Relax, this won’t be a religious piece. Rather, it’s about one’s reluctance to award credence to persons who’ve already proved unreliable.
We start from this story:
Nearly 100 House Republicans are urging Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals, saying they had the hallmarks of an influence peddling scandal.
The letter led by Reps. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), the chair of the House GOP Study Committee, comes as the U.S. attorney in Delaware enters his third year investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes, foreign lobbying and money movements.
In all, 95 House GOP members signed the letter.
“It is increasingly clear that Hunter Biden took advantage of his father’s position as Vice President to develop business relationships with clients in Ukraine, China, and Kazakhstan,” the lawmakers wrote. “Hunter Biden likely facilitated lobbying for foreign entities through third-party channels without registering for the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
“It appears that Hunter Biden used his position as son of then-Vice President Biden to gain wealth and influence in foreign countries, using questionably sourced money to pay tax liabilities, and lobbying on behalf of foreign entities without proceeding through the proper channels.”
So ninety-five Republican Congressmen signed the letter, eh? How many Republican Congressmen are there in toto? It says here that two hundred eleven Congressmen are members of the Grand Old Party. So one hundred sixteen GOP Congressmen have not signed it. Why not? Do they disagree with its allegations, or do they have some political reason for not joining the petition?
Later on in the article, we have this:
While support for a special counsel has been growing, some Republicans like Sen. Ron Johnson argue it isn’t necessary and would only further delay an already slow moving investigation.
“I won’t have any faith in him,” Johnson said of a special counsel.
The “isn’t necessary” part is a matter of political judgment with which I’m indisposed to argue. The “no faith” part is a different matter. It’s been unwise to put one’s faith in the ethics of politicians since before World War II. Politicians are even more aware of that than are We the Unwashed. Attorney-General Merrick Garland, whatever else he may be, is a politician – and a Democrat.
While we’re on the subject of faith in others, have Congressional Republicans proved themselves trustworthy and reliable? The record of the Republican-dominated Congresses during Donald Trump’s presidency was not inspiring. They often seemed determined to thwart him rather than support him. Because of Congressional balkiness, President Trump had to use executive orders far more often than was desirable. It’s a great part of the reason the Usurpers have had so little difficulty reversing the course he set. While “past performance is no guarantee of future returns,” were Trump to be returned to the Oval Office, would he be wise to place his faith in the Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill?
Trump’s no dummy. In his business dealings, he often relied on the trustworthiness of others – and he never allowed anyone to abuse him twice. The American electorate, on the other hand…
We have a serious political problem. Both major parties have proved themselves unworthy of trust. The evolution of political ethics has been steadily downward. To expect deceit and venality is far more sensible than to expect fidelity and honesty.
However, as matters stand, the major parties have a lock on federal offices, and on most state and local offices as well. We have nowhere to turn for an alternative that might prove more faithful.
It’s time to revive an old proposal:
On Every Ballot For Public Office.
NOTA, as it was once called, has several variations. My favorite not only refrains from seating anyone in an office where “None Of The Above” has garnered a plurality; it also suspends all powers associated with that office until the next general election. No one may exercise a power delegated to an office left empty by a NOTA result.
NOTA is not popular with politicians, of course. But isn’t that just another reason to talk it up, see if we can get it into the national conversation? Think about it.
6 comments
Skip to comment form
Sorry but times have changed Mr. Porretto. While NOTA may once have meant ” No one may exercise a power delegated to an office left empty by a NOTA result.” in todays corrupt uniparty nation NOTA would be an open invitation for Democrats to once again “redefine” what those words mean since it’s their duty and for Republicans to once again affirm their new definition which is their duty. In fact I would propose the Democrats would create a commission to determine that the NOTA was rejected by a “group of 1000 PhD experts including Two Nobel Laureates in African studies who have signed a paper to that effect” and it is settled political science that in the instance should NOTA occurs all Democrats are considered in power forever and that anyone voting NOTA be considered a radical white supremacist, have their assets seized, be fired from their job, censored from all social media and sent to a re education camp in Zimbabwe. To start.
NOTA will never be embraced on a scale that would make it useful, for the same reason that elections for the Imperial City (DC) don’t matter and haven’t mattered for a long time.
I’m consistently amused at the “VOTE HARDER” crowd desperately hanging on to the vision of America they were taught in Civics class. That vision no longer exists, for large reason because it’s no longer taught in schools. The 2020 election, and the (lack of) reaction to it, showed the entire process is nothing but Kabuki Theater, part of the ongoing Matrix that focuses the public herd on everything but what is important. It’s a cross between sportsball and wrestlemania and spending time and energy fretting about it is just as useful. Every. Single. Thing the elites do advances their power at the expense of our freedom. That’s why we don’t have effective government, why the things that are done have effects that don’t match up with intentions: it’s not about government, it’s about power.
It’s not black vs white
It’s not gay vs straight
It’s not Democrat vs Republican
It’s State vs You.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. As long as you limit your choices to those that are presented to you by the system, you are controlled opposition. You may think that effectively putting a third party on the ballot is thinking outside the box, but you are still voting, spending your time and effort working inside their system.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” ~ Noam Chomsky
Was my comment moderated out?
Author
I haven’t seen one from you. It’s not in the Spam trap, either. try posting it again.
OK, thanks. Trying again . . .
NOTA is not clear enough as a warning to TPTB, for the reasons mentioned above. I would go with TINVOWOOT and/or CONSENT REVOKED, depending on how full one’s belly is at all this shite.
Not a thing is going to be done. The Uni-party, the intelligence agencies,
the 1 % Power Elite, and it’s MSM propaganda allies have a CCP future
in store for us.
Will WE be buried alive in apartment complexes? Will OUR laments of agony be
heard next?
“A grinding and a wailing of teeth.”