Rebane's Ruminations
October 2012
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Readers know that I believe our country is already past the tipping point and headed for a bad transition.  For me the tipping point represents that unfortunate state of affairs in our nation from which recovery by ‘normal’ or historically successful corrective measures will not be enough to save us from a disastrous transition.  If we are to be saved, we now must prepare for more dramatic efforts and draconian events to restore the republic.  But not to lose heart, dear reader, we have been through such dire straits in the past, the last one was called the War Between the States, The War for Southern Independence, or erroneously The Civil War.

Let me be clear and state that there are also other ways that nations have navigated such waters, Germany’s Weimar Republic comes to mind.  And we all know its aftermath.

Evidence of our being past the tipping point is what I want to memorialize in these offerings.  I am reminded that all posts on the internet will survive ‘forever’, so that these offerings could inform or amuse a future cyber-anthropologist digging back into the history of the early 21st century.

EducSpendingPerformance

Two major national institutions are now beyond normal repair – K-12 public education and our justice system.  Since the feds’ Great Society (1964-68) started the destruction, we have revamped public education by spending trillions and getting nothing out of it save a workforce ever more out of touch with the realworld labor markets.  (See figure and the Friedman Foundation report and more details here.)   Instead we have built up an extremely ignorant and state-dependent teacher class, led by their corrupt unions, that in the aggregate is barely smarter than the students they claim to matriculate.  Socialism is openly taught in government schools as the correct way to organize society.  Nevertheless, education remains the Republic’s ONLY hope.

The legal industry has turned our justice system into their private sinecure.  Again in the aggregate, America’s justice system from the law enforcement agencies, through ‘justice departments’, to the courts are corrupt beyond comprehension by the average citizen.  Two decades ago we saw an obviously guilty OJ Simpson exonerated of criminal charges, and then convicted of the same crime in a turn-around civil suit that essentially deprived him of his property but left him free.  Double jeopardy has become institutionalized under the ruse of “different sovereignties” and back-to-back criminal and civil liabilities – it is nothing more than a full employment provision for trial lawyers.

A more recent case underlines this.  A 90 year-old man was attacked in his home by an armed meth head with a criminal record who broke into his house.  The senior citizen grabbed his gun and fought off his assailant in an ensuing indoor gunfight that did not end entirely successfully.  The homeowner was shot in the jaw, and was only able to wound his assailant who then took the old man’s gun, pressed it to his head, and pulled the trigger.  Fortunately the gun was empty and the wounded low-life fled.  He was picked up by police a short distance away profusely bleeding in his stopped car.

After long stays in the hospital for both criminal and victim, the criminal was tried and faces a long prison sentence.  And here’s the rub, the criminal’s father and attorney have filed suit against the elderly homeowner for causing the criminal bodily harm, emotional distress, problems with his marriage, and financial loss.  The corruption inherent in our justice system is that the court, instead of throwing out the suit amid peals of communal laughter, has accepted the case for trial.

Reports from many quarters describe a fearful government that is readying its multiple departments through massive purchases of arms and ammunition, surveillance drones, urban fighting vehicles, and new 18-24 year-olds being trained by FEMA as ‘disaster relief corps’ who march with military precision.  Preparations are afoot for things we are not told.

This kind of rot drizzles down from the top and did not start with President Obama.  However, he has pushed Executive Branch lawlessness and lying to new heights.  (Nixon’s Watergate was a piker’s pursuit compared to what we already know about Benghazi.)  For example, brazenly advising corporations to ignore the Warn Act, end-running Congress on using regulatory agencies to instigate policies that will change the economic landscape of the country with no elected representative having a say, and using Executive Privilege to cover up communications (‘Fast and Furious’) between agencies and departments that involved no communications with the President or the White House, and the list goes on.

(BTW, I believe the Benghazi tragedy, as originally mishandled and then covered up, appears to involve one or more impeachable offenses, and that a Republican House will so indict Obama.)

And regarding our Fourth Estate – the see, hear, speak no leftwing evil media – they are no longer the watchdogs of the Republic, but are solidly in the tank for anything and everything that promotes socialism and globalization.  They report no inconvenient news, pursue no obvious leads of government malfeasance, have become unabashedly virulent against capitalism, and will go to any length to appropriately propagandize the news.  Journalists are vying with lawyers for the muck at the bottom.  Woodward is now a lonely old relic, still doggedly pursuing his trade.

NoSeeHearReport(H/T to a reader who suggested the appropriate inclusion of the above graphic.)

Finally, the corruption of our politicians is unchanged and continues apace along its historical and well-documented lows.

Posted in , ,

76 responses to “Past the Tipping Point – 27oct12 (edited)”

  1. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    George, partisan means partisan, not “purely partisan”. It doesn’t mean you’re only in it for the gang you belong to. I’m sorry if it wasn’t disingenuity but just your succumbing to the recent trashing of ethical partisanship that motivated you. I’d also forgotten the deceptive nature of disingenuousness and for that I do apologize.
    I’m guessing you want a Republican choosing the next Supreme court justices and other members of the Federal judiciary. I’m guessing you prefer Republican control of the House and the Senate to help a Republican President get a Republican agenda implemented. If you believe, as a team, Republicans can help create a government that would be better, you’re a partisan.
    Being a partisan doesn’t mean your only motivation is winning. That’s a redefinition that, I suspect, grows out of the “progressive” delusion that they don’t have an ideology, it’s all just common sense and good judgment and to be motivated by anything else is morally wrong. The fact that, from the outside, they appear even more purely partisan than Republicans are tends to get ignored.

    Like

  2. Ben Emery Avatar

    Here is what creates this disgusting anti-democratic partisanship that plagues our government today, whether it be state or federal.
    http://www.npr.org/2012/09/04/160541977/mickey-edwards-on-democracys-cancer

    Like

  3. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Ryan, be rational. There is no bloody way Reagan could have mobilized 8,000 troops for an coordinated invasion in 48 hours in response to a suicide bombing in Lebanon. That had been in the works for quite some time.

    Like

  4. Ryan Mount Avatar

    Ryan, be rational.
    No gin for you! Michael gets your round. Maybe George. Maybe, Steve.
    Look, I never said that there was no planning. Let me check…
    Nope! Double checking…NOPE X2. I just said/implied that there was an opportunity to cover up and bomb a Canadian air built air strip. Those damn commie Canadians! Ok. Ok. And the Cuban “workers” armed with ZU-23-2’s. Of course, you’ll remember that we had an extraordinarily large military presence already in Central America already? Right?
    But never mind that. Let’s examine your chief assertion: You’re not implying that we can move a few thousand troops in a few hours? Granted with planning. I certainly hope you’re dead wrong and our strike forces aren’t run like the DMV. (BTW, The initial invasion force was way under 7000, BTW in the hundred to be exact. Over the course of a week the forces ballooned.)
    I’m not questioning the wisdom of invading the country, as much as I’m questioning it’s *motive.” And there’s the fact that I hate Reagan and all of the Elvis worship that surrounds his mystique. So there’s that.
    Obama gets the same treatment regarding Benghazi.
    The Marines arrived back in the USA on the same day we invaded Grenada. Again, I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    So then if you were a member of the House during an impeachment proceedings would you more likely give a preferential nod to a Republican or someone with similar beliefs as you when put to a vote.

    Like

  6. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 140pm – to “someone with similar beliefs” to mine, all other things being equal. You asked a very precise question, which I answered with equal precision. I hope it is understood in that light.

    Like

  7. Jesus Betterman Avatar

    Just when exactly did the first post show up here proclaiming a terrorist act as opposed to being open to the video as a problem? What exactly was the response time? Less than 48 hours? Prove it.

    Like

  8. Jesus Betterman Avatar

    As near as I can tell, it took you 3 days to go public with the idea that it wasn’t a result of the video, although that did provide excellent cover for the operation:
    14 September 2012
    An Amateur in the White House

    Like

  9. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Ben E, Gingrich was just copying the Democrats and beat them at their own game, ending the Dem’s domination of the House. Before Gingrich, there had not been a Republican Speaker since before I first ate solid food as an infant in the 50’s. That is politics. If you want to tone it down, give them less money to spend, and Gingrich was arguably much less partisan than Speakers Big Daddy Jesse Unruh and Willie Brown in California, the architects of California’s demise.
    Ryan, so you’ve decided to kiss off rationality and stick with the juvenile treatment; please wipe your nose and use a tissue this time, not your sleeve. In short, if Reagan’s DoD didn’t put it together on the spur of the moment, you agree it was already set in motion in place long before the Beirut bombing happened, and about all you could claim is that Reagan didn’t delay it because of Beirut.
    Really, that’s even more lame than most conspiracy innuendo.
    George, the definition of “partisan” I provided has been around a long time. Four centuries or so.
    Keach, Ambassador Rice was touting riots over the video as the reason for Benghazi a week after the killing of Stevens, and the White House didn’t abandon the video as a reason, continuing the false claims of a riot, until a month had passed.

    Like

  10. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Re: partisanship. The blind spots remain.
    We have partisan offices and non-partisan offices. How many of the folks here want to hide all party preferences from our ballots to insure all can, like his Purpleness, pretend that the lack of a declared party means you aren’t “partisan”?
    In most states, if you’re registered as a member of a party, you can vote for their candidates in the primary. You’re a member of that party. A “partisan”.
    “The definition you cite is another one of those modern day definitions that have become either circular or so broad as to discard the advantages of an expanding language while making it dysfunctional wrt its information carrying capacity. I reject it.” GR 11:53
    The wiki has an interesting treatment:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28political%29
    George, they cite your definition as the modern usurper that has crept into place over the last few decades. I reject it.

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    Gregory 413pm – Well glory be. Perhaps there are others who also want English to become a more precise language. And your rejection of that allows all here to understand or misunderstand our respective uses of ‘partisan’.
    In sum, I do wonder if in your lexicon there is another word that has the equivalent and unique meaning that I give to ‘partisan’ in my 1153am – someone who is simply “a proponent of a political party”. If not, then you must continue to communicate either ambiguously or inefficiently (using more words to delineate which of the many definitions of partisan you have intended).

    Like

  12. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    I’m with Greg. I think the political-party affiliation of “partisanship” has come and gone. I think the newest, and most correct, definition is about who or what the partisan is yelling about the loudest at the moment.
    Partisanship has once again moved from the subject to the predicate.

    Like

  13. George Rebane Avatar

    MichaelA 951pm – perhaps then you have a word for people who are proponents of a political party.

    Like

  14. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    GeorgeR 1022pm – Yes I do. Rs and Ds: dipwads. Anything else: progressives. Perhaps this puts me in close with Ben & Earl, but so be it.

    Like

  15. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    So if the indies become the third party in America, are they a “party” and are they partian? I think they are simply unable to make a decision and are “sheeple”.

    Like

  16. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Oh one more thing MichaelA. If you have never served the people of the country as an elected official you obviously cannot be taken seriously in these opinion bogs.

    Like

  17. George Rebane Avatar

    MichaelA 1022pm – now there’s an answer I didn’t expect from you; from lesser lights maybe, but not from you.

    Like

  18. JesusBetterman Avatar

    I take Todd very seriously in his opinion BOGS (sic, or maybe not?).

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar

    There is so much I’d like to say about the monopoly of the Two Party system but here’s a start
    The Republicrats are like professional wrestlers who go through the ritual of being competitors and putting on a fight for the crowd. They collaborate on doing everything they can to stifle third parties. If Gary Jonson was allowed to be part of the so called Presidential debates there is no doubt he would get at leas 25% of the votes.
    The Commission is a non-profit, corporation as defined by federal US tax laws, whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations-the same ones that hedge their bets by supporting Repubs and Dems.
    Here’s a little wiki history of the commission
    “The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today’s version of the CPD.”
    KVMR ran the entire debate of third party candidates moderated by Larry King. We have devoted more air time to Third Partys than any other regional media. Here’s a YouTube of the debates. Skip forward to go directly to the debates. Before you blindly vote Republicrat at leaast take the time to see this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EcaX12h46k

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar

    That’s the Commission on Presidential Debates.
    Take the time to read this by Emil Medellin · University of Houston
    “The best slave is the one who believes he is free.”
    “FRAUD & COLLUSION in the PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.
    This is the least of it. The chairmen of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) – Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. & Paul G. Kirk Jr. -are the former CHAIRMEN of the RNC & DNC. The other chairman, Michael D. McCurry is a former DEMOCRATIC Press Secretary. All of these guys are LOBBYISTS in Washington – ALL THREE – and Fahrenkopf Jr. is the #1 LOBBYIST for the American Gaming Association – the CASINOS! What are HIGHLY PARTISAN former Republican & Democratic National Chairmen – all currently working as LOBBYISTS – doing running a debate that’s supposed to be NONpartisan?
    While the airwaves are a PUBLIC medium, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – the regulatory commission charged with over-seeing these sham debates’ broadcast – is a PUBLIC commission, and the Presidency its
    elf, is a PUBLIC office, the (CPD) is underwritten by PRIVATE FUNDS from:Anheuser-Busch, Southwest Airlines, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP., The Kovler Fund, and The Howard G. Buffett Foundation. What is PRIVATE CORPORATE MONEY doing FUNDING PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?
    But it gets worse; the Commission is a PRIVATE CORPORATION that is said to be a 501(c)(3), but BY DEFINITION – 501(c)(3)s are REQUIRED to be NONpartisan. The FCC, who oversees broadcast media, is LEGALLY charged with preventing “unfair, biased, & illegal broadcasts”, yet continues to allow suppression of 3rd party candidates who meet the above requirements and are receiving MATCHING – TAX-PAYER BASED – Federal Election Commission (FEC) funds. This is a COMPLETE failure of the FCC to undertake its mandated duties & obligations. And what of the Attorney Generals, who are charged with “upholding & enforcing the law”? ALL OF THIS has been going on since this ‘memorandum’ was enacted, back in ’88. No enforcement of law to be seen. The last non-Republican/ non-Democrat President: Millard Fillmore – 1853. The best slave is the one who believes he is free.

    Like

  21. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1133am – Given the apparent format of the debates we have seen since, say, 1988, how do you see the two-party partisan CPD impacting the proceedings since they are moderated in different forms by different public individuals (mostly leftwingers) asking their own questions? Are they all in the tank with the CPD? What kind of threats or cajoling could the CPD do to affect more than who is allowed to debate?
    BTW, I do agree with you that ‘all’ legitimate political parties offering candidates for president in some large fraction of states should be included in the presidential debates. I support that because such minority or fringe party candidates will raise ideas and issues avoided by the main contenders. For instance, the gentlemanly agreement not to bring up the Benghazi Bamboozle in the last two debates would not have been honored by some third party candidate – and there are other examples/issues.

    Like

  22. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    I highly recommend you listen to the Third Party debates cited above. There are all kinds of questions and answers that are avoided by the Republicrats.
    They impact the proceedings by excluding third parties from the debates therefore ensuring a monopoly for the Republicrats. The professional wrestling analogy is a good one. At the end of the day they divide up the spoils and continue their real job which is to act a a collection agency for special interest groups as payment to ensure the control of the ruling class. When they leave office they go to work for the same as lobbyists. No wonder they conspire to keep out third partys. Ron Paul was the Republican puppy dog who shut up and followed the stay command when his time was up even though his followers were screwed by the Repubs. Dennis Kucinich was pushed out by redistricting replaced by someone more “moderate”

    Like

  23. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 101pm – will do, thanks. But I didn’t see an answer to any of my 1159am questions re the CPD.

    Like

  24. Paul Emery Avatar

    It doesn’t matter what the questions are if there are only two candidates. The fact is that there are major parts of our population that don’t believe in either party. For example the Libertarian view on foreign policy (bring um home) or the Greens urgency on global warming. No questions about the billions spent on the war on drugs or the militarization of our police forces that you so properly point out or the constitutionality of the patriot act or auditing the Fed. The questioners don’t need to be in the tank. They know what to say.
    Romney not pushing Benghazi was some kind of strategic decision. You’d have to ask him about that.

    Like

Leave a comment