Beyond the Cusp

August 27, 2017

Where Could We Put One and Have it be Safe?

 

Whatever you think of the current American President, there is one fact that cannot be contested, his has been the most reviled, contested, despised and opposed Presidency by everyone except the electorate, and even there his supporters are from that group properly called the silent majority, or silent plurality. One thing for certain, those who are lamenting his election are boisterous, vociferous, persistent, and completely unhinged. No previous President has faced such obstruction from the existing bureaucracy, the opposition party, the Resistance (as they call themselves), the media, academia and so many other areas. Certainly there should be a monument to the least deserved and least desired and most unlikely President in all of American history. He is loathed more than Abraham Lincoln was by the establishment in his day, been called nastier names than even Jimmy Carter received, had more calls for his impeachment than did Richard Nixon, accused of more scandals than Ulysses S Grant, and been considered to be the greatest usurper in all of history. Any single person capable of exuding such emotional outbursts from so many people sending them into such beyond reason convulsions of pure insanity must be deserving of a monument, and something more glorious than simply tall buildings with his name on them, Trump Towers. The only other entity who has engendered equal disrespect and admiration at the same time was Homer Simpson, and he had to be invented, where Donald Trump invented himself.

 

Perhaps such a monument could be designed so as to satisfy both the detractors and supporters. That would be a challenge but somebody just might be up to the challenge. But while the Secret Service, right, we’re kidding, is out seeking this design genius, why not work on the big problem, location, location, location. Obviously the Nation’s Capital Washington D.C. is out as it is Deep State and far-left central, these would never accept such a monument. Factually, both coasts and large cities in the north of the mid-west such as Cleveland and Chicago are completely out as being Democrat central locations which went totally Hillary Clinton in the election and are still suffering withdrawal and reality deprivations syndrome (RDS). Perhaps the monument might be erected outside of Reno or Las Vegas, Nevada where it might simply appear as another attraction and would receive minimal notice in a century or two, until then the protesters trying to burn the monument to the ground might just draw some undesired attentions. There is a location outside Tulsa, Oklahoma nearest to Sand Springs, Oklahoma where there was planned to erect a 217 foot (66 meter) bronze statue of a Native American called The American which was never constructed and is kind of out of the well-beaten-path to satisfy the leftists who would demand such. Such a monument would serve the original purpose of the American and the statue or monument commemorating Donald Trump might even continue to have the same name, if Congress could ever come to realize that Donald Trump actually is an American. If we are not mistaken, Oklahoma went for President Trump and was recently rated as the second most conservative state behind Wyoming and slightly ahead of Mississippi (see map below). Actually, there we have three states which might actually compete for the honor, in their opinions, to host just such a monument and see it as a great honor, though Wyoming is population challenged and would lose any write-in contest. But this article couldn’t be about a monument or statue to President Trump, so what could we be trying to say at this point? Well, continue reading my friends.

 

Conservative and Liberal Ideology by State 2016

Conservative and Liberal Ideology by State 2016

 

There have been calls across Europe and the United States to remove every statue of any person who offends the sensitivities of anyone who matters, translated meaning anyone from the leftist side of the political spectrum, though if things were permitted to be close to fair, then each location would be permitted to retain the statues they value, but this is not about fair, it is about imposing the rules designed by the left, for the left, to promote the left and give the left supremacy over conservatives and all else. The southern states who were part of the Confederacy and value their hometown heroes for fighting the righteous fight against all odds are never to be permitted their history, as they have been deemed evil by the overlords of propriety. The leftists do not demand much, just the right to determine what can be taught to the next generation, what is permitted in the newspapers of record (NYT and close affiliates), what can be permitted to be shown on cable networks, and who can be permitted to be immortalized on monuments and statues using not the standards of their day but the leftist standards of the moment. What they are unaware of is that as time passes and the ideals and standards of the future are revealed, even their heroes and most wonderful of individuals will wilt before the changing values and progress will sooner or later bring them into disregard and thus destroy all records of the past. Were the world to fall into this trap it would face an even worse and catastrophic reality, the past would be erased and all its warnings would disappear with it and this would open up doors to disasters beyond imagination. If anyone could find something from the past over two hundred years of age, that will stand the test of time, please suggest them in our comments, please.

 

We thought we might give a list of things from such a past which there have already been calls for their elimination and to be thrown into the dustbin of history, as they no longer make any contribution to our societies and the modern age. The Old Testament tops the list in items demanded to be thrown out, as it does not measure up to modern standards. The Magna Carter is another of those old, dusty documents which are no longer necessary. There was one professor who decided to make the call easier for all of us and simply stated that any document written on animal skins was an abomination and insult to the modern mind, which of course means that anything written on parchment must go. Let us give you a short list of such items, Torah, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and of late the First Amendment, especially Freedom of Speech have all come under attack with suggestions that all firearms and weapons be kept safely by the government, and speech be limited and altered to read freedom from offense. Unfortunately for conservatives and the religious, their sensitivities are not amongst those to be considered and when they suddenly find themselves offended they will be informed that they are not being insulted but rather they are being instructed and educated in the proper means of how to think. The society will be facing right-think which will only encompass, indulge and convenience leftist social contrivances and traditions be damned, and they would become exactly that, damned. Belief in the Creator would be ridiculed and disappear from all polite conversation and those speaking of such would result in reeducation or complete exile from society. There would be reservations where those who held to provincial ideas and ideals and whose minds were stuck in the past would be relegated so as not to contaminate their betters in society who were the deciders of all which was to be considered acceptable. Societies where the leadership believes that they are the holders of the sole truths and cannot ever be countered and they are correct beyond question are societies which will soon find themselves falling down a rabbit hole never to return.

 

Every great document allowed for some measure of interpretation which would permit changes with time and the finest of documents left hints as to the best paths to pursue and which travels should be avoided at all costs. The item and concept of slavery has been a hot button issue in the news of late and was implied to be used as a filter for the expositor of propriety. Let us begin with what the Torah stated about slavery and its properness for the future. Slaves in the Torah were to be freed and returned to their lands every seventh year. This was intended to make slavery less enriching and temporary and with an intention to eventually make it no longer have any relevance. Torah gave a strong hint that slavery was not something to be permanent and that it wished for a future, the sooner the better, where slavery was no more. The United States Constitution also made it such that slavery would not become a means for attaining power. The three-fifths rule has long been misinterpreted. Frederick Douglass probably had the most to say and understand having suffered slavery and educating himself becoming probably the greatest spokesperson favoring the United States Constitution and the three-fifths clause as the greatest anti-slavery document in history which he explained and can be read here. The Torah and the United States Constitution were both written with full knowledge of the savagery and dehumanizing character of slavery and intended to destroy the institution using time and limitations which would permit the natural demise of slavery as society and human nature matured and realized the inhumanity of the practice. Slavery was going to reach the end of its usefulness with the coming of the industrial revolution when machines would outperform hundreds of people and the operators of the machines required particular skills which would garner a salary. Their designs to end slavery were subtle and encoded in such a manner such as to appear acceptable to those who demanded slaves to make their wealth while always allowing hope to those who opposed slavery as an inhuman practice. Still, these two documents have always been falsely decried as supportive of slavery when in fact they were designed to be exactly the opposite.

 

There is also the confusion over the Bill of Rights. There is confusion over Freedom of Speech versus Freedom from Offense and the even larger misconception that the Second Amendment is about hunting or protecting one’s home from criminals. The Second Amendment is all about protecting the individual from the overbearing interventions of the government and was meant to permit the people the ability to resist government. The idea is in a society where the people have firearms the government fears the people but in a society where the government had the weapons then the people fear the government. The United States was designed for the government to fear the people, not the other way around. But these and other such misconceptions and lies must await another time as we are attempting to be less wordy and having unfortunately limited results, but will continue to try.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.