See Something …Say Something; Blind Intelligence

Teaser photo:

“George Orwell”

Thanks to A Few Good Men …

…and to those families whose loved ones were left behind to die alone in Benghazi …

Jesus once said; “…he who is just in the least is just also in much, and he who is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much.

You know, I was thinking the other day about an adage which says; “…if you hear something …say something …” and it dawned on me that …while this is …understandably, well-intended to DOMESTICALLY promote whatever combats and stands against terrorism …why shouldn’t this adage extend into and apply to whatever means exercises due diligence in ways which aptly apply to support Constitutional Oversight and reign in accountability …particularly to “…We the People …” rather than whatever has been tailored to suit the whims of our so-called RULING CLASS …? Hmmm …?

So, after originally posting this last week, my ISP pushed a Washinton Post article to me in my phone’s browser.

Not by coincidence …this technology’s phenomena led me to imbed their link to this piece in the paragraph above.

And this got me to thinking all the more about something else which has more than preoccupied a perverse national  narrative …one which, according to the link above, the Washington Post piece attributes  …somewhat more to a spirit of paranoia.

If so, might this spirit also extent into the body politic as well …?

If so, Washington, we have a problem which cannot and must not be simply spun under the rug and forgotten.

Nevertheless, doesn’t this adage’s paranoia and distrust extend beyond the borders of terrorism …so as to equally apply, coop and garner the participation and conscientious, well-meaning support of our foreign citizenries and or their national intelligence agencies …even to the extent of whatever may be passed along and  through diplomatic channels …whether or not these channels may be blind, broken, and compromised …even if and especially when openly exposed by an unsecured private server such as was the case with Hill-Billery Clinton’s home-brew’s conflicted cottage industry …? Hmm …?

Speaking of conflict, shouldn’t this adage apply still, all the more to all those who stand up to say something …so as to expose the truth of the character which lies behind what they have seen and or heard?

If that exposure directly relates to and pertains to unreasonably decerped, egregious and ethical abuses, why should the source of any such disclosure be any more  suspect than the truth they delivered …especially when and if that truth comes to light to expose those who have left the rails to operate in the dark so as to secretly spread the tyranny of their brand of despotism …whether if, only for to further ones party or in Hill-Billery’s repeated cases …solely, in self-interest alone? Hmmm …?

As in the case of a purely narcissistic motive which forms and makes attempts which seek to justify whatever on the basis of a spirit of greed’s expedient immediacy …does little to resemble public service.

No …extreme political bias …for personal gain …is more than an apparent conflict. The truth of such a motive …when exposed …can be seen as what is driven by the height of extreme vanity, long-enough spoiled by position, under the sorts of cover …which are entrusted to those in positions of high power …within realms which …beyond ones chartered authority’s limits (the Constitution notwithstanding) may give one so disposed to despotism …the opportunity afforded them by their time in service and or tenure not withstanding …to abuse at will and whim …all of which … were never intended to justify what might …otherwise, seek to stand up to serve as a counter to diminish, marginalize and dismiss the truth of whatever becomes exposed …namely in the light of the truth …no matter who stands up to say something of the truth which has come to light …regardless who delivers the truth to make it clearly known.  # Glasnost notwithstanding.

Beyond any international boundaries though, why would it matter whether or not the one who goes out of their way to speak up and say something …such as what exposes the very height of hypocrisy, tyranny and despotism …is a fellow citizen and countryman …or merely …just another interested citizen of the world …such as one who sees justice clearly from another UNBIASED human perspective…?

No …! The adage which says; See Something; Say Something still applies equally.

Injustice is without borders and nationality … just as equality and justice …which follows from a human perspective, is colorblind.

If so; now, I must ask; wouldn’t that adage also equally extend to hearing or seeing something that directly pertains to what stands up in opposition to expose what has been left without due diligence and accountability …to go totally unchecked, especially what is become …over time …what has grown accustomed to whatever is contrary to and is also devoid of the constraints of Congressional oversight …the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding …? Hmmm …?

In other words …that which is become too familiar …or, whomever is in a position to contemptuously  seek to rise and gain an unsavory and unscrupulous absolute foothold on the sort of power which affords one the opportunity to deliberately skirt around the constructs of the Constitution”s precepts …is absolutely entitled to do so by engaging in absolute corruption …right …?

Hell no …!

No on is so entitled. No one is above the law. No they are not. And “…We the People …” should be thankful for those who have the courage to expose such …and yes; that is my opinion which extends so far as to include even the Russians and Wikileaks.

Thank you very much …!

Congrats …!

“…Decorum Spirituatis Corpatis” (…behavior befitting a grieving soul …)

Such as how by what all such means unscrupulous behavior seeks to break from established decorum; it shouldn’t matter who comes forward to say something.

In this respect, I ask; who is above the law that shouldn’t expect to be made to suffer the consequences for such breached decorum … such as what would ordinarily normally be made to those who should expect to bear the legal consequences for egregious Constitutional breaches …?

Wouldn’t the avoidance of any consequences such as penalties be stand as contempt?

Such as that might be, isn’t such contempt what all is equal to …if not greater than the exposed deliberate egregiously greedy means …in other words, those which become exposed and become known by all …thanks due to anyone who actually has the tenacity and the courage to step up as a patriot and say something …?

Even as the Russians may have deliberately interfered, it isn’t as though the NSA wouldn’t have had nor is without prior knowledge too, but they …yes, they …meaning the Russians …both saw and actually did say something …while the NSA and the likes stood by to (rather somewhat …half-heartedly …) fall all over themselves and their respective agencies and their agencies’ personell and staff by making (pre & post-election) fumbled exonerations whose half-steps all but served in support of whatever meager means could excuse Hill-Billery of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

And I say so, because “..someone …” specifically …so as to include the Russians, as in the case of the DNC’s collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

And I say so ….particularly, when it has become so glaringly obvious that the better part of our nation’s security and intelligence agencies have failed in upholding and in protecting our the better part of the body of our sacred Constitution. # Case in point – Hillary’s unsecured private server.

Moreover, this lack of due diligence and the slack which has followed …I believe …merely reflects the extent to which our intelligence agencies have failed to provide and deliver to any extent …any degree of unbiased service to that which is the least American …that is, in so far as what resembles vigilant and watchful oversight. Beyond this …nothing more has comes close in my mind’s eyes that can be counted as Constitutionally accountability …and I greive for Justice …and more so, in the way in which American Justice has suffered at the hands of those who seemingly find no dificulty in supporting and promoting the better part of what tyranny and despotism has been hidden behind the curtains in the realms of their lofty domains.

Victor Davis Hanson could not have said it more clearly when he wrote and posted this article today in the National Review.

Decorum Spiruatis Corpatatis…!

So …I grieve …without ceasing.

If justice sees something and says nothing; what then?

Moreover, if justice sees something, yet says another …hmm? There’s an obvious conflict.

However, if justice sees something, says another out of bias …Houston, we have a bigger problem.

As per the line that Jack Nicholson blurted out in the movie An Officer And A Gentleman; “… You can’t handle the truth …!”

Actually, that quote was from A Few Good Men.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.