Burnt Toast

“We’ve been living in the era of anything goes and nothing matters — that is, the era of no consequences — but at some point between now and November 8 someone surely will press FBI chief James Comey as to why his agency issued neither a criminal referral nor an explanatory memorandum in the matter of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and its role in the money-gathering activities of the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.”

He doesn’t even read what he writes. “…anything goes and nothing matters- that is, the era of no consequences…”

No one will “press FBI chief James Comey” on anything. No one will be held accountable for their crimes until such time as the present edifice of State Corruption is either overthrown or we are conquered from by another, hungrier and even more ruthless opponent. Clearly this is the reality. Accept/don’t accept, those are the only two options available.

Hillary’s a low down, thievin’, back stabbin’, dog! Yes…says the Democrats, but she’s our dog!

Since this seems a rather quiet thread, I will permit myself. This is long and multi-faceted, but the conclusion is contained within the last three paragraphs.

Hillary Clinton is (the former) Secretary of State.
A Secretary of State oversees arms deals around the globe.
Overseeing arms deals is the crux of the issue in the email scandal.
The emails aren’t being released prior to the election.
The emails probably contain information linking the Secretary of State to arms deals with ‘terrorist’ (anti-American) nations.
These deals are probably a Federal conspiracy to allow a one-world social order.
This world domination would defeat the American People’s dream of becoming an independent sovereign nation.

Wait! The independent sovereign nation was materialized through the forming of a Constitution by the people and for the people?

The Billary’s of this world have perfected the art of “It’s there, It’s not there” double-speak, exemplified by Bill Clinton’s defense in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The Federalists of this world are perfecting a social order which denies the will of the people, favoring ‘favored’ classes over unfavored in case after case.
This is marked by polished politicians perfecting their ties to other polished politicians and through ties with foreign nations.

There is no need of a central bank confiscating our money, no need of a Federal policy confiscating our guns.

There is certainly no need of a duplicity of laws that remove each state’s right to govern itself on matters which don’t affect the Nation in its entirety!

There is no need of a centralized armed force that would hold down the rights of any single state (not to mention even a collection of states.)

Such rights would always call this an “insurrection”, but what about the promises of ‘freedom’ that we were fighting for whilst we were under the tyranny of the Kings?

We want independence if it were to be done in the manner of the British but by God, but if it needs to be done à la French we will go through a more bloody revolution!

Originally a battle between Centrism and State Powers, the language has been manipulated over time. What would now be called the ‘Liberals’ or the ‘Left’ are those remnants of the Centrists, but because Left and Right have come to new meanings, the term ‘Centrist’ will never be uttered by right-leaning Republicans, who prefer the alternate connotation residing in the equation between Socialism and Centrism through the Left. These are variously called the Federalists, the Centrists, the Socialists or the Liberals. All are the same, with variances in nuance only.

The above all seem like fairly convincing arguments until they are analyzed. The connections that appear so strong lose their bond to each other when inspected individually, however.

Yes, there is something inherently nefarious about the appearance of secrecy, absolutely. But does that prove that anything nefarious occurred? The principle adopted since then, and which has left its imprint on all of our concept of justice (both Left and Right) is that a person remains innocent until proven guilty by an assembly of all the facts, not just the ones convenient to your argument.
The use of emotive terms like “independence”, “sovereignty” and “tyranny” (especially when juxtaposed) raises the hairs on the neck more than it excites the neurotransmitters in the brain. “Facts” arranged loosely will support an argument that was predisposed to that arrangement, and appear preposterous to one who’s inclinations are elsewhere.

Finally, the pitting of class against class is the only outcome of such rhetoric, rather than the unanimously preferred option of letting the facts examine themselves.
“The State Department doesn’t award arms deals without any input. Arms deals are governed by the Foreign Military Sales Act and the Arms Exports Control Act which is implemented by way of Executive Order 11958 which delegates authority to Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, requiring explicitly that they “shall consult with each other and with the heads of other departments and agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency, and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, on matters pertaining to their responsibilities.” Finally, the act establishes a Congressional review process to monitor the arms deals.”

So what does ‘consult’ mean? Does it mean inform, such as when one goes to the doctor for a consultation? Or does it mean negotiation between two equally authoritative bodies, such as international consultations should be? Who is this ‘executive’ that issued the ‘executive order’, thus delegating authorities which must have lied within their jurisdiction? Does it emanate from the will of the people or emanate from a divinely established liege of some sort (which both factions are opposed to!) Finally, Congress itself has and always will face a formidable challenge in having no established loyalties to one side or the other of the house, and let’s throw in the usual patsy, the Supreme Court whose rulings have been suspect by both sides since the beginning of its existence. Is it truly independent?

This, say the Republicans, is an arrangement with no teeth anyway. It cannot be enforced (since there is no sanction) and therefore is merely a suggestion of what should be done in a more polite society. So while we take the good advice, only the American People shall ultimately decide such matters.

For which we would require an education about all of the matters examined as a whole.

I think it important to review some of the facts as borne-out by the evidence of occurrence. If statistically it is probable that as Secretary of State Hillary (as a centralist an supporter of world domination by one-world practices), she would have used that influence to favor nations hostile to the American spirit of Independence, or, what we call ‘free’ nations.

Under Clinton, donors to the hated Clinton Global Initiative foundation would receive massive favoritism in the sales of arms. To avoid confirmation bias one needs to look at where that did happen yet at the same time look at where the opposite occurred:

While Bahrain got a 187% increase in the value of their arms deal, Jamaica (which donated the same amount) saw their arms deals drop by 39%. Jamaica can’t be evaluated alongside Bahrain though?!?
Ireland and Kuwait both donated 100 times the amount donated by Bahrain and Jamaica. Kuwait got an 11% increase in their military contracts and Ireland got stiffed; they lost 26%. Either these ‘donations’ aren’t bribes or Clinton doesn’t know how bribes work, but if she doesn’t she’s immune to bribery (a proposition I seriously doubt.)

All of these are the exact same arguments as were being entertained between 1765 and 1783. ‘Loyalists’ were being opposed by ‘Statists’ and the loyalists finally lost in 1776. The “big government” party of Hamilton was removed in 1816 after holding power since the inception of the independence charter, a wound that would not heal easily.

It morphed into the victorious party of Jefferson. This younger party was, however, deeply influenced by and contained remnants of the older Hamiltonian party but at least there was finally a two-party system!

Jefferson himself hated the secretly-published “Federalist Papers” as the influence that big media could have on a non-reading public which (he felt) had no counter-voice. It was only by maintaining a loose confederation of independent, armed states that this Centrist government could be held in check.

However, this ‘Centrist’ party was removed from American politics, and it is unfair in fact to say that they ‘became’ the Democrats. The ‘Centrists’ which were ousted with Hamilton, but in reality the party merely were absorbed into the Republican Party.

I dare say that what passes today as a ‘Liberal’ in American Politics are still licking their wounds over the defeat of their party in 1816.

When scant evidence is examined more closely, the loose ties that are made lose their strength, their persuasiveness. So as not to commit to the double-fallacy of saying this automatically exonerates the accused is folly though, it merely obliges one to look for stronger ties in the evidence.

There is something more important at stake though.

The construction of the Constitution is much like a marriage. It is a partnership of equals founded on trust and the spirit of concession.

When those equals disagree on fundamental issues, there is the possibility of divorce. The children are mostly thought of as congress, but in reality they can (through the educational system and the mass media) be thought of as the people. A well informed public is the only tonic for purely partisan politics.

Much like a family the two heads should not ‘dumb-down’ the issues when they come to an impasse, and never should they attempt through mere rhetoric to tilt the children to one side like pawns in a chess-game. This is the gamble of the ‘great experiment’: the temptation will always be there.