Vaguely, we can remember the fresh political face who in 2008 spoke all those wonderful phrases.  From this wunderkind we heard that his presidency was going to be hallmarked by rule of law, respect for and obedience to the Constitution and “line by line” budget review.  A voice for the common person was ascending.  Above all else was this prodigy’s promise of complete transparency.  So, the American people elected him President of the United States.

The top priority from the outset was the creation of a national healthcare program that came to be known as Obamacare.  More than 70% of the people indicated they did not want it.  Undeterred, the President rammed it through a Congress controlled by his party, assuring us that the new program would not raise taxes on the middle class “one dime.”  He was right!   Obamacare has caused more than $6 billion in new taxes.  Jobs by the thousands have been eliminated as many businesses have resorted to downsizing and lay-offs to offset increased premiums.

Joining with the laws of 37 other states, in 2008 the people of California voted in favor of a proposition that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.  Our Executive Branch has responded to the will of those people by filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court encouraging the overturning of that proposition.  Furthermore, our President has refused to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that has a similar definition of marriage that is supposed to apply to the entire nation.

One cannot check a budget “line by line” if no budget is ever put forward.  The refusal to do so is the work of Democratic members of the Senate, pure and simple.  Similarly, our President has failed to produce a budget acceptable to even one member of his own party.  Hark!  The Senate is currently unveiling a budget, after only about 4 years of illegally failing to do so!  Of course it contains multiple times more taxing/spending than cuts.

This may be the only time in recorded history that a nation has deemed border security to be a debatable issue.  Again, the President ignored the majority of the people who want the border secured.  He also sued one state that tried doing it on its own.  Illegal immigrants are merely “undocumented.”  The promised adherence to the will of the “common man” has simply not happened.  The President has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the concept of rule of law.   The Constitution, especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments, has often been distorted or ignored.

This brings us to transparency.  In this Administration, it has been entirely absent.  Many of his numerous fiascos, such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi, have demanded that he hide information to cover unlawful or incompetent behavior and/or to perpetrate political lies.  One would think that refusing to obey the Constitution, disrespecting the will of the people, repeatedly lying/distorting the facts and hiding information would cause a president to be impeached.  This one was re-elected.  Some voters supported Obama because they want a free ride.  Others are blind socialistic ideologues.  A third group believes he is sincerely trying to make the country better and Republicans are blocking his efforts.  Together, these folks made up a slim majority of the voting public.

Enlightenment, however is coming, thanks to the President’s behavior before and after the “sequester.”  His incessant “the sky is falling” rants opened many eyes.  The people understand that there is no way such a tiny budget cut (that is not a cut, but only a decrease in future expanded spending) could cause such havoc.  Of course, it did not.  Then Obama compounded his disingenuous stupidity by insulting the intelligence of most Americans when he canceled the White House tours, unnecessarily furloughed federal employees and performed other tantrum-like acts to make the sequester seem as bad as possible.   A report by daTagliare states that, “An email that was leaked by a Department of Agriculture field officer indicated that the Obama administration had given instructions to make the sequestration cuts hurt Americans as much as possible.”

Then Obama blamed Republicans.  So, many more people now understand that the President is not only dishonest and deceptive, not only wants to turn America into a government-dependent society, but is insensitive, arrogant and vindictive when things don’t go his way.

America’s future under Obama can be seen by looking at the political history of Detroit.  That city has been led by liberal Democrats since 1961. Obama’s strategies are damaging the country exactly like similar socialist strategies have bankrupted Detroit.

 It’s time for the people to intervene.  The view here is that an intervention is imperative and should involve two strategies:

1.   The President’s exposure of himself (pun intended) provides a renewed opportunity to gain control of the Senate in 2014.  Hopefully that will be accomplished by conservatives.  We desperately need more senators like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio et al. According to Politico, “‘deep-pocket conservatives’ are turning their backs on establishment Republican strategies, being keenly aware that it was establishment cheerleaders like Karl Rove who were blindsided by Mitt Romney’s stunning loss and losses in many key Senate and House races.”

2.   The President’s behavior definitely includes impeachable acts. Canada Free Press has kept track of Obama’s impeachable offenses (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26650).  This list has fifty (50) items, and does not include selling arms to Libya without Congressional consent, or anything related to Benghazi.  Removal from office can occur if the House of Representatives indicts and the Senate convicts the President of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Judging by observations of our present Congress that simply “ain’t gonna happen.”  Republicans in Congress, obsessed with the 2014 elections, are simply refusing to lead.  They have been steadfastly avoiding their duty and instead have been politically posturing in efforts to remain in power.  How can they expect to win future elections if they refuse to lead?  Our only alternative may be an impeachment process generated by the States on behalf of people who demand it.

Dwight Eisenhower wrote, “Every step we take toward making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.”   Abraham Lincoln said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”

Finally, this from Jim Delaney:

Crimes don’t make a difference unless there are people who can expose them for what they are.  Many of the things that we consider unacceptable behavior today had to be criminalized.  Democrats have criminalized many ordinary things, such as buying cough syrup without a photo ID or making a movie that offends Muslims, but they have decriminalized other things, such as funding and arming terrorists and endangering the survival of the free world. . . So, yes, folks, sorry to say, but the remedy is now squarely on our shoulders and on the shoulders of our respective States to resist. We can rely on nothing else, nor should we. Wishful thinking, benign neglect, blind faith, and prayers alone won’t turn the tide and save this tattered Republic. And with both our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights under relentlessly single-minded attack, now more than ever patriots need to be solidly united, fearless and determined.  Are the States up to it? Are we up to it? That remains to be seen.

                                                   By Jim Lyde,
                                                   Chief Operating Officer

                                  FIRST PUBLISHED DECEMBER 17, 2012

 
How It Was (1954)
That is a Colored water fountain, Son. You can't drink there. Little Henry accepted that admonition from his mother, but not without a second thought. Born in 1945 in north central Texas, Little Henry knew that "Colored" water fountains and restrooms were indicators of the way things were.

 Why was the 80 year old shoe shine "boy" called by his first name?

He noticed there were no "coloreds" in the café where he dined with his family. He wondered why, in a society that demanded respect for elders and fair play, the 80 year old shoe shine "boy" at the barber shop was called by his first name (Doug), even by children. Why was Doug called "N* Doug" outside his presence? Why were all coloreds usually called "N*s" except in polite company, where they were called coloreds or "Nigrahs?"  

Three colored boys were allowed to join Little Henry's baseball team. He was surprised that he didn't "catch something" when he quenched his thirst from the lid of the big water jug after they did. Why then, were there colored water fountains?

            Nigrahs are alright, as long as they know their place.

Little Henry knew nothing about the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision calling for the end of school segregation; it certainly had no effect on the all-white school he attended, or anything else in his world. He had heard hundreds of times that "Nigrahs are alright, as long as they know their place." Where was that "place?" From his family and their friends there was no animosity. The "understanding" was that coloreds were inferior and should not interact with white people.

                 Political Correctness was designed to end
               traditional references to Black Americans.

This has been a tiny snapshot of the atmosphere from which evolved "political correctness." Little Henry was just one of millions beginning to realize the illogical nature of race relations in America. The productive work of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others failed to displace the traditional references to Black Americans. The concept of political correctness was designed to change that.

How It Is

Political correctness has gone far past that worthy goal. From a historical perspective, the changing of traditional references has been blindingly fast. We have gone from darkie, Negro, N*, nigrah, colored, Black, to African American. Beyond efforts to bring discredit to those who make disparaging references, PC has developed into a primer of admonishment to any negative reference to African Americans, then to females and Latinos. It seems that any publicly made disparaging remark must be subjected to the gauntlet of "insult inspection," regarding race and/or gender. If either exists, those who disagree with the premise of the remark label the spokesman (whoops, spokesperson) as a racist or a sexist. More recently there have been those who search for "code words" in statements with negative references that might be construed to refer to Blacks or any other minority. These exercises are virtually always generated by liberals. Now, Hillary Clinton has expressed a preference for Senator John Kerry (white male) to replace her as Secretary of State, rather than UN Ambassador Susan Rice (black female). Therefore, according to PC dictum, it is logical to conclude that Ms. Clinton is both a racist and a sexist! PC has further expanded to include rules to avoid "offending" people or organizations who do not believe in deity. For example, the Governor of Rhode Island insists on calling the state's Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree," so as not to offend atheists. Bill O'Reilly has pointed out that by doing so the Governor has offended about 95% of the American people. However, Christians and Jews are the only religious groups that may be maligned under the guidelines of PC.

Thomas Sowell has written "... episodes of unprovoked violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random on beaches, in shopping malls, or in other public places have occurred in Philadelphia, New York, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles, and other places across the country. Both the authorities and the media tend to try to sweep these episodes under the rug." The view here is that the entire reason for the "sweep" is political correctness.

              Has PC blocked our ability to find solutions?

How Is It Going To Be?

Have problems arisen? You bet! What if  negative references to minorities or minority organizations are true? After all, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to denigrate other segments in our society; some say even at the expense of the truth. Perhaps we have gotten so caught up in the idea of avoiding insult that we have linguistically blocked our ability to find solutions. Have tiny portions of our society gained the ability to force changes on others, even if those others find them unacceptable, or even if the changes have historically been detrimental to societies? Undoubtedly! Has the quality of education in the United States for African Americans improved? No! Why not? In this country, a small of minority of the population gets arrested for a very disproportionate number of crimes committed. Why? Have Black community attitudes toward narcotics and traditional relationships heightened the wall that has to be climbed to achieve social equality and economic success? How can we address these or any similar perceptions or situations if PC forbids us to even state the problems?
  

                                                        By Jim Lyde

                                          Chief Operating Officer

                              FIRST PUBLISHED JULY 7, 2014

Let’s assume a belligerent dog attacks, you provide the dog with a little space and he continues to attack.  He attacks your children from the bed of his puppies, and if you injure a puppy when you respond, the dog howls about your cruelty.  Suppose a neighbor suggests a solution that is agreeable to you but not to the dog?  What do you do?  Would it be appropriate to ask the dog to discontinue the attacks as a prerequisite to further discussion?  What about providing the dog with more space, closer to you, hoping that the dog with change his behavior?  Perhaps, after repeatedly trying unsuccessfully to reason with the dog you should kill the dog and take back your space. 

Israel now and historically faces this situation with its Islamic neighbors.  The current aggressor is Hamas, a terrorist organization that is attacking from Gaza that was given to the Palestinians by Israel.   President Obama treats this latest conflict as being between adversaries who each have a valid agenda.   It most certainly is not.  The rightful “ownership” of the territory Israel now occupies is a moot issue.   Would it be appropriate to demand the resurrection of the Weimar Republic?  Considering the issue on a local level, what about the land of Canaan or the Hittite Empire?  The truth is that the geo-political landscape in the Middle East historically has been in constant transformation forever.  Diplomatically, common sense related to this situation is in very short supply.  How would the world react if Israel acted on the decision that Hamas/Palestine did not deserve to exist?

When analyzing Obama concerning the Middle East and elsewhere the tendency is to characterize him as being incompetent.   He does radiate the odor of incompetence but the belief here is that the smell is that of arrogance.  The incompetence characterization would be correct if Obama’s agenda involved objectives that are in accordance with American tradition. However, Obama has no such objectives.  He is fine with what appears to “right thinking” Americans to be cowardly folly regarding “negotiations” with Iran.  He has no objections to Iran having military nuclear capacity.  Likewise, he is OK with the strife between Ukraine and Russia.  This president has no qualms about the mess on our southern border, either.  In fact, he is the principal creator of the mess.  International turbulence is his preferred state of affairs.