It seems that those who came before us knew that a “compromised” person, one involved in illegal or “questionable” conduct, is the easiest to maneuver into further compromise. Years ago for this very reason, “homosexuals” were not allowed in the military or intelligence services or other “sensitive” occupations because of the possibility of “compromise”. Yet today, it would seem that the current occupant of the White House takes no notice of those who are “compromised” through sexual proclivities, other allegiances, or stated “hatred” of the capitalist system and the United States in general. A casual look over the list of Obama appointees or those ensconced into levels of government service show that “communistic” political stances, racist leaning (as long as it’s black or Muslim), and outright anti-Christian views seem to raise nary an eyebrow.
Now even those who are dumb as a bag of rocks or thick as a stump can see that there is something amiss if the person in charge of money is a thief. Even the dullest of blades in the drawer would not put a dishonest person in charge of “justice” in America. Well, either the President has a passing pedigree of acquaintance with stumps or bags of rocks, or his appointments have wholly different objectives than we the loyal citizens of the Republic can easily determine.
Could it be that the low information voter wouldn’t blink an eye as long as the checks keep coming and the heat is on in the government provided sanctuary that they call home? “What, me worry?” could be the motto of more than just Alfred E. Newman or the more than 50% of Americans who rely on government for nearly everything. Those of course are the people that the “haves” – aka- taxpayers – pay for out of their hard-earned paychecks. So would I be wrong in observing these government assistance-dependent types as being the new “compromised” people? As long as the checks keep coming and someone else pays the freight, they don’t really care which direction the nation goes as long as their needs are met and someone else takes responsibility for providing for them.
And we let them vote?
Why was that again, when they are takers and not contributors and are in sufficient numbers, that they “rule the roost”?
I don’t think that this was what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Responsible citizens in a Constitutional Republic were expected to work and had rights that were inalienable within law, a law based in the Constitutional interpretation of the Biblical understanding of right and wrong. “If a man will not work, he should not eat.”
So what changed, Barry?
Photo credit: terrellaftermath.com