Beyond the Cusp

September 18, 2017

Republican Party Committing Electoral Suicide

 

It seems there are two Republican Parties today. One is the elite, loyal guard who are what one might call the core of the presumed power structure. The other are the ones who win despite the party mostly ignoring their needs and election campaigns where they receive minimal help but run populist campaigns knocking on doors and speaking at every church, synagogue and every society which will allow. The power structure have campaign chests which if theirs and the Democrats’ were combined, the United States could probably put a good sized dent in the national debt. They are reelected because they have much of their district or state in their pocket and all the media give them good coverage always speaking respectfully of them. These long-time Congressional denizens also make up the core of the “Never Trumpers” who are making life near to impossible for the President. With the party split like this, it is not difficult to see a disaster in the making. And now the Republican “Never Trumpers” have decided that their opposition to the President surpasses the good of the Party. They refused to work with President Trump on repeal of Obamacare and are now rising for a fight over Tax Reform. When President Trump decided to pass the controversy over the repeal of President Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) to Congress rather than acting unilaterally, they decided they would refuse to act. Facing such stubborn refusal for cooperation from his own Party, President Trump did what he was all but forced into, he made a deal with the Democrat Party and now you should hear the howling. Those very same “Never Trumpers” are accusing the President of treason against the Party. But that is politics as usual, push somebody away and refuse to work with or even listen to them and then when they decide to work with other politicians who promise to be more receptive, then they are a traitor and are compromising your position and chance for reelection.

 

These head games and power struggles within the party are toxic, nothing less. The voters watch what is happening and eventually they are sickened and turn away. The Republican Party cannot understand why they can never hold a majority in the Congress for more than a couple of election cycles while the Democrat Party can do so often for decades at a time. One can only wonder if the Republicans ever take a moment from their internal squabbles to watch the Democrats in Congress. When there is a vote on any major legislation where the Democrat voters have shown a preference, the Democrats invoke Party solidarity and almost the entirety will vote as one. The Republican base of support gave a voice of support and preference over the past six years since Obamacare was passed that they wanted it repealed. The Republican base has always supported tax code simplification and lower taxes. They have always supported fewer regulations. President Trump has made a ruling that for every regulation enacted, that department must retire two regulations. President Trump has repealed numerous regulations which were invoked by Presidential edict by President Obama by using the identical power to revoke them. President Trump agreed to permit the Congress to consider three separate means to choose between to repeal Obamacare, and they chose none of them largely because the Republican Party could not enforce Party unity while the Democrats were the epitome of Party unity. Then they threatened an entangling argument over tax reform and rate lowering just because President Trump needed it and they hate President Trump and believe he is a false Republican. President Trump has tried to represent the Republican conservative agenda but apparently, that has not been good enough and that is why they are opposing exactly the things they had promised they would work on to their constituents.

 

Never Trump Republican Core

Never Trump Republican Core

 

Of course, they are playing the usual games and each taking a turn to vote for everything while in the end voting against them all so when asked they can claim they supported the exact things they defeated. We have explained this game before where they have more than one of the same bill so each can vote for one while voting against the others thus defeating important bills but being able to say on the campaign that they voted for the best version of the legislation and it was not their fault it failed, it was those other Republicans. They make it so they can all have the same excuse and depend on nobody being able to understand the backhanded dealings they use to deceive their constituents. That has become the whole new game, fool the voters into believing that you are doing as they desire while serving to enlarge the government and give more power and wealth to the top five percent, and both parties are playing the same game. The difference is that the Democrats are at least slightly more honest as they purport to serve the ever greater government, the Republicans are supposed to be for limited government. For those old enough, this can be confusing as in our youth the Democrats were for less government and the Republicans were for more government. We guess that is also part of the political cycles. There are all forms of political cycles. There was a time when the Republicans voted as a block much of the time and the Democrats were the party of the loud arguments. That was back when the Democrats wanted smaller government. Apparently, if you desire to make government smaller, then you argue because everybody wants to make government smaller by taking from the other places while keeping all the government which enriches your voters. The problem is to make government smaller, you have to take away from somebody and the best method would be to have everybody volunteer to surrender something such that everybody invests in a smaller government. But it will never work because then there will be arguments that one only lost fifty jobs and my district would lose two-hundred jobs and that is not fair. When you are a politician, you can demand that everything be fair as long as they are more fair for you and yours.

 

The Republicans were given a mandate by those who elected Donald Trump to be President. They stated four or five basic things that they insisted be accomplished. They demanded Obamacare be repealed, taxes be lowered, regulations be repealed, government be shrunk, and that the Republicans work together and accomplish this immediately if not sooner. This has not happened and unless it does before the end of the year, then the voters will be very upset. There is a reason why the Republican Party does not dominate the Congress year after year. It is not because they do not have the voters potentially. The problem is that the Republicans have upset so many voters who have let their registration slip away and never returned to the voter rolls. Their actions have even sent such a distracting and fractured message that some conservatives have simply never registered believing that it really does not matter because no politician ever actually represents true conservatism. The Republicans just have this ability to appear as if they are in a constant state of confusion leading to indecision followed by the inability to accomplish anything of consequence which their voters demand of them. This leads to frustration for their voters and this also leads to them turning away from political news and stop voting. Part of the problem can be represented through the Congressman who represents the first Congressional District in Oklahoma, Jim Bridenstine. He won a populist primary to win his first term by walking much of the district going door-to-door meeting the constituents. When he came up for reelection after winning by a near record vote his first term, the Republican Party should have rushed and supported him but instead they ran a Party functionary against him in the primary elections. Jim Bridenstine defeated this Republican challenge in an embarrassing and overwhelming manner and has served to the current time. Jim Bridenstine now leads President Trump’s list to become the next head of NASA which makes sense, as he is an Air Force veteran and also has a degree in administration. Perhaps this is yet another Republican conspiracy to replace him in Congress. How is that for a wild conspiracy theory. Perhaps it is the Republican secret plan to lose the seat to the Democrats, except this would be next to impossible. On the other side, a Democrat from this district would be more conservative than a Republican from Massachusetts.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

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

 

June 19, 2016

Ill Placed Anger

 

President Obama made it so very clear, Omar Mateen was a ‘homegrown’ and a ‘lone-wolf’ from some unidentifiable deep well of violence which had ‘nothing to do with Islam, the religion of peace.’ The President was quite guarded of what we have come to identify as his precious ideological visions as to what exactly makes up Islam. Of course the President was far less coddling and defensive when it came to those who are not on his team. Here President Obama had pointed and viciously delivered vindictive over their audacity in criticizing his reluctance to tie Omar Mateen’s violent murderous spree naming it as ‘radical Islamist’ sharply attacking with precise words, President Obama shot forth, “For a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them ‘radical Islamists.’ What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change?”

 

If this sounds vaguely familiar, then perhaps we can be of some assistance in identifying the similar phrase and where it came to be used. The culprit was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responding to Republican questions and sniping at her by their insistence to getting what she saw as an statement about Benghazi they could use against her in her coming predicted run for the White House when an exasperated Hillary Clinton lost her temper and let loose a storm brewing, her lips spitting out, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.” (emphasis ours)

 

Both seeming temper tantrums had something similar, they were both triggered by a refusal to actually name Islam as being at the root of the terrorism and that Islam has a radicalization problem which many on the left wish to refuse recognition and instead would prefer to protect Islam from its own radical elements than anger a growing constituency. These defenders of Islam refuse to allow the recognition that there exists Imams who are radicalizing Islamic believers in frightening numbers. They refute any ties between the Islamic State and Islam which are why they prefer to refer to the Islamic State as ISIS or ISIL without identifying what the first ‘I’ in each set of initials refers. Both were lashing out at political adversaries attempting to deflect their pointed accusations which were presumably attempts to viciously attack all Muslims and those who defend them. These attacks are almost universally aimed at Republicans and Donald Trump specifically. What would be amusing, if it were not for the mounting death toll, have been the opposing claims that those who claim a link between Islam and terrorism are needlessly generalizing thus potentially alienating peaceful Muslims while the other side claims they are refusing any relationship between radical Islam and the majority of peaceful Muslims.

 

Both sides actually agree on one particular item, that it will take the assistance of the majority of Muslims who are peace loving to save Islam. Where they differ is naming the challenge. The conservatives have no difficulty naming the enemy as the radicalized Islamists while the liberals blame misguided individual who uses their Islam as their excuse and there are select Imams who do a disservice to Islam with their radical message. The main differences come down to a single question, is the presumed numbers of innocent and peaceful Muslims really the vast percentage or are they an insignificant minority mostly found in the Western World. Then there are the precious Imams whose ‘sermons’ like those of the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was targeted for death by the CIA in 2011, are capable of reaching disaffected youths in their native language and turn them into weaponized Muslims in the next killing fields. Orlando was the most recent of these and the most deadly. Before Orlando, Florida there were others including San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015; Chattanooga, Tennessee on July 16, 20125; Morganton, North Carolina on December 18, 2014; Moore, Oklahoma on September 25, 2014; West Orange, New Jersey, on June 25, 2014; Seattle, Washington, on June 1, 2014 and Skyway, Washington, on April 27, 2014. These places and dates were from “What Makes Islam so Different?” The fact that most, if not all, of us cannot or do not remember these events even had we heard of them, is more a reflection on the media and their attempt to cover up Islamist terrorism as it does not fit their worldview and reflects poorly on President Obama the nation while under his and the Democrats handling of the narrative. By even simply listing these attacks on American citizens makes me guilty of feeding the too pervasive Islamophobia. The insanity becomes all the more perverse when one finds out that Islamophobia is not a fear, rational or irrational, of Muslims but rather the thought crime of implying that Islam could contain a radical and violent faction and that is just plain racist.

 

This is where the United States, almost every square millimeter of Europe and all too many segments of Israeli society have sunk. The leftists have so perverted the waters of communication that relating truths is a social misstep and going there may make you a social pariah which would mean not being invited to the next ten million Brie Cheese and Chianti parties. Oh my, how will we ever survive?

 

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton

 

One thing we have been berated with is that in the upcoming American Presidential race there are two choices; one is sensitive, humane, understanding, loving, caring and simply wonderful while Donald Trump is boorish, impolite, hateful, vindictive and an all-around evil individual, but the media is trying to not be judgmental, simply reporting the facts. The choice is being presented as if one candidate will bring to the world peace and tranquility through intelligent and thoughtful beneficial rule while the other guarantees brash, America first the world be damned and taking the world to war and back to nationalistic barbarity. We see the choice somewhat different. We see one candidate bringing defenseless European socialist madness where the nation will go bankrupt, but not until our grandchildren will be in charge, so live it up while the charade lasts; or nationalist let’s see how much of what was once a great nation can be salvaged and turned away from following the European Union down the rabbit hole into a debt ridden death spiral. It is getting very close to too late and another four years of Obamanomics, and especially eight more years, will take the once great nation which reached from shore to shore with shires of golden wheat in between will fall to a point where feeding her own people may prove difficult as the creditors will take the entirety of our food production as it will be the last morsel with which to repay for the senseless spending. Yes, when it comes to socialism there is too much of what appears to be a good thing because, as Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The United States long ago ran out of other people’s money and has been living on monopoly money for quite some time as they found a new source; they electronically just kept adding money to the supply. This works for as long as interest rates remain near, at or below zero but once interest falls below zero the entire house of cards and fiat money crashes and the people resort to burning the money come winter as that is cheaper than paying the utility bill.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.