recognition to states, or withhold it.
A majority of the 155 states in the modern international community are younger in their sovereignty than Israel, which was the 59th member of the United Nations. There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ”right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
What Israel is entitled to have in return for the increase of its territorial vulnerability is not verbal recognition but an effective security system, to be arrived at by negotiations.
Back in 1967, when the world community adopted its unanimous policy for the Middle East in Security Council Resolution 242, some members suggested that Israel should be satisfied with a solemn declaration of the right of all states to exist. They added that Israel might, if it chose, regard itself as included in that definition. At that time, hardly any responsible government in the Western world or elsewhere accepted that definition of Israel’s rights as adequate…”

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Freedom of the Media was and is an Illusion

 

Freedom of the Media, the Press, was intended to mean that the media was allowed to take position opposing those in power. With President-elect Trump we have a complete rebirth of freedom in Media as the leftist media has been permitted total freedom in denouncing, condemning, delegitimizing and casting overt dispersion in such rapidity that the Maxim machine gun is jealous of their repetition rate against all items Trump. The only threat the American, and its twin of the European media and much of the western and developed world’s media, is facing is that largely, with few notable exception, is pure leftist progressive slant where anything which is not in line with their politically correct, censored, straight-jacket narrow view of the world is denounced as demonic, evil, Nazi-esque and potentially leading to censorship closing down all opposing views of the right wing. The media and their vociferous echo chamber of NGO’s, political advocates, full array of supportive leftist and progressive alternative media, and various leftist lobbyists all standing together making as much racket as the world might stand. That is one of the precious secrets of the Progressive leftists, they are all for one and one for all even more so than the Three Musketeers. This becomes evident in the one area where the left progressives have mastered something that the other end of the political spectrum has yet to even consider, let alone adopt.

 

Watch any demonstration for any leftist Progressive cause and you will soon understand how they get hundreds or more at every demonstration, universal representation. Go to an ecology rally against perhaps coal powered electricity plant in your city and there will be all sorts of ecology demonstrators including anti-nuclear power, pro-wind power, save the whales, clean our rivers, save the oceans, clean air and any other ecology cause imaginable. But that is not all. There will likely be others there who support other causes and are not particularly worked up about the ecology of the Earth and more concerned with the pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-racism, and even pro-Palestinian or BDS or other anti-Zionist, anti-Israel movements all there for one reason, the leftist you scratch my cause I’ll scratch your cause. Often at a demonstration for some cause there will be protest signs for other causes within the demonstration because if you protest one leftist Progressive cause, you are there representing all leftist progressive causes. And the mainstream will give favorable coverage with inflated numbers of protesters and enthusiasm and will take their pictures selectively attempting to only get the right standards despite others also on prominent display. Many will accuse me and ask how it is I know this. Well, once upon a time many years ago I was one of those liberals back when being a liberal meant keep the government out of my life, respect for all people, equality for all, live and let live, and, believe it or not, gun rights was not an automatic exclusion from the club. To be honest, the one cause which had tepid support was gun rights, but at least in those days it was not a cause which caused one to be disassociate and shunned.

 

Back then one went to every protest just as is the means today. There were people who would pay people to attend protests which were considered vital. These were often the protests against particular politicians or counter rallies to out shadow any right wing causes by having greater numbers at the counter rally thus making the coverage all about the liberal progressive cause which opposed the scheduled protest. Often the counter protest did not have any license or permit and actually be technically illegal but they were seldom forced to disperse and were given much freedom. The exception were the anti-war demonstrations which the government took a dim view and would use violent force to break up such demonstrations. This was back in the late 1960s and into the 1970s and with the times the position of the establishment changed as the left took command during the Administration and Presidency of Jimmy Carter. That was a turning point as from that point on the left progressive tours de force began a simple tactic, the just ignore everything between progressive majorities and just pick up right where the last front left off. This made for a force which became all but an inevitability which could never be opposed by anything the conservatives could establish.

 

This became evident when President Jimmy Carter simply picked up where President Lyndon Baines Johnson left off with the Great Society, affirmative action, wealth redistribution, ecology restrictions on industry through emissions and every other leftist progressive cause. Then there was a break for a dozen years of the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Presidencies. Then came President William Jefferson Clinton who continued expanding the progressive cause and then came another Republican, President George W. Bush, who was not so much a counter to the progressive causes than a slightly different approach in establishing big government programs which the “No Child Left Behind” program. This brought on the yet another rendition of ‘new math,’ ‘full word recognition’ and stressing minority contributions from the past replacing history with little mention of any contributions from white males and especially Judeo-Christian ethics and instead an anti-ethical education which removed any standard history of the United States and other Western histories which when mentioned it received condemnations of how it was exclusive not as meaning something exemplary but rather as racist, prejudiced and intolerant. Any traditional history was belittled and condemned by using modern day morality and equal rights viewpoints making everything from the past appear hateful and vengeful being racist, prejudiced and xenophobic. Making normative history where Christian, white male formed history such as the Founding Fathers were cast as hateful slave owners and thus not ethical or acceptable because such was unacceptable in these modern times and the European greats such as Da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Isaac Newton, Galileo and others were also intolerant, supremacist, racist, sexist and likely homophobic or full of other forms of hateful white supremacist views which would be condemned in today’s world. This version of history left much of traditional history untaught or presented as something to be rejected and spurned as horrible examples of a hateful past.

 

 

Some of such views are being presented in the media where past events are presented under a modern viewpoint and leftist microscope where anything which was acceptable back in history becomes unacceptable and regrettable as it fails to measure up to the modern ethos and leftist yardstick which was unheard of and did not exist when the history occurred. This method was designed and makes children ashamed of their past history and thus leaves them unattached to their past and because of their being separated and unanchored their views can be molded in such a manner as to overturn their ethics and allows them to be made to accept anything as one who has no past can be given any defined future. This is an actual method for disconnecting children from their parents, their history, their religious affiliations and anything which might define them as a continuation of their actual society and are instead given an entire redefined ethos which has nothing connected to their history and disconnecting them from parents and everything which would allow for a continuation of history and a continuation of the historic societal models. This is reinforced by the mainstream media which works using the identical redefined ethical framework leaving a youth which when they take the reins of power, they will start a society completely detached from past realities and all of history. The casting of all former history as evil and ruinous and without any worth was beautifully exemplified by President Obama when he returned the bust of Sir Winston Churchill as he refused to retain the visage of a colonialist, racist, evil, hateful individual and not the man who saved the world from Nazi Germany’s world conquest. This is indicative of the new morality that the mainstream media and education which are both completely under the thumb of the progressive, leftist rewriters of all history and religious anchors in order to create a brave new world where for all intents and purposes they could teach children that 2 + 2 = 5 as truth and the children would have no anchoring to know it was a lie. Thus is the prospect for the future in Europe, the United States and the remainder of western society, culture and the developed world should it remain under the sway of the progressive leftists whose remaking of society has actually been in progress under even the ‘conservative’ politicians since Theodore Roosevelt and shifted into high gear by Woodrow Wilson and accelerated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (yes, a relative of Theodore) and moved along even faster by Lyndon Banes Johnson and the line held by Jimmy Carter and slight advancement by William Jefferson Clinton and George W. Bush and then taken airborne and breaking virtually every barrier by Barack Hussein Obama with the future remaining to be seen. The main reason for the apoplectic fits and near convulsive contortions by progressive leftists over the election of Donald Trump is they fear those who hold their religion as holy, their ethics as cemented in a tradition worth preservation, their history as ethical and who desire moderation in progress where changes are evaluated over time, instead of great leaps being taken blindly without looking back and burning all the bridges and even the castles and fields behind them assuring there is no chance of retrieving any morsel from our collective past as they are ashamed of their Judeo-Christian history despite it having been the basis for many positive developments.

 

They refuse to credit the Judeo-Christian ethics with the end of slavery instead blaming it for slavery, bringing about the Renaissance instead dwelling instead on earlier Church anti-science standings ignoring the truth that things changed and the fact that many of those precious progressive ideas they hold as sacred have their roots in the Judeo-Christian ethos that people are all equal in the eyes of Hashem and instead teach that religion was all about exalting white, male Christian superiority and all the evils which can be appropriated to such a viewpoint. The fact that history has been a progression of events and evolutions caused often by the very past which originally opposed change but with time softened and became champions of the progressive changes in society. The reason for the new view demonizing the past of the youths’ parents and ancestors and pressing that all their views which are actually the logical result of the Judeo-Christian ethics, they want to disposes the past and make the youth divorce their history and thus be pliable and moldable into whatever the latest untested theories for society the progressives can invent. Where this will lead is to an entire unanchored generation which will fall before any anchored group which has a strong history and religious anchoring who are willing to fight for their beliefs. These types will rule the day simply because, as the old adage goes by G.K. Chesterton (we realize that anything old, especially adages, is unacceptable and makes any argument unacceptable but tough), “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” This probably states why the progressives work so hard to disconnect the youth from their past.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

So Trump Took a Call from a Woman, Big Deal

 

President Elect Trump has been being roasted for taking a phone call from a woman, a Chinese woman, an important Chinese Woman, an Important Chinese woman who happens to be Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The Mainland Chinese (some still refer to them as Red China, imagine that) Dictator’s underlings Foreign Minister Wang Yi and another Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang went on the record demanding that President elect Trump recommit to the One-China Policy. Wow, are they overly-sensitive or just really insecure and jumpy? He exchanged congratulations with another recently elected President of a nation which the United States forsook in exchange for their one-billion-three-hundred-eighty-one-million give-or-take a few million potential customers and inexpensive workers over the paltry twenty-three-and-a-half-million potential customers and more expensive workers. Red China (see above, we’re troglodytes and use old terms) need not worry, their place as the main supplier for WalMart is secure. Some people really get bent out of shape jealous if you talk to their rival suspecting you don’t love them anymore. Don’t worry Red China, or with their new capitalism is it now Pink China, America never really loved you in the first place, it just made economic sense to pretend America threw our friends in Taiwan overboard. Wait until America sends them more arms and you really go bat-crazy on us for selling arms to one of your claimed provinces. What, you don’t want your provinces armed or just this province? Get serious and maybe America will as well.

 

Let’s get honest here. If you asked the man on the street in any major city which nation the United States recognizes and has relations with and made them choose between Taiwan (and you explained that was also called Formosa and was often called free China) or Mainland China (and informed them it was also Communist China and previously called Red China) the total would overwhelmingly choose Taiwan. That is who the American people desire as their friend, until they would find out things in WalMart would have their prices rise, then they would pick Red China, oops, sorry, Mainland China. The Americans know who their real friends are and who assists North Korea with their nuclear program and thus assist Iran with their nuclear program. They are not the ignorant rubes you have been told they are; they just are mostly hard working and need to worry more about feeding their families, clothing their families and keeping a roof over the heads of their families and do not really have tons of time to keep up on foreign affairs. Anyway, if they know any history, then they know that should a war break out, then one really decides who they side with and who is required to put down the infinitely worst enemy which may or may not require siding with a lesser current enemy. When that war is over, we can go back to disliking whomever we choose and this applies to all nations. Israel would even side with Saudi Arabia and Egypt against Iran and there is nobody we can think of at the moment which would have us ally with Iran, they count as worst enemy. Not to worry, that was not exactly a secret.

 

Back to Mainland China and getting serious. The United States remade their bed in the Far East all the way back in 1979 and tossed Taiwan to the seven winds of fate and allied officially with Mainland China in order to actually recognize them in the Security Council of the United Nations and allow for formal trade relations and a billion other things; they are called potential customers and the makings of a very large military force if necessary, also called the Chinese people. Still, every decade or so the United States takes a risk and modernizes the Taiwanese military with a large weapons deal and Mainland China goes ballistic and whoever is the President grovels for a while promising that he will never allow such a deal again. That President keeps his word but that word does not apply to the following Presidents. We suspect that there will probably be one of these explosions should Donald Trump be reelected as such deals are most often executed during second terms so as to minimize the damage to reelection chances. It looks bad when your opponent can label you a treaty breaker and unreliable and all those nasty things and actually have proof in the form of Mainland China. Then again, Donald Trump has not exactly been a by the book kind of guy though many of his cabinet picks have been from the right wing conservative branch of the Republican Party, that might be a twig that far out on the right wing when you get to Retired Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis for your Secretary of Defense, a choice we heartily love and approve.

 

The flap over the phone call was very similar in the mainstream media as it was to the choice of General James “Mad Dog” Mattis for your Secretary of Defense. Retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor will likely continue to ruffle the feathers of the snowflakes reporting for NPR and the self-proclaimed objective media. I mean two former military men, what is Trump planning for, a war, an invasion, against whom? Well, the far left would be our guess as it appears they are gearing up for the long war, may it last twenty years as that is what is required to restore from the damage done since the assuming of the Presidency by Lyndon Baines Johnson after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Reagan checked the damage temporarily but with a Republican Congress, if the leadership can get their acts together, Trump can make real gains in restoring sanity and deregulating small businesses which get caught in the regulations battle the government claims to be using to check the “Big Guys.” The aims of these regulations almost always are skirted by the “Big Guys” and squarely smack the small businessman when he tries to progress and build his business. For far too long the government has actually been in the business of making sure the wealthy remain wealthy with no taxes or levies against wealth but with tons of taxes and other fees and regulations to prevent anybody else becoming wealthy and challenging the existing moneyed interests. Sure there are exceptions, but that is the problem, there are exceptions and it is not the normal flow for the little guy to make it big. We can hope Trump is different but that remains to be seen.

 

 

Reince Priebus is one choice which should be about as milquetoast and scrambled eggs as one can get. He will make the smallest ripples but does know how the Republican machine works, though many might claim the machine malfunctions more than running smoothly. Reince Priebus is one person who could quietly still get what Trump needs going and is far less controversial than say Newt Gingrich who would have been another good choice to get results but at what costs. Stephen Bannon is another choice which the media will blast as being bigoted and troublesome but he is no paleo-conservative and is more the middle of the road conservative with good monitoring for the mood of Congress and world affairs and should be an asset. The claims against Jeff Sessions and the regurgitating of his lynching by a Democrat Congress which also gave us the expression of somebody being Borked after the treatment which culminated on the rejection of Judge Robert Bork for a Supreme Court nomination where innuendo and snide commentary proved enough to slur the good name of a competent and righteous juror who would have been an asset and great Supreme Court Judge and would likely have been nominated to be Chief Justice instead of Roberts had he been on the court. His loss and the lynching of Jeff Sessions will be recorded as stains on the reputation of the members of that Congress who performed their positions in the Senate as more a lynch mob than an approval and validating body.

 

Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and David Patraeus have all been names floated for Secretary of State. David Patraeus should not be a viable choice despite his qualifications and proven work ethic but it is his ethics which failed as he shared classified information with a person not cleared to receive such privilege. That was just as wrong as Hillary Clinton’s transgressions even if to a much lesser degree and he served his time and lost his position and should remain that way at the very least at this time. Perhaps in a second term but not up front. As far as between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani it comes down to what attitude does Donald Trump prefer to be the face of the United States? He has already made one choice in such a position with Nikki Haley as the United Nations Ambassador where her straight forward style will be refreshing and her professionalism a statement to the world that the United States takes reasoned and solid stances and represents exactly what they claim to be. Rudy Giuliani would be a similar, if not more vocal and sharply stated, style appointee and would make for a great compliment to Nikki Haley with both being out front kind of people and shy wallflowers. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a quiet, professional choice who would be a good negotiator though very unlikely to be brash or grating. His style is grace and competence will win the day as long as one remain steadfast and steady on the path and refuses quietly but still forcefully to stand their ground. The main problem with Mitt Romney is he screams Republican political tool and would offend many Trump supporters which is why he will be the media favorite.

 

Other choices, include Steven Mnuchin for Secretary of the Treasury who was chosen from the media film and Wall Street business world. Wilbur Ross for Commerce Secretary comes from a venture investment capitalist background where he rescued failing companies often making them profitable. Such work does not make one popular, especially if you are successful as often one is required to step on more than a few toes and restructure companies releasing sometimes most of a workforce. He will be interesting to monitor. Elaine Chao as Secretary of Transportation will make an excellent choice. Not only a woman but a minority woman with impeccable abilities and great loyalty to those she works with. She was Secretary of Labor under George W. Bush for eight years, making her the only cabinet member to serve his entire term. Mike Pompeo for Director of the CIA is an Army veteran who spent years as a businessman before entering politics, now in Congress, voted as a Tea Party candidate from Kansas, and sits on the House Intelligence Committee which gives him the necessary experience factor. Still to cover are Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services and Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education; both of which have the needed qualifications but are really lesser known Republican Party regulars and should prove efficient in calming any jitters from the Party elites. Will the elites of the Republican Party be mollified? Not likely, but they will have less than they expected to use as pry bars when speaking to the media, and that will be an asset in and of itself. In all too many ways, the detractors of Donald Trump and his performance as President are jumping the gun slightly as he has not taken office or even cleared the Elector College which meets to vote later this month. The actions of some Republican Party elites, many in the media and now Mainland (Red) China are all very similar in that they grab ahold of a single incident, a particular appointee or any other item even as small as a tweet and just sink their teeth in and, like a bulldog, refuse to release and will remain attached in attack mode even if it kills their credibility because they are serving the cause. What cause? Don’t ask us, ask them. They probably believe they are serving some purpose saving the party, nation, free world or even the planet, possibly the solar system; and this drives them right over the edge, we would say beyond the cusp, but whatever edge they are running off, it is not here.

 

Beyond the Cusp