Update: I am curious about the poll results thus far. I'm not challenging anyone's conclusions, in fact the rationalizations thus offered are 100% logical. But what I find curious is similar polls during book research had readers taking a different direction. So, I have added a new poll at the top of Kerodin.com to see if the new lead thought affects the subsequent thinking. Thank you to all who have contributed.
Read the column at Kerodin.com and then weigh-in.
Kerodin
III
Guilty?
ReplyDeleteWife? Perhaps, but take the husband out of office and she's nothing.
Employees? I see intel. opportunities here, among others. Everyone has a price. Again, take out the traitor, his employees are nothing but unemployed.
However, if no one will work for the scumbag, life's no fun for him.
Donors? That's an interesting one.
Determining "guilt" vs. "ignorance" is difficult in a society where most people think food stamps and a $50k/year job are constitutional rights. Difficult to blame the person following what is seen as the law to benefit himself or his business.
Food for thought.
Politican: Guilty, as his/her behavior is chosen and he's violating his Oath by his actions, whether or not he believes in what he's doing. His Oath is to support, protect and defend the Constitution...
ReplyDeleteSpouse: Not guilt, as she is dependent upon the politican "head of the household" as his wife unless she takes an active role in undermining the Constitution, which is another scenario altogether.
Nanny: Not guilty, as she is nuturing innocent children. Warring on a babysitter is nothing more than terrorism unless the babysitter is an active participant as above and again, that's another scenario.
I've donated mistakenly - not to Democrats or liberals, but to causes not as righteous or pure as I had thought. I didn't realize Ron Paul was an anti-Semite, anti-Israel candidate when I supported him and donated to his presidential campaign. I supported NRA for over twenty years until I was helped to see the error of my ways about twelve years ago. So, no on donors, unless they are knowingly supporting the same unConstitutional platform. Like the Wisconsin union members.
ReplyDeleteWives? If they knowingly support the unConstitutional efforts of their husband - as Hillary and MicHELLe do, then yes. If they are fully enjoying their position as "the Senator's wife", sure guilty as charged. But if they are simply trying to survive and protect their children from the overweaning ego of the husband, no.
Nanny's and such are probably just trying to get by and feed their own families. I don't blame them for working any job that will allow them to do that. Although I'd have more respect for them if they resorted to open prostitution instead of working for a politician.
Wife-Guilty as hell. She is as complicit as the husband is committing the crimes. In most cases help plan them.
ReplyDeleteDonors-That is a toss up. If it's a mom & pop who donated by party lines then no. If it's the big sponsors, agenda driven sponsor, etc. Then they hang with them.
Housekeeper-No. They most likely do not know what the traitor is up to and like upstream can be a valuable intel device.
I personally hesitate when it comes to generalizations. Someone on the "inside" could turn out to be of huge assistance during a ruckus or even before.
ReplyDeleteTake the ATF for example. Isn't it internal whistleblowers that drew initial attention to the Gunwalker scandal?
Are we absolutely sure one or more of the intel types at a Fusion Center aren't waiting for a chance to help out the III when the right opportunity presents itself?
Maybe that nanny or even a wife doesn't like what she's been seeing or overhearing and is waiting for her chance to do something right.
I like things to be black and white but have learned they aren't always that neat and clean.
Just some things to think about and Kerodin, my friend, you have certainly gotten me to thinking these past few months. Many thanks...
There is a disconnect between the setups for Q1 and Q2. Q1 assumes a _group_ and Q2 is about a self declared Anit-Arms politician. I consider Q1 to be a NO as it is political speech and is protected by 1st Amendment. Q2 is
ReplyDeleteclearly treasonous.
Thanks for your lengthy thought-out work toward fixing the unfixable; Lysander Spooner observed that the present government is either a direct result of the Constitution or the Constitution Cannot prevent the present situation(paraphrase, not a direct quotation).
Henry III A.
Anyone and Everyone who does not support the
ReplyDelete2A 110% without exception is treasonous. This includes FUDS and anyone who wants Reasonable Gun Laws. One cannot sit on the fence on this subject if someone is not my Ally then they are my Enemy.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or self defence it is about the populace having the Means to Overthrow the Goverment If or When "IT" became Tyranical.
In short it was intended to keep Goverment in check. And "we" have failed for several generations,and continue to fail like our fathers before us.
Dennis
III
Texas