Why
have
the
Republicans
surrendered
to
Obama?
Imagine that you could be charged with a crime or have your assets
seized for conducting financial transactions below $10,000. It is
so. Persons running businesses whose regular transactions fell
within the range of $5000 to $10,000 have had their asset seized
without warning to result in their or their business's ruin. The
law enabling this sort of abuse was originally enacting in the early
1970s as a means to deal with criminal money transactions meant to
escape government notice by falling under IRS reporting
guidelines. The crime invented was named
Structuring. Perhaps this law
of this sort should not criminalize the money transactions themselves
but instead aid in enabling investigations of any real crime to which
it may be associated.
More to the point, this law is being used to prosecute Dennis
Hastert. If Dennis were actually guilty of the alleged sex crime,
I would be first to think he should be hanged. However
consider the severity of the crimes in question from worst to least:
- The sexual crime to which Individual A has been accused.
- The apparent blackmail of Hastert by Individual A.
- The (non)crime of Structuring for which Hastert is being
prosecuted.
It seems that the most immediate (and fresh) crime discovered is that
of blackmail by individual A. In Illinois extortion ranges from a
class 1 to a class 3 felony depending on aggravating factors. Yet
while this seems to have been passed over, Hastert is instead
prosecuted for jaywalking with an opening to accuse him of something
monstrous. Does this seem out of order to you? What if
Individual A turns out to be a Democratic operative?
If Hastert's plight does not seem so clear, consider others:
- Rick Perry is indicted for vetoing an appropriations bill
supported by his opponents as abuse of power. Perhaps he has no
right to his lawful privilege if it is against the liberal will.
- Tom Delay's prosecution in advance of its helpful influence
to
the Democrats on the 2006 election was overturned on appeal.
- Dinesh D'Sousa is prosecuted for illegal campaign
contributions
after he published a movie unfavorable to Barack Obama.
- Bob McDonnell is prosecuted for minor gifts from a
corporate
representative.
- Tea Party groups are denied tax standing that comparable
liberal
groups easily obtain. The occurrence of the malfeasance occurs as
the election of 2012 approaches giving it additional motive to
manipulate the outcome of an election.
In contrast the current Democratic administration cannot seem to find
any sense of justice to prosecute their own criminals:
- Bill Clinton buddies with a known rich pedophile among a
gaggle
of young women who are near to if not actually underage.
- A deal negotiated by Hillary Clinton selling an American
uranium
mine to a Russian company does not get investigated for treason.
- Al Gore goes unprosecuted for a polluting zinc mine on his
personal property.
- Barack Obama and 340 sanctuary cities protect immigrants
from
prosecution of illegal entry.
After observing that Hastert's prosecution seems politically motivated,
it also seems causal that a Republican congress is no longer able to
resist Obama on any line after Hastert's indictment was
announced.
They gave him an Iran deal and two budget concessions without
resistance, and the resignation of Boehner. Did they suddenly
fear malicious prosecution
themselves?
Consider the matter of the illegal espionage committed against Mitch
McConnell by a Democratic operative named Curtis Morrison. After
the
crime of espionage
was committed, the video was leaked to Mother Jones to shame the
Senator.
Nothing criminal was revealed, only impolite discussions of a personal
nature
pertaining to rival Ashley Judd. However when the espionage crime
went to a grand jury, expectations of an indictment against the
operative fade as the matter drops silently out of public sight.
Morrison – still operating on the internet – continues free as if
he was quietly pardoned. However for the matter to go completely
silent might be taken for an indication that it was turned
against McConnell instead, something that might require the appeasement
of Obama. Indeed, the spy himself declared in an interview after
he published his
admission of the deed that he had hoped to convert his crime to the
prosecution of McConnell, a motive if shared by his political allies
could put McConnell to worry. Then if Hastert's indictment seemed
to him malicious, his peril could greatly increase in his eyes.
Then he and any allies sharing his concern would have to give way to
the crooked regime until a more opportune moment.
All of this could proceed without any sort of communication of
extortion; instead the alignment of unfavorable circumstances would
inform them. However, Obama often includes in his addresses
assertive declarations of what he wants regarding the submission of his
opponents
to his agenda, so you could wonder. Then again the lone
disclosure by the spy may have signaled to McConnell the imminence of
more disclosures of a more sensitive nature. Then he would have
comply with the terms submitted when the opportunity allowed. For
this deed the spy would get a pardon or non-enforcement against his
crime by benefiting parties. Indeed, Individual A may have sent
the same sort of extortion signal when a caller to a talk show
involving Hastert seemed to try to shame him with laughter and
assertions that he knew him from the past.
Confirmation of this larger scheme may be taken from the following
argument. That Morrison's public admission of the crime was
a bad legal move for someone claiming a law degree. He knew he
was jeopardizing himself, something not serving his own self
interest. Then you could suspect that he sacrificed himself for
something larger, something later protected also by the unwillingness
of the Obama administration to prosecute the matter. At the very
least, McConnell himself implicated a larger plot calling the deed a
"Nixonian" tactic by the "political left," which would play on his mind
as to its significance and outcome so as to make him susceptible to
political manipulation. Then he could give his first gift of
appeasement by the immediate reversal of Harry Reid's illegal Senate
rule change, although it may have been – and I would like to think it
was – an act of altruism on his part.
What has McConnell to hide? Perhaps nothing. Politicians
are very sensitive to even unwarranted shame for fear of voters.
Anything, even audio of the proceedings of his marriage bed could be
considered prejudicial to his reelection. If you think this
unlikely, remember a disclosure from a few years ago that the FBI had
recorded Martin Luther King Jr. having sex, presumably with his wife.
When you think of it, Harry Reid seemed a very bitter pill playing the
bad guy in protecting Obama from any possibility of having to cast a
veto. He seemed much happier contending with George Bush.
It seems unreasonable to diminish his own career to make Obama look
good unless he had abnormal reasons for doing so. Then his
illegal Senate rule change seems a bigger risk than he would take
himself if it were not foisted on him. Do you
suppose McConnell only assumed the same manipulated role as his
predecessor? Perhaps more are puppets than we know.
In the end, if Republican voters have revolted against McConnell and
his allies because they have surrendered to Obama, this deed has
subverted the entire Republican primary for the benefit of the
enemy. Will democracy survive?
Wake up America!
Related Facts you may want to know
- Research shows alleged crime against Individual A out of
statute of
limitations.
- One writer said it would be just to prosecute Hastert even
if he had
not wronged Individual A. (What if liberals prosecuting their
adversaries all felt this way?)
1Jake Miller and Lucy
Madison, "McConnell: Democrats 'bugged my headquarters'," April 9,
2013, CBS News, cbsnews.com
2Curtis Morrison, "Why I secretly
recorded Mitch McConnell," May 31, 2013, Salon, Salon.com
Document History
December 19, 2015 Created.
December 20, 2015 Corrected some grammar, and improved and added
some
wording.
