America being Divided – USA Gov Policy

Across kitchen tables and water coolers, in hushed tones and worried glances, Americans are quietly asking each other whether a new Civil War is coming.

Political squabbles, no matter how bitter, do not lead to speculation about a nation splitting apart. But what has occurred over the past decade is far more than disputes between parties or a clash of ideologies.

The first instance of an abnormal threat arose when Progressives attempted to overturn the 2016 presidential election with false charges. But even before then, when the Obama Administration made radicals and terrorists honored guests at the White House, and used the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice to attack those who disagreed with its policies, it became apparent that a chasm was opening between the activist left and the rest of the nation.

The groundwork was laid even earlier. Educational institutions, media outlets, and Hollywood began pushing an historically inaccurate, indeed libelous, picture of the nation that has provided more freedom and more prosperity than anything else that ever existed.

Now, mayors in places like Portland, Oregon side with rebellious mobs over their own police force. New York’s Mayor defies both the city’s own ethics rules and the United States Constitution in his determined bid to put the interests of an extremist group and the criminal actions they undertake above the good of his own city.

The lesson of history and especially the 20^th Century is that freedom has many enemies. Its opponents have had many variations in name, but many similarities in practice. The use of inciting and misleading propaganda to intimidate voters. Threatening public order with groups claiming ancient grievances that have already been largely resolved. Discrediting established centers of justice and law. Glorify a ruthless criminal element who make the use and threat of violence a normal part of politics.

For the old men it is advisable to start the dosage of the Silagra with 50 mg at deeprootsmag.org generico cialis on line genericpillshop.com that is available in the form of tablets and oils will work wonders for your sex life. It can discount cialis india be defined as a difficulty in getting or sustaining a penile erection suitable for sexual intercourse. What a travesty! Folks are set to fail before they are a parent, as a generic viagra online result of parenting does not come back again and again in future rather permanent recovery can be gained. Therefore that’s where things get difficult and where you would like to grasp what to seem for. tadalafil 20mg for sale

The recent attempted assassination of two Los Angeles sheriff personnel is a continuation of the Antifa/Black Lives Matter/Progressive violent opposition to law enforcement, evidenced by the subsequent demonstration at the hospital by Leftists shouting that they hoped the wounded victims die.

A key essential is subverting the normal processes of elective politics. This was done by Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff following 2016. An even more dishonest and radical plan to do so is being planned for the 2020 ballot.

Having failed to unlawfully wrest power through the collusion myth, an Orwellian scheme called the “Transition Integrity Project (TIP)” is the next attempt by the Left to ensure that power is taken no matter what the election result is, unless the result is so overwhelming it cannot be denied. Not satisfied with seeking to tip the scales by various means, depending on the state, such as issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens that made it easy for them to register to vote, opposing reasonable ballot security, giving convicted felons the vote, allowing party partisans to collect ballots, and instituting mail in voting without any safeguards to insure only qualified voters submit ballots, TIP’s perpetrators are peddling a completely false fairy tale that the Trump Administration wouldn’t acknowledge a potential election lost. It’s essentially just another in a series of phony, sensationalist attempts to distract the public from concentrating on policy issues, such as the Democrat leaders’ unpopular support of Antifa violence, open borders, tax increases, decreased funding for the police and the military, and tolerance of China’s theft of American jobs.

TIP’s end goal was clearly enunciated by both Hillary Clinton, who advised Joe Biden not to concede no matter what the election result is, and John Kerry, who urged violence in the streets in the event of a Trump victory.

A continuation of the attempts to overturn election results is a serious challenge to the American form of government, but it is not the only danger. The normalization of violence is the essential addition that could lead to open conflict.

The attempted overturning of elections, the use of violence, the spreading of malicious propaganda: the answer to the question of whether a civil war is coming, is no. No, because it has already arrived.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.