Scandal; the word has become nothing more than an epitaph, so repetitive in fashion and frequency that any form of restitution is no longer expected; a rather peculiar irony if one considers the notion of inevitable disposability.
Whether it be foreign entanglements, government overreach and/or the frequency of political-class indiscretions the distance between the public and accountability grows and grows. It is now to the point were not only do these indiscretions (scandals) grow in frequency and severity but along with it the public’s conspicuous submission to a fundamental truth: none will be held to account, nothing will be done to discourage repeat offenders.
What is the end game? One is the growing movement at the Executive Branch (including the Department of State) to lash U.S. Military resources to NATO and thus establishing the same as the de facto military arm of the U.N. and scarcely observed or opposed by the American public. Some may see the Obama Administrations severely diminished acumen, specifically as to Foreign Policy, as an exhibition of weakness whereas I see it on completely different terms.
I view the actions (most conspicuously since Bush-the-elder) as a deliberate scheme to diminish the standing of the sovereign American State and this is done by submission both on economic, social and political terms. If one were to consider the now numerous occurrences where the rule-of-law has been breached (with little to no contest by the AG, Congress, Supreme Court or the States themselves) then it is quite easy to observe the methodology employed.
As the public continues to accept, as inevitable, submission there remain few obstacles in the way of inevitability. Understand that it really doesn’t matter whether Hillary runs for the Presidency or she does not. She is merely one tooth in the cog that believes in global hegemonic-entitlement; they believe it and unless the process is soundly reversed they will have it. Far worse is the Cog believes that despite the cost they will victoriously emerge from the ashes.
From a historical perspective we must understand that Hitler’s enslavement of Europe wasn’t due to his perceptions of Neville Chamberlain’s personal ineptness or even weakness, but more his (Hitler’s) read on incremental-submission and its effects on public sentiments in the post-WW1 era. The lack of opposition to his steps in Spain and then on to Austria and Poland, along with the West’s massive financial investment, no less, into the German economy made it clear to Hitler that he was free to do as he pleased. He did and all the while believing he too would emerge from the ashes victoriously. I trust it’s not too late to appreciate the lesson(s) of what happens when lunacy is permitted to prevail.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder