I think there is a struggle at this point between trust in each individual mind concerning trust in any other human being at all.
If an individual human being falls into the trap of trusting that no other human being can be trusted, then that trap is exactly the same viewpoint used by every criminal who believes in the concept of might making right.
If, on the other hand, there remains within an individual the concept of trust in other human beings, then such ideas as a person being innocent until proven guilty emerges as a powerful idea.
So which idea is shared, agreed upon, and accepted?
In context of your question I think that Karen Hudes is well aware of the crimes perpetrated by Obama, but she is not willing to claim that Obama is nothing but a willful criminal who will never be anything but a willful criminal, as if saying, again in context to my offer to you, as if Karen Hudes is willing to say that Obama can't be trusted to be anything other than a force of destruction upon everyone else, or to say that Obama, like everyone else, is a true believer in the lie that might makes right.
In other words, from this moment forward, it may be true that Obama would support Liberty, Rule of Law, The Golden Rule, Trial by Jury, everyone is allowed to be protected the same way by the same laws, and no one is above the law, if given the chance, if Liberty does overpower Crime made Legal (might makes right: a fraud), and that may be Karen Hudes considered opinion.
In other words: Obama is only perpetrating willful crimes because he thinks there are no other alternatives.
I do not share the opinion; hence my agreement on the bad vibes.
Suppose Obama does something similar to what Kennedy did, not that there is any intent upon my part to grade what Kennedy did with any moral judgement at all, but suppose Obama does something that ends up with Obama taking a few well aimed bullets.
Would such events, were such events to happen, shuffle the deck some?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: