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

 

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

 

Why Iranian Nuclear Program Matters

 

President Obama would like the world to believe that there was a nuclear deal reached, signed, sealed and delivered to the Security Council and set into stone. There are a few problems with that story line, namely the Iran part of the deal. The part of the nuclear deal which is valid is that the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is back in the oil and pistachio business while European companies are tripping over each other in a race to sign deals with Iran and get their share of the billions which are going to be flowing when Iran receives the monies the United States is obligated to release from banks and investment accounts. The deal passed by the Security Council made the European and United States parts of the deal sealed and delivered and sent the Iranian part of the deal to Iran where it was graciously received and filed in the nearest wastebasket. Think back and try to remember the conflicting news reports from those final days of the Iran nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 consisting of Russia, China, Britain, France, the United States plus Germany and think back to the celebratory language and you might remember that the Obama White House and State Department were claiming one set of conditions, the Europeans had their version, Russia and China made very few statements with some in interviews with Western news interviews revealing that they were uncertain on a number of issues in Moscow and Beijing remaining mute and Iran claiming an entirely different interpretation and having doubts that the remaining difficulties would ever be bridged. I’m not sure those differences were ever ironed out nor does it appear that Iran has ever considered themselves to have made any promises to the Western World or the United Nations or anybody else. For the record, the Iranian parliament has never approved any deal that the United States or anybody else can honestly report and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has never signed any paperwork for a deal and thus Iran is not legally bound to anything just as the State Department freely admitted in a letter to Representative Mike (R-Kan.) of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

This admission simply echoes the actions by Tehran which has now made two test launches of ballistic missiles which would have definitively been forbidden by any deal admitted to exist by any of the Western Nations as well as the United Nations interpretations of the agreement, but nobody appears to be rearing up in reaction to these tests. There has been no ‘snapback’ of sanctions and the releasing of funds as theoretically agreed upon by western Nations in any version of a deal is proceeding along on schedule. Are we the only ones who seem concerned that there appears to be an agreement to free the dogs of nuclear ambitions in Iran while obliging the West to release the funds and remove all sanctions which might have proven to be an impediment and chaining the United States and European nations to back the Russian, Chinese and Iranian desires for business as usual as if there is not a care in the world? A quick check of news stories and it seems the most recent testing of another nuclear delivery capable continental ballistic missile, the most powerful yet and a decent sign that Iran is aiming for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capabilities and is going at such capabilities with some vigor does concern any number of responsible adults. Unfortunately the closest the White House has come to a responsible adult has been United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power who stated at a Congressional hearing last week, “discussions are a form of U.N. action.” So, apparently the White House left Congress and themselves no actual control over sanctions and thus the possible ‘snapback’ is solely in the hands of the United Nations where such is an impossibility and even if the United States acted, theirs would necessarily be a whole new set of sanctions which are presumably forbidden by the presumed deal which is no deal and the White House would necessarily, as they have stated, veto any such sanctions. So as it currently sits, Iran will receive their $150 billion in unfrozen assets within the next six months, can test missiles to their hearts’ delight and all are to proceed as if there are sanctions on Iran when in reality the sanctions are on the Western Powers making sanctions near to impossible and now even the IAEA has officially surrendered before the Iranian games of guile as we reported recently in What the IAEA Closure of Their Iran Investigations Really Meant.

 

What has been successfully pulled off by deceptiveness, chicanery and outright lies is the freeing of Europe to return to their preferred business as usual and ignore the consequences, a similar aspect to their recent receipt of the first wave of ‘Syrian refugees’ and intent to make them legal citizens almost automatically which will grant them new visas from their new home nation and also grant them instant acceptance on the visa waiver program the United States shares with the European Union. What could be better as it has been made obvious that the vast majority of these ‘Syrian refugees’ are not Syrian, are not refugees, are not dirt poor losing everything in the civil war and Bashir al-Assad’s butchery and are intent on infiltrating the United States as they see Europe rightfully as all but conquered already. What we do have as the vast majority of these ‘Syrian refugees’ are military age single males with plenty of money and a penchant for rioting and causing disturbances and will very likely prove to be the tip of the spear with the only question being are they Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or Iranian IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) trained infiltrators who have received some of the best training in sabotage and other disruptive acts and also master coordinators (community organizers on steroids). Whatever and whomever they are operating under, this sizeable sector of the ‘Syrian refugees’ who have poured into Europe, largely centered on Germany and the Scandinavian nations all of which have some of the best social services with the highest welfare payment structures in all of Europe, and with a fair share of the ‘Syrian refugees’ now headed to the final target on the list, the United Kingdom; their aims are becoming ever more clear, to bring Europe to its knees and then simply take charge of its remnants and turn it all over to whichever group manages to wrench control from the rest of the other groups. This simply means that the next front of the Syrian civil war turned Sunni-Shiite war will be being fought across Europe just as soon as the Christian and Atheist Secular Humanists have been murdered in large part or converted to Islam or converted to being good little worker Dhimmis producing for their new taskmasters. The alternative is a revolution by the Europeans themselves which will end very poorly for both sides as this will become very quickly a war of extermination and who will prove the strongest force and last group standing is in doubt though we would place our money on the home team as they know the landscape and will be fighting for their own survival and the survival of their way of life and the Europeans have proven their ability for warfare and the heritage to match. The question which needs answering is when, or should it be, will the European Union and the individual governments such as Angela Merkel’s Germany and François Hollande’s France wake from their utopian dream, which is proving to be a hellish nightmare for their people, before their nations are so overrun with ‘Syrian refugees’ that recovery has been made impossible? If not, does the average European have it within them to force their leaders to heed and save the lands before it is too late? The greatest of fears is that for Western Europe it may already be too late.

 

The other ramification of the ‘Syrian refugees’ problem is that with much of Eastern European nations, former Warsaw Pact nations plus Greece, have closed their borders allowing those who wish to take trains through to Germany and other points west with the train stations along the tracks well-guarded to force the ‘Syrian refugees’ through to all points west. What way will these nations be turning once NATO ceases to offer them any real protection? We see their returning to the Russian sphere of influence as Vladimir Putin (aka Vlad the Invader), offering a stronger arm in protecting them from the invading ‘Syrian refugees’ and all that encompasses, then turning to the seemingly feckless United States which has proven itself to be weak and unsupportive at best and traitorous at worst. Poland and the Czech Republic, despite being the victims of President Obama’s cancellation of the radar and anti-missile system which had been approved for delivery and operation on their bases, might hold out and wait to see who wins the 2016 United States elections though if pressed would likely seriously consider placing their bets on a sure thing, meaning Putin. And now we can probably name the three things which will be the Obama legacy; first, a nuclear armed Middle East tinderbox; second, a neutered United States military degraded to a point of near impotence; and third, removing any trust in the United States as her promises have been proven to be simply worthless if any change of administration can so abruptly and totally alter the realities and break any and all promises with allies apparently is just as easily done as it is with revolutions in third world nations. The last one which renders the United States as untrustworthy will prove to be the straw which breaks the camel’s back as if the word of the President of the United States is only good for as long as he or his party holds the Office of the President, then what worth does any Presidential promise hold? Even worse was that President Obama also went back on promises made by President Willian Jefferson Clinton which infers that even same party Presidencies may prove untrustworthy of keeping promises made by previous Presidents of their own party. One thing which has been made evidently obvious is that any nation relying on the United States to have their back had best also have their own Plan B just in case they find their back suddenly rendered vulnerable as their strongest protection of their back having quit and gone home prematurely. Further, depending on the United States to actually produce and make good on promises of weapons systems being completely dependent on any new President continuing with the production or delivery of promised systems should put the fear of heaven in them as the anti-missile systems and radar cancelled and the premature stoppage of production of the F-22 Raptor proved as that was the fighter the United States was counting on for granting her air superiority over any other nation, something the F-35 joint strike fighter does not and may even prove to be less of a fifth generation fighter when compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Russian Sukhoi Su-27.

 

 

 

 

These are the lasting legacies of President Obama and they will all but destroy the faith in the world of any United States President for some time into the future until trust can be proven or given a legal basis. The only item which may be seen as trustworthy might be actual treaties which have the full backing of the congress and the Courts, including especially the Supreme Court and as such may be proven to be beyond the reach of any American President to negate by his or her own power without running afoul of the Courts and Congress. Even this will need to be seen by those who have been burnt the most by this administration and its complete disregard for precedent, Presidential respect for and by other administrations and potentially the rule of law which would make even treaties only as good as the President and congress who made them and otherwise potentially worthless. The United States is going to have to face these issues and either find some manner of placing the nation behind the promises of their Presidents going forward when a new President takes the office and has a different view of the world and sees the promises of the predecessor as unbinding upon them, that must be changed if the United States ever desires to be respected and trusted ever again. Perhaps it is time for a previously unthought of and seemingly unnecessary Amendment to the United States Constitution which will state that once the President and the Congress have declared use of the United States military to undertake a task that from that point forward or until a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of congress and the President together call the mission complete, the military will remain on stations until the military Joint Chiefs of Staff declare the mission completed. Such an amendment would restore faith that once the United States military was deployed that they would not simply pull out leaving whatever governance they left in place completely vulnerable and it will cause the Congress and President to carefully spell out the necessary accomplishments of every mission long before troops would be deployed. Both of these required changes in the way troops are deployed and returned from deployment would make for stricter definitions of any mission and a clear promise that once the United States troops are deployed and tasked with supporting any government until said time that it has been stabilized and completely functioning with domain over all of its nation that the United States will not just pull out leaving a huge sucking sound of a vacuum which will almost always be filled by other than savory forces. Such would give real meaning to any military promise given by the Congress and President when forces are deployed to a long term mission which will necessarily be passed to the next President and his administration which would be powerless to end the mission unless the military top level commanders determined the mission completed.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Is Healthcare a Right, and If So, What Else Could be a Right?

President Obama this past week once again in his stump speech referred to healthcare as a right in any advanced industrial nation. President Obama was making the argument that all the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was accomplishing would be to usher the United States into the elite group of advanced industrial nations as finally healthcare would be guaranteed for every citizen by the Federal Government. President Obama has often spoken of his healthcare plan as affording Americans another right which should have been among those guaranteed from the outset as the United States strove to be among the most forward nations. This was also part of President Obama’s criticism of the United States Constitution as it being an improper document because it listed restrictions on what the Federal Government was permitted to do instead of listing those things which the Federal Government had to do, particularly those things the Federal Government was required to provide for the people as justification for its existence. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it steals from the people their dignity, self-worth and responsibilities replacing the latter with so-called rights.

 

The difference between responsibility and rights is very basic and, once understood, quite frightening. Responsibilities are those items which the individual is tasked with providing for themselves and where government is restricted from imposing limitations or obstructions between the people and fulfilling their responsibility to whatever extent they desire. A right is something the government provides and defines exactly what makes up each right, even to the point of denying government’s responsibility, or even forbidding the individual’s right to provide for themselves forcing them to be subservient to government and within those restriction put in place by the government. Obviously, when healthcare is classified as a personal responsibility then each individual is free to provide for themselves and their family as much healthcare as they decide. Often when something is treated as a personal responsibility, the argument goes, there will be those individuals unable to provide for themselves or their family and that is why the government must step up and make it a right so they can receive it from the government. The truth is that without government interference there would be charities which would assist people in need, relatives who would assist in the care of their more needy relatives, and many hospitals, especially those run by religious organizations such as the Catholic Healthcare Systems which provide care at a reasonable cost proportional to a person’s ability to pay while still providing the very best of care. When government supersedes charitable organizations and generosity of the religiously run hospitals and insists on imposing their oversight the level of care is degraded while the cost and time invested in simply documenting and performing to the relevant compliance level the government demands is wasted time which could have otherwise been utilized to treat more patents. When the government replaces the individual’s right to provide for those things which are their responsibility and instead insists that government can accomplish the same level if not a higher level of care than the individual, it will inevitable prove false and result in degraded levels of care across the board with some levels resulting in refusal of care as it would not prove cost effective on the whole to provide everybody with every conceivable level and intensity of care.

 

But let us simply agree that healthcare should be treated as a right which The Federal Government is required to provide, even though all the government will be providing is health insurance coverage initially, what other items in our lives could just as easily be reclassified as rights instead of being our personal responsibility. The people will have been relegated to a judgment of being incapable of deciding or procuring a level of care sufficient to provide them with a decent quality of life.  If we are to believe the argument that healthcare is so important to the individual’s quality of life that it must be attended to by the government in order to guarantee that they receive a minimal level of care adequate to meet government set standards then what else would also meet such standards? It very easily could be argued, especially with the obesity levels in the United States, that food must be regulated and the decisions made by those qualified to make proper nutritional decisions. President Obama could appoint his wife Michelle to be the Nutritional Health Czar heading a new Cabinet level agency responsible for providing every individual with the appropriate calories, nutrients, carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins, minerals and everything else tailored to match their lifestyle and individual requirements. The health benefits of such a system would more than pay for themselves is lower demand upon the government provided healthcare. People could be placed on special diets as recommended by physicians who could work closely with the U.  S. Department of Nutrition and Dietary Health. Every argument given for the need for the government to provide for the people’s healthcare also apply to dietary care and food delivery.

 

Another necessity which in some ways has already attempted to be provided by the Federal Government with varied amounts of epic failure is housing. Despite the absolute disaster that came along with Federal Housing projects, the arguments remain that people require shelter if they are to maintain a level of healthy living and comfort for which the government could easily set as a standard. Furthermore, housing would also be of immeasurable assistance when the government provided the government chosen, prepared and delivered food for each person’s daily consumption. A person must also have a certain level of shelter from the elements of nature in order to maintain the degree of health desired for each citizen by the government. Then there is a personal need for clothing which is fitting for the season, meets the requirements of their occupation, and has a sufficient level of style to impart at a minimum a modicum of pride and self-respect. To be honest there are very likely solid arguments which can be made for the government to assure almost anything or everything in life meets a minimal level for each individual and consider it a right. But by doing so it would remove every ounce of freedom and personal choice. To put it as simply as possible; individual responsibility produces freedom and independence while group rights produces dependence and enslavement. It comes down to which you would prefer to be, a ward of the government or an individual free to make their own life choices. Be careful what you choose as once you surrender your responsibilities over to the government and expect them to be treated as rights they actually become privileges which the government could just as easily take away as they initially claimed they were capable of providing. So, choose either responsibility for one’s self or surrender to the whims and edicts of what will soon become an out of control government. History has proven this as republics devolved into democracies which inevitably lead to fascist oppressions and enslavement to the state.

 

Beyond the Cusp