Between the Lines #1 [Treason]

How often have you heard a conservative talk show host declare something is a conspiracy?

Well, I just heard it on one of their shows.

On Hugh Hewitt of all places. Early in the first hour of his Oct 22, 2015 show.

What I heard was a report of the Benghazi hearing by Hewitt’s guest whose name I didn’t catch.

What he said was approximately this:

‘there was clearly a conspiracy between DOS and the WH to deny that Benghazi was a terrorist attack so as not to undermine Obama’s reelection narrative that Al Qaeda was on the run.’

[Anyone can capture this comment from a podcast it will verify what I heard. I don’t know if there is a free one and I won’t pay that hack to hear his show. If a reader can capture it I will add it to this post. Thanks.]


Hewitt didn’t call him a conspiracy nut like his colleague Medved likes to do most every day. He accepted it and engaged him in further discussion.

Reading between the lines I get the following.

What I think this open talk of a conspiracy does, however, is deflect from the thought of the deeper conspiracy. The one that might come to wider attention but for the notable lack of more probing questions such as

“What happened to over 1000 of Gaddafi’s ManPADs?” and
“Where does intelligence say some turned up?” and
“Why exactly was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi in the first place?”

Conspiracy to gain election seems to be accepted as par for the course in America today, at least when the Dems are caught at it. What felonious conduct?

But conspiracy to commit treason rises to another level entirely. So don’t expect your favorite conservative talkshow host to call that one out.

Conspiracies

No matter what anyone says, I am not a conspiracy nut. I've simply never allowed the common fear of such charges intimidate me into silence. Today I will try to provide you with ammunition so that you don't have to feel the need to shut up either.

Michael Medved and a few others have made a grand living providing microphones to actual conspiracy nuts, and of course, the effect is to undermine the very idea of looking into actual conspiracies. Maybe only because it is entertaining. Maybe because they don't like how past false conspiracies have hurt innocent people and don't want to see it happen again. And maybe because they are paid by special interests to prevent revelations of some specific conspiracy. Perhaps there are other reasons, but motive is unimportant here.

See, it should never be forgotten that history is replete with conspiracies. To me the most consequential one took place in a once great republic similar in many ways to our own. It was the famous* First Triumvirate of ancient Rome. Lesser ones occurred in our own country, and were what brought about legislation like anti-trust and institutions like the FBI. Conspiracies have existed; they can always be created anew no matter what fool-proof preventive measures we  believe we've forged; therefore there will always be some. So the frequent knee-jerk laugh at the idea of conspiracy can only be the product of relentless propaganda and indoctrination and not sober understanding of history and the risks from letting it be repeated. The indoctrination is so great I am sure this paragraph will be met with worse than merely deaf ears. But the fact remains.

Now don't go overboard. There are examples aplenty of those who do. The most useful thing to come out of considering how conspiracy might be present is discovering ways to counter it. You can't defeat what you never consider.

------
*It was notorious only to loyal republicans such as Cicero. I wrote famous because it was a conspiracy that was widely accepted by the time the three generals revealed their fait accompli and announced that their previous battling had been a smokescreen to hide their partnership. 

Boehner: Shame of OH8? For WHAT?

Politicians often must go through any number of contortions to do their job.

The current Congress came into being because of the excesses of the last one.

Yet the leadership in this Congress appears to be constantly on the run rather than on the offensive as if the last public opinion poll that matters -- the elections of 2010 -- did not happen.

This morning, on Fox New Sunday, John Boehner sounded like a man possessed.

With his self-imposed deadline for releasing a deficit plan before overseas markets open just a few hours away, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said both sides were “not there yet" and pushed for a two-stage debt-limit vote.

“I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem,” Boehner said on Fox News Sunday. “If that's not possible, I and my Republican colleagues are prepared to do this alone. Today.”  [emphasis added] -- 'The President’s Worried About His Next Election'

But what was it he appeared to be possessed with? Shamelessness in chasing after being accepted by those he is supposed to be fighting! This following is how I see it shaping up.

There is nothing spent in the last congress that the Left will allow to be cut, and the public is daily harangued by the Agency of Lies to forget that is WHY we have the new congress.We are told it is the new Congress, and the "wet behind the ears" TEA party members who are recalcitrant. But it is Obama and the Democratic Slave Party controlled Senate that will not budge, abetted by the old line GOP SKUNCs, personified by Mitch McConnell, and recently joined by Tom Coburn.¹ It most definitely not the TEA party members who were sent to Congress to try and reverse all that the dictators did from 2009-2010.


It is surely looking like the fix has long been in with Boehner and that his long dance has only been for show. With McConnell, it was already clear that he was going to be going with (note my pun) the Gangue of Six even when he said he wasn't. What a sham!

It was the use of the word gang again. Every time something is touted by a "gang," the patriot is right to sense that there's a conspiracy to defraud afoot. Especially because the left and the media are ever so gay about it.

That gay metaphor comes from a scene that I vaguely recall from some movie. It could be La Cage Aux Faux or Victor Victoria.  Nathan Lane or Robert Preston would sniff that some straight guy appears "not to be as sophisticated as I thought." The object of desire failed to appreciate the compliment Lane had  bestowed upon him by the very proposition he rebuffed.

So it is with the Left and the Statists and the media (please forgive the redundancy, but there still is a widespread illusion that these are independent groups not all tied to the same yokes). Anyone who is not in step with them is simply not sophisticated² enough to be worth even a nod of recognition. The bigotry in the United States could never ever been this shameless before (the very number the bigots exclude makes them so monstrous) nor so widely entrenched in every aspect of our government.

So it appears to be with Mr. Boehner. We are at the brink of a major political collapse unless we in the TEA Party can make him and a few more understand the gravity. And his conduct seems utterly shameless. His chasing after approval of the influence peddlers who mislead like Pied Pipers instead of his standing firm on principles against the further destruction of our economy and of our republic. And that is if Mr. Boehner is STILL capable of feeling shame and so will fight back against this onslaught into which he is displaying every sign of caving.

And it is not that I don't understand. I truly do. Here it is. The Left and the media won't grant credit to Boehner for being sophisticated (on their terms, not his if he has a sense of that as a good gamesman should), and he's running after them:

"Oh, but I am. I am sophisticated. Really I am." cries John Boehner.
"Give me another chance! PuhlEEEEEze"

And if I were living in Ohio in Congressional District 8, I surely would feel the shame for supporting such a weak and shameless pussy all these years.

____________
¹This is yet another instance where we are witnessing the traitorous nature of former stalwarts. Liken this to the First Triumvirs of ancient Rome (Crassus, Pompey and Caesar) who suddenly revealed themselves to be against the republic by supporting the demagogue of the oligarchs. Tom Coburn has dropped his façade. Newt Gingrich went long ago. Who is going to be next? Jim DeMint? Sarah Palin?

²There is now an omnipresent haughtiness. There is this bigotry, flaunted by the Left and Statists, against those who do not sign on to their vision, the noblesse oblige, to eradicate this republic. Patriots are simply unsophisticated.

This provides one of the perfect examples where sophistication has both its roots and its full maturity simultaneously exposed. Its roots are pure sophistry and so it should be no surprise that its disingenuousness would lead to an adulterated paradise -- like utopia was ever anything but "no place." Those who seek sophistication should not be surprised they have nothing but ash in their mouths when they arrive at their final destination.

How many have warned these fools? How many of the fools think that the results of their efforts will be different? Here is why education has been destroyed. Whom but ignorant sheeple would allow themselves to be misled to their doom? Played for suckers so that a handful of madmen could play at being gods for some miniscule years such as are 3 score and ten.

American Founders Suspicious of Power Seekers

In an update to his recent post, Fran Porretto highlights the Left spinning news of events for political gain. I sought out and found a video which goes further than that. It proves the depravity of the hard Left. They eagerly wished for tragic events with which its propaganda arms might pummel the Right.

The following are an more extensive version of my comments to Fran and DebS.

1. On Leftist demagoguery: Providing proof of your charge

“Opportunist politicians are seeking, ineptly but determinedly, to use it as a Reichstag fire moment,”

we have this video of Presidential adviser Mark Penn’s words being enthusiastically received by Chris Matthews in which Penn says.

"Remember: President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma.... Obama needs a similar, a similar kind of act."

2. On seeking to turn the Right’s sense of decency against itself: Your update is important in how it highlights how the Left will attack every point of weakness, don any disguise, to shut down opposition to their accumulation of power. I will seek to use it to amplify my recent graphic warnings and to encourage many more to fight Leftist and Statist goals.

The current rapid growth of power in Washington (or in any nascent globalist entity) they seek to run must be fought. The hard Left are Stalin’s children, and are on the road to making Stalin’s megalomania look tame by comparison.

3. Re DebS “When...has there been no suspicion of government?”: With the 20th Century's legacy of over 100 million systematic murders of subjects under Leftist rule, the world ought to be grateful for, and embracing of, America’s founders being suspicious of those who seek power over all God’s children. The mocking by Leftists and SKUNCs of all those who are suspicious of government growth is hardly reassuring. Limits on government in order to reduce the governments' allure to criminals is what makes America different from all other thugocracies.

Statist Tools: Restricting the Rational

Two examples how rational, comparative argument has become restricted:

1. Those who invoke Godwin's Law for the purposes of censorship. They've expanded Godwin's observation from implying that "listing key points of an issue has been exhausted" to declaring that "there has been a breach of what may be considered a legitimate argument." It is a fact that Hitler and his NAZIs started off as less outrageous and increased their powers incrementally. When some group begins to follow a path similar to Hitler's, and reports of such behavior is forbidden, rational argument has become restricted simply by barring the introduction of such comparative evidence.

2. Those who reflexively shut down their brains when something sounds conspiratorial. The repeated airing of absurd conspiracy theories (a persistent campaign by Michael Medved) serves as a preventative to rational discussion of plausible conspiracies. An excessive parade of the former type, of groaners easily ridiculed, sets up in the reflexive thought "not another one" whenever a latter type appears. Statists are thorough and operating in plain sight if one would only recognize it. The upshot of it all is that in most cases, the person who introduces a conspiracy is dismissed as paranoid or simply nuts. Yet it is a fact that the Roman republic was undermined by contractual conspiracies between powerful men who, it turned out to be, were mortal enemies of each other. They are known to us as the First and Second Triumvirates.

Avoiding comparisons of what transpires now with what transpired then is evidence of either the irrational or of self-restricted rationality.  Where it is self-restricted, we are either witnessing reflexive action or the willful practice of double-think.  Whatever the cause, rational thought has been dimished.

That MSM and fellow travelers did not do that to Hillary Clinton when she introduced the phrase vast right-wing conspiracy tells you all you need to know.  Progressives and their conditioned idiots legitimize "attacking a conspiracy nut" selectively.

Bottom line: The charge of “conspiracy theory” presumes that there is no possibility of any such thing, which, given history, is obviously ridiculous. Thus, the exclusion of real evidence, review and discussion of conspiracies is itself irrational.