Monday, June 10, 2013

The Year of Scandals...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Li
berty -vs- Tyranny



Yeah, it's true.

2013, the year of the great scandals. We have many. Just ask the "Golly Gee" folks.

Feral government spying on its citizens. Quick, gotta stop that Marxist Commie Black President. You know, the dude that has managed to pretty much follow in the prior dudes footsteps.

We won't talk about that. It doesn't fit the narrative.

IRS, lefties using the powers of a questionably unconstitutional bureaucracy to target conservatives. Damn socialist commies. Plotting to bring American freedom and liberties to a screeching halt. Never been done before.

Richard Milhaus Nixon, the author of the Watergate era. Targeting his lefty opponents. Using the IRS nonetheless.

Benghazi. Four Americans dead because of inept leadership. Cover up by a nefarious and secret Muslim administration in the big house. Never happened before.

1952 - 2012 - 44 attacks on USA embassies or 1.18/year. 2009 - 2012 7 attacks on USA embassies or 1.40/yr/. Is it Obama or a sign of a increasingly violent time in world history? Ask the "Golly Gee" folks for the anticipated answer.

Partisan politics. Has always been and will always be. Something our founding fathers also experienced. Not necessarily a bad thing as the history of that time will bear out. Unless of course one is focused on revisionist history.

Unfortunately the practice of partisan politics has resulted in the pursuit of gaining advantage through the often dishonest pursuit of fabrication and character assassination of ones "opponent." Quite UN-American by standards of rational thought.

America, if it continues on the current trajectory has seen its better days. Those that are paying attention will understand the proceeding statement. For those who aren't? Well, just ask the "golly gee" folks. The internet is replete with them.

Signing off for now. Have a great evening. Remember, you heard it here first...


24 comments:

  1. This sort of extra-constitutional overreach by US presidents started guess when?








    With our second president, John Adams, who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which gave the president the right to throw anyone in jail who spoke against the US government.

    Jefferson and Madison spoke out against these acts, and secretly drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (q.v.) denouncing the legislation. However, when Jefferson became president, and after denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts, HE USED THEM HIMSELF against his political opponents!

    There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to politicians and the abuse of power. Also see Lincoln, Abraham, Wilson, Woodrow, Roosevelt, Franklin, Nixon, Richard, Reagan, Ronald, Bush, George, just to name a few other presidents, Democrats and Republicans, who have used the power of the presidency.

    As I noted, there's nothing new about this, the only difference between now and when Adams was president is the enormous scope of presidential power. But please note that even our most revered Founding Fathers found a way around the Constitution to do what they wanted.

    Most Americans know very little about our history and the presidents who overreached or went around the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comments Shaw. You are I am happy to say quite correct. Especially unfortunate is the truth around your closing statement.

      Understanding the complexities of our modern era is not easy, even for the most educated among us. But then they already know that.

      With regard to the post content, it is becoming increasingly evident the number of partisan non thinkers exceed the number of rational people who do. Well, IMO anyway.

      On another note. How's your "ANON trash mailbox" activity these days? The dude, or dudette has went into overdrive leaving over 40 "trash comments" in just the past two days. Must be doing something right.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate the fact that Shaw included in this list Lincoln, who suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus and punished newspapers, and FDR, who interned the Japanese, tried to pack the courts, and repeatedly violated the Geneva Conventions of 1865 by intentionally targeting innocent civilians....in addition to the other usual suspects (apologies to Claude Rains), of course.

      Delete
    3. So what must we conclude from this apt history lesson?

      How must we proceed?

      Is your point to brush aside all recent events, shrug it off as one more link in a long, corrupt chain?

      "The other guy did it too," is getting damned old, regardless of which side barks it out.

      Anonymous (but the NSA and Google know who I am)

      Delete
    4. My point is, I suppose, your comment.

      Let me ask, did you read, I mean really read the post?

      It is not my place to tell YOU what YOU as an individual and free (presumably anyway) person ought to do to make matters better. That determination is your choice. Hopefully it will be an informed choice.

      Delete
    5. You are always telling people, to the point of being an ass

      Delete
    6. Mirrors my boy, mirrors.

      I shall joust with you no longer. You come with NOTHING. Nothing at all.

      Toddles Anon...

      Delete
  2. The funny thing about all this is while the conservatives are distracted by these silly circumlocutions, an immigration bill they'd just hate just might pass! LOL!

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  3. Big Brother has a friend and fierce defender in Jersey, it is quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so convinced jmj is a fierce defender of Big Brother. I rather think he just goes with the flow of the democratic party and their talking points.

      Delete
    2. That's fair to say, Les, but the effect of giving leaders a blank check on this due to their party can indeed have a result not unlike "fierce defender". I am trying to avoid any of this. I point out the major problems of some on the left transgressing here (while doing left-wing things) not as an "only" but as an "also" in reaction to Jersey's knee-jerk partisan "only".

      Shaw did indeed make a great comment in this post, avoiding any partisan unintellectual "only" logic (which is logic blaming just one "side", devoid of any critical thinking other than judging simply by party or broad ideological label).

      Delete
  4. And the demerit badge goesto Jersey for the first lowbrow, low intelligence nonAnon comment here. Proving what Les said in the comment above about "partisan non-thinkers", just like when when Jersey fell flat on his face in the previous post... multiple times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually jmj has from time to time shown intellegence and made what could only be considered cogent (even if incorrect) arguments.

      jmj is intelligent, he simply (often) lapses into a sing song partisan melody that sometimes ends by referring to opposing views as stupid.

      The non thinking part always kicks in when name calling and flame throwing take over.

      Sometimes it is tough not to engage in the activity, especially when you are the one being attacked.

      Delete
  5. By the way Les. Is there anyone on the "other side" who consistently comes forward in defense of privacy/civil liberties as much as Rand Paul does? Or anyone else on the Right in Congress, for that matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. You see, both the republican party and democratic party are down with statism and big gov. They just take different paths to the same end. The one difference I'm starting to see is the republicans are less fiscally responsible than their colleagues across the aisle. I don't believe republicans really understand responsible or accountable any longer.

      On a different note. I inadvertantly deleted your other comment while deleting the shut in Anon's garbage.

      Delete
    2. "The one difference I'm starting to see is the republicans are less fiscally responsible than their colleagues across the aisle."

      I do wonder about that, as the GOP comes up with ideas like "cut cap and balance", and the Dems push for super high deficits and completely demonize Paul Ryan as a social Darwinist even though his plan has increases in social spending. What do you base this on?

      Delete
    3. It's both complicated and simple dmarks, depends on ones ability to see past partisan issues I suppose.

      The republican's will waging two wars and growing the MIC also reduced revenues through tax reductions.

      I get the argument that cutting taxes on business is supposed to stimulate business growth, that cutting taxes on individuals is supposed to spur economic growth as there will be more money left in the individual's pocket to spend, and that the market is the best arbiter of just how and when to rise the tide so everybody benefits economically.

      In evaluating the democratic and republican views on how to correct the listing economy I must say both are seriously lacking. But if the result of your plan is spending more than you take in (republicans... they love the military and social welfare programs too) then the result is HUGE deficits.

      Obama, the alleged Marxist according to many republicans, who has in actuality continued the Bush policies in many respects at least seems to understand that somehow we need to increase revenue to support the out of control situation we currently have.

      Republicans want to keep spending and speding will keeping revenues stagnate, or so the history shows.

      Like I said the solution(s) won't be easy to swallow, no matter which way the countries goes. Serious spending cuts or modest tax increases. Take your pick.

      Pure partisanship and maintaining a hide bound ideology ain't gonna solve our problems. And that my friend IS what should worry us all.

      Voting neither republican OR democrat in 2014 or 2016... Neither party deserves my vote.

      Delete
    4. Two wars? How many are the Dems (Obama} waging now?

      Thanks for your clear answer.

      Delete
    5. You asked for a response, it was an honest one.

      Now, I ask... How many time have you read me stating that Obama is looking an awful like like GWB?

      Delete
    6. Now, as a sort of libertarian, which direction would you rather see us go in? Increase taxes and the size of government, or reduce?

      Delete
    7. The debate has, at least for me has gone beyond tedious. It is clear, again speaking only for myself, that partisan loyalty to ideology has trumped common sense.

      This nation indeed had significant and serious fiscal managnt problems. In reality our inept representatives and senators just keep kicking the can down the road, leaving the issue for another generation.

      In answer to your question, in MY view both. Spending must be curtailed and, at least for the forseeanle future taxes need to be increased.

      It is, again MY view that this nation cannot take a one track approach. We cannot just cut our way to balanced budgets and a manageable national debt, nor can we just tax our way solvency.

      This issue has become perhaps the most politically polarizing one of my lifetime. Again this is MNHO.

      We need to cut spending (including military), reduce foreign aid expenditures, revamp SS on a phased in approach, revamp and simplify the tax code (my favorite is the flat tax... you can find my suggestion in the archives of RN USA), spending bills should proceed as SINGLE issue items through Congress with simple up or down votes, and government agencies should be analyzed on both a needs and effectiveness perspective. There is certainly more, feel free to add to the list.

      Oh yeah, the nation needs a full frontal attack on corporatism and the oxymoron crony capitalism.

      The sensible thing to do, again IMNHO is to then raise revenues to close the gap left after reasonable spending cuts are made.

      I hear the can being kicked down the road even now.In America it is so much more fun to point fingers, stir up partisan support, and bitch about the other party than it is for politicians to LOOK in the MIRROR.

      Delete
  6. It would have been nice if somebody, anybody, had taken those emails from Hasan to al-Awlaki a tad more seriously. I mean, if there going to snooping around like this, they had might as well be effective about it.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.