Checks and Balances, Etc.

I recently read an article in The American Conservative written by Senator Rand Paul wherein he is trying to make heads or tails of the intervention in Venezuela i.e. was it an act of war?


You may read the article if you wish, but I believe you’ll get the same feeling of doubletalk that Senator Paul got with the usual blather of nonsense from The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and its reference to “classified” material, and on and on, with same Washington doublespeak that is its language, its non-communication communication. And, of course, “classified” is a bureaucratic concept that means they can conceal anything they want from the people (what some of us call "taxpayers") as long as they can convince them not to try and form a lynch mob.


If you took such gibberish to the talk shops of radio, cable news, network news etc. you would get some - probably most - of the hosts immediately to throw out the old threadbare nonsense about: 1) The security of the NATION is at stake (classified) or 2) Some nonsense about checks and balances.


The first is disingenuous on its face, if not an outright lie. A NATION of 350 million people cannot be secured except through arrest.


The second is a fool’s errand. The clarity of a ten-year old could realize why.


Sadly, you will hear a defense of the second from one of those geniuses who are championed as “right-wing” bloggers, or podcasters or whatever or whoever with some idiotic statement such as: The Founders (they cannot or will not say Founding Fathers) gave us a almost perfect system of checks and balances to keep our rights from being usurped. Then they will carry on some more about how we were handed a government so great that it overcame the tyrannical rule of a king - AND by damn we don’t want kings! -  they will roar. This screech only covers the fact that they know little of monarchs or their history—especially British history (but that is another topic for another day).


But just for the record I am a bit of a ten-year old myself. (Well, I was once). And to these right wing high-IQ wannabees - I ask the following:


If Congress passes a law that says no citizen can cross the Mississippi River and the president signs the bill AND the Supreme Court (more geniuses) upholds the law, how, without breaking the law, can anyone cross the river?


Please, no nonsense about the Constitution not allowing it. The SCOTUS says the congress and the president were correct in their acts! So, tell me.


Could the law be nullified? Could any of the people secede, and form another government?


The answers are “no” and “no.” That, the bloggers, et al tell us is treason.


Senator Paul, I appreciate your efforts. But you are fighting a losing battle. And you can’t declare such a (battle) war. It would be treason.


​If I were you, I would just return to “Your” old Kentucky home and say to hell with it!