politics – Page 2 – It seems to me . . .

Respect

By Bob Beanblossom

7 September 2016

It seems to me that ‘everyone’ is demanding respect these days. That in itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what respect is.

Respect is like love, and like trust. It can be demanded, but cannot be taken: it can only be received as a gift of the giver.

The gift is completely independent of the receiver. Respect can be reciprocal, but from both sides it is an independent decision, attitude, action of the giver to give and the receiver to take and, in return, to give back.

To a large extent, it must be earned. It has to do with concepts described by

the old Boy Scout Oath and Law:

“On my honor . . .” As I am honorable, so honor I you.

The Scout also promised to be:

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean, and
Reverent

These are qualities inherent in earning and giving respect. Some may take some thinking on, but it would be worth the effort–even some looking in the mirror. Together they suggest that respect for others starts with respect for self. Self respect is based upon living up to standards and principles, not living down to animalistic wants and satisfactions.

No amount of wealth, or power, or coercion can require respect. No organization or march or protest will ever earn respect without demonstrating those qualities. You can edit them, add to or take from the list. But you cannot change the intangible called respect.

It is not defined or limited by age, background, or any other socio-economic identifier that the world would like to use to box it in, to limit it, and corrupt it into a tool for self-advancement. It is not secured by social or economic position, or job title, or profession. It has no relationship with the too common, “Do you know who I am . . . !”

We do need more respect in this country–in our schools, in government, on the highways . . . But the best way to get it is to give it first. As individual as it is in giving, it is still a cooperative effort, a matter of give and take, of compromise, of incremental improvements, of recognizing that neither of us approximates perfection. That is not a popular concept in our winner-take-all society where each one of us knows so much more than anyone else, where our way is obviously the best way. If so inclined, check out 1 Corinthians 1:19-20.

Many social problems could be mitigated by the sharing of respect. It replaces demands and threats and ultimatums with cooperation and mutual problem solving. Life is not the Big Game. Life is the only game. It is not something to win at all costs. It is something to savor, to share. It is the attitude of the Greatest Generation, the WW II generation: “We will make a better place for our children–by hard work, by education, by living for God, and by mutual respect.

Respect has a price: The “I” must shrink relative to the “WE.” The “WE-THEY” game must be replaced by the new “US.”

Or, maybe not so new. Maybe this is what those founding fathers meant by “We the People . . . .” The didn’t say “We the Persons . . . ,” did they. And by Ike’s added phrase, “One nation, under God . . .”

Have You Ever Wondered . . . By Charlie Reese

By Charlie Reese

31 August 2016

It seems to me that here is yet another article that I find funny yet all too true. I have titled it in the absence of the original. Hope you find it worthwhile. I have modified the intro but not the content of his column.

This is Charley Reese’s final column. He was a journalist for the Orlando Sentinel and later a syndicated columnist. He was a journalist for over 50 years. Although he passed away on 21 May 2013, this column is being widely revived in this time of political unrest and division.

The article is politically neutral, neither anti-Republican nor anti-Democrat. Mr. Reese has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. It is worth the time to read and consider!

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. Many will find it too long to read, and pass over it since it isn’t a video or have glitzy graphics. That’s part of our problem.

I believe that his message boils down to this: Be informed. Make value decisions. Select the best of the best if you can, the best of the worst if you cant, but in any case, VOTE! Hold the politicians responsible for their actions as you, too, are a responsible citizen.

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House? Paul Ryan. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan . If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy”, “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess. Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it is up to you.

This might be funny if it weren’t so true. Be sure to read all the way to the end:

Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table, At which he’s fed.

Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule.

Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat.

Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.

Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears.

Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways to Tax all he has.

Then let him know That you won’t be done Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more,

Tax him till He’s good and sore.

Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he’s laid . . .

Put these words Upon his tomb, Taxes drove me to my doom . . .’

When he’s gone, Do not relax, It’s time to apply The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax,

CDL license Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax,

Dog License Tax, Excise Taxes, Federal Income Tax,

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax,

Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon),

Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax,

Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),

Liquor Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax,

Medicare Tax, Personal Property Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax,

Service Charge Tax ‘Social Security Tax’ Road Usage Tax,

Recreational Vehicle Tax, Sales Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax,

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax,

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes,

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,

Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax,

Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax,

Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax,

Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax,

Workers Compensation Tax.

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt & had the largest middle class in the world. What in the heck happened?

Can you spell ‘politicians?’

I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times! YOU can help it get there!!!

GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN. “In *God* We Trust”

The American President

It seems to me that it has been a long time since we have had a President in office who was more interested in serving America than in serving himself. There is a continuum that runs from Statesman to Self-service. Every President fits somewhere on that line.

The very best lean far to the Statesman end, putting the best interests of America ahead of all else. Recent Presidents group around the Self-serving end, pushing personal agendas, disregarding the will of the very citizens who elected them, and amassing great wealth in the process of exercising their power.

The very first Statesman was George Washington. He was followed by some great leaders, and some less so, but all American patriots and servants of will of the People. Not perfect, but all Americans. Perhaps the last two Statesmen were Kennedy and Raegan. You may want to add one or two, but they would be arguable, even given a span of almost three decades since Raegan left office.

The American President is not a figurehead. He is a working leader of our country and a strong influence in the free world. Potential Presidents may come to our attention through a combination of political machinery and media attention, but each one comes to office only by the vote of the American people.

Neither candidate for President in this election comes close to being a Statesman. One hoped that, once the primary cycle had ended and the race between the people’s choices began in earnest, the candidates would settle down to addressing the issues that plague our country. That has not happened. Neither candidate displays the slightest Presidential demeanor, the firm but calm determination of a great leader, or the problem solving capacity to work effectively in a two-party political system.

Third party hopefuls make bumps in the road, but they, too, offer no real solutions.

Still, in spite of the candidates’ shortcomings, they are the candidates we have selected. It is our obligation to select one to assume the awesome role of President of the United States. We must vote. We are not voting for saints, or for a candidate that thinks exactly as we do. That candidate does not exist. We are voting for the leader of the United States of America. Failure to do our part will help assure failure on their part as they realize that the will of the People is a myth.

Insofar as possible, hold the candidates to policies and proposed solutions. We hold the keys to the office, and until we exercise our citizenship, we have thrown that power away. Talk, blogs, posts mean very little. The vote is the key.

Media Attraction

It seems to me that it is easy to become addicted to the ‘news’ and current events blogs without realizing it. We ‘have’ to watch the news on TV, check out the latest news on the internet, and respond with boiling blood to the latest posting on the social media (even if it has been drug up from some years ago and presented as current).

Inflammatory headlines grip and overwhelm or senses as the mundane, profane, and arcane become monumental. Distortion of truth, lack of facts, and poor writing are the norm.

What we forget, is that each news source–even those most cherished and revered in our minds–exists to exist. All of them exist to sell us something, whether from advertisers or from their associated not-for-profit arm.

Perhaps we should take a step back and allow our senses to reconnect with our good-sense. Run your own survey–is your favorite news source correct any more than the weather report? If not, why pay them much attention?

Again, it is our support that keeps them in business at the level of performance (or lack of performance) that they enjoy. Bad press, for them, is as good as good press. It all gets customers to the product.

Don’t you have something more productive to do?

Just a thought.

Morality

By Bob Beanblossom

24 July 2016

“Morality is the outward manifestation of religion,” according to Tolstoy.

Paul Kurtz, author of the Secular Humanist Manifesto I and contributor to II and II, disagrees. While rejecting all legislated morality, especially that that can be traced to the Bible, he writes that some undefined moral code can be taught by relativistic humanists with no absolute foundation and achieve a higher universal morality. His views are echoed by a growing segment of political and educational leaders. The Manifesto is a work in progress as the good-intentioned authors continue to revise it as they watch the power of individual greed and avarice overpower altruism in atheistic behavior. As their system gains ground, the moral decay intensifies. They don’t seem to have the answer that they had hoped for.

In stark contrast, God’s plan is both absolute and final. The Law given to Moses by God is, and has been, the foundation of national legal systems around the world. The Law was given as a means of man securing a relationship with his God. Man, however, found it impossible to keep the moral provisions of the Law. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

We don’t like to be told that we are sinners. Today, in rebellion to that absolute law, we see that moral foundation being undermined by a shift to the relativism espoused by Kurtz. Individual and small minority ‘rights’ are displacing the rights of the community as a whole. Divisiveness and hate mongering by leaders intent on securing power from the people replace stability and equal standing under the law. Equitable treatment of all is replaced by ‘more equal’ treatment of select groups. Increasingly, elites flaunt their always existing exemption from the law of the common people.

The Law was but an introduction to a higher order of God’s relationship with man, His creation. Designed by God to show man his weakness and moral depravity–ideas repugnant to humanists–it worked well: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 2:23)

Jesus Christ consummated the Law by His death on the cross, and brought grace to mankind. Giving Himself once for our sins, He supplanted the ongoing sacrifices of the Law. Grace came, not instead of, but thru the living Word of God. Not as an afterthought or make-do measure of a God surprised by out failure to measure up to His statutes, but as the proposition planned even before the foundations of the world were laid.

Christ can say, without in any way compromising the continuity and integrity of His Word, but wholly displacing the recurring sacrifices of animals for sin, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10)

“But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life thru His Name.” (John 20:31)

The Rule of Law

By Bob Beanblossom

5 July 2016

It seems to me that we conservatives are all for the Rule of Law–as long as we get our way. We are adamant in our support for the unchanging nature of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and checks and balances within the system. We abhor Executive Orders and Judicial activism that bypasses these Constitutional processes.

Yet, when the system produces a result that we disagree with, we are loud and often abusive, always claiming that the system is rigged, corrupt, and broken.

It may be all the above. But it is the system we claim to support. Perhaps we should be more attentive to our own position. Instead of claiming foul (which, again, it may be), we could work calmly and industriously to correct whatever problems exist. This takes a reasoned approach to our nations problems, not a bridge-burning, full-attack mode approach guaranteed to alienate even the most rational and moderate opponent.

Our bicameral legislature is charged with making laws. Major legislation seldom passes without bi-partisan coalitions, without some compromises.

The President, with built-in opportunities for Congress to override, is responsible for approving or rejecting those laws. Progress is much simpler if the goal is to enact worthwhile legislation rather than backing the President into a corner.

The courts decide the constitutionality and interpret the meaning of the laws as passed. Simple concepts and clear language with legislation based upon solid constitutional grounds stands the best chances of standing the test of the courts.

All questions that pass through that process have met the intent of the Founding Fathers. They understood that the system was not perfect, and so should we. Since that understanding did not cause them to throw up their hands in dismay, we too, should persevere. No position ‘wins’ all of its objectives.

Skews in results due to partisan politics, including within the Supreme Court, are part of the price of the system. Those biases call for renewed efforts by the opposing party to regroup, assure that their position is still that of those who elected them, develop coalitions based upon rational arguments, and win elections.

Obvious corruption is cause for similar action. Impeachment is a possibility if calm heads can build a coalition of honest lawmakers. Name calling, irrational ‘my way or no way’ rhetoric, and threats simply vilify the ‘good’ guys and give ammunition to the opposition. We prove that daily. If our position is right, we must be willing to preach it, teach it, and move forward in whatever incremental measures that our votes allow.

Every faction holds anchored positions that are out of sync with others. We forget that the ‘other side’ also holds some values in common with our belief system. The whole system is based upon a philosophy of compromise that yields progress. That was the reason that the two houses are constructed so differently. The very design attempts to give voice to as many diverse opinions as possible while still producing results.

While we need to keep our anchors set to hold our principles fast, we might consider that every anchor is secured to a line that leads to the ship that drifts in the wind and current while remaining securely attached to that anchor.

I certainly do not argue against reasoned debate. Each of the issues that confront our country affect the whole nation. It is reasonable that we have different opinions regarding the solutions for those problems. Sometimes we don’t even agree what the problems are. That is understandable. Debate we must, but with the goal of reaching a working consensus to solve a problem.

Paul, in I Corinthians 1:19-20, warns us of standing on our own wisdom: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath God not made foolish the wisdom of this world?” And, again, in 3:19: “For the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Maybe we need the input of others with whom we may not agree. Understanding, also, that these issues should be matters of prayer.

Now is a critical time in our nation’s history. We are watching as our divided country–separated along so many we-they lines we can’t even keep up–is being reshaped by minorities who, if we made the system work, would have appropriate, but not controlling voices in the United States.

We–conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, need to decide if our sacrosanct positions are worth the loss of our nation. Or, whether, solving our national problems through mature, reasoned compromise with incremental improvements is a better route.

Well, that’s enough. This won’t be popular with any group, and with only a few individuals. Maybe–just maybe–a few reasoned voices may appear that will start a revolution. A revolution of reasonable government, representing the electorate, standing on rule of law and process as established by our Constitution and so wonderfully put by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, who in summary said: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

We the People

It seems to me that “We the People” have forgotten who we are and where we came from.

Historical revisionism is multi-generational. Our own children and grandchildren are taught revisionist history by teachers and historians who only know the politically correct versions of American and world history. Many of them–and us– have never explored the original sources. They have read ‘about,’ but many have never read what the source actually said and did. They teach what they were taught.

“We the People” established this nation at great personal cost. They escaped persecution in Europe for their beliefs and an overwhelming desire for freedom, and soon found the English intent upon empire in the New World.

Our forefathers built this nation, to “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense.”

Somewhere along the way we have become lazy and inattentive to those freedoms that our founding fathers and so many American fighting men and women paid for. We gave our authority to politicians who became arrogant elitists who now tell us what to do. We traded European domination for English tyranny for American Politicians. The revisionist Preamble now states:

“We the politicians of this government run this nation to pick and choose the laws we will enforce, stir up every group we can think of against every other, and dismantle our defense system against internal and external enemies.”

All the while “We the People” dispel our indignation in useless patter that is suspended as we transfer our short-sighted energy and attention to the next ball game or TV show.

The politicians learned well from Nero. We have not. If that one is lost on you, please take some to look up the history of Nero. He was crazy as a loon, but an astute politician, adept at distractions, and at switch and bait tactics. Crooked as could be, self centered and abusive to all who didn’t agree with him, he probably could have been elected President.

The Declaration of Independence Racist? Ha!

Dr. Freeman J. Weems III

13 June 2016

Occasionally I find some thoughts that I think are worth sharing with as many people as possible. Words that are timeless and foundational to our salvation or our American way of life.

This is such a paper. It goes beyond current discord within our country to address our heritage, the heritage that will keep us free and great and exceptional if only we learn from our elders.

Written by Dr. Freeman Weems of the First Baptist Church of Atoka, TN, it is worth reading and sharing with your children and grandchildren. Thanks, Pastor.

Louisiana Representative says The American Founding Is Bad Study

after study has demonstrated that rudimentary civic knowledge has plummeted in recent years.

Many states have therefore taken specific steps to help ensure that students have a familiarity with our most basic governing documents. In Louisiana, Rep. Valerie Hodges introduced such a bill. Following the lead of states like Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, and others, her bill stipulated that Louisiana students recite the famous fifty-six words that form the heart of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

State Rep. Barbara Norton vehemently objected to this bill. She avowed that those words from the Declaration were not true, and relied heavily on Dr. Martin Luther King as the basis of her argument. She believed that equality did not exist until Dr. King, and that words from the Declaration should not be part of student studies.

Rep. Norton’s response is disappointing on many levels, and it certainly demonstrates that Rep. Norton knows little of American history and even less about black history as it relates to the Declaration of Independence.

For example, she stressed the importance of Dr. King but apparently did not realize that in his famous “I Have A Dream” speech, as well as many of his sermons, he quoted extensively and favorably from the Declaration of Independence:
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” -“I Have A Dream” speech, Washington, 1963.

“It wouldn’t take us long to discover the substance of that dream. It is found in those majestic words of the Declaration of Independence—words lifted to cosmic proportions: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ This is a dream. It’s a great dream. The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say “some men,” it says “all men.” It doesn’t say “all white men,” it says “all men,” which includes black men. It does not say “all Gentiles,” it says “all men,” which includes Jews. It doesn’t say “all Protestants,” it says “all men,” which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say “all theists and believers,” it says “all men,” which includes humanists and agnostics. . . I still have a dream this morning that truth will reign supreme and all of God’s children will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. And when this day comes, the morning stars will sing together and the sons of God will shout for joy. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” -July 4th, 1965, at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia
By Rep. Norton denouncing the famous words from the Declaration, she might as well denounce Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, for it emphasized the same content she opposed.
But Dr. King wasn’t the first black civil rights activist to praise the Declaration of Independence. Frederick Douglass, who had himself been a slave, stated:

“The principles contained in that instrument [the Declaration of Independence] are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”

And Henry Highland Garnet, who like Douglass was born in slavery and also escaped, became the first black man to officially speak at the U. S. Capitol. Following the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in February 1865, the House asked Garnet to preach a sermon celebrating that momentous event. In his two-hour discourse, Garnet told listeners:

“The Declaration [of Independence] was a glorious document. Sages admired it, and the patriotic of every nation reverenced the God-like sentiments which it contained.”

Clearly, black civil rights advocates praised the sentiments contained in the Declaration of Independence. (Significantly, the Declaration was heavily relied upon by abolitionists to aid their cause, and the women’s rights movement based their documents directly on the Declaration of Independence.) It’s too bad that Rep. Norton wants to withhold from students a knowledge of the document that black leaders praised for almost two centuries.

Visible Rot–by Sylvia Thompson

Edited with comments by Bob Beanblossom

20 April 2016

Forgive my intrusion into the political realm again, but this is well worth reading and understanding. When politicians refuse to enact term limits and restraints on their own behavior and benefits, remember: We still have the vote. The choices are marginal, but we still have the vote. If there is not a clear ‘best’ candidate, we still have the vote: Remove the corrupt incumbent and vote for the best available. Then do he same the next election, until politicians remember that they work for us and we control their position. We still have the vote!

It seems to me that the following article is well worth your time to read and digest:

Barack Obama is not seeking legacy

By Sylvia Thompson – October 26, 2015

To the many gullible souls out there who truly think that Barack Obama is “legacy building” in his all-out assault on America, I implore you to bow out of the conversation because you are not seeing clearly.

The term legacy carries positive connotations of something bequeath that is to the receiver’s benefit. Everything that Barack Obama does is calculated to destroy America, which he despises. This man no more cares about legacy than he fears being properly
prosecuted by the white political leaders whose responsibility it is to remove him from office.

I focus on white leaders, because whites are still in the majority and they fill the majority of political offices. If the majority of political operatives were of some other ethnicity, I would lodge my complaint against that group. Ethnicity is an issue only because Obama is
half-black and he uses that fact to intimidate guilt-conflicted white people. Otherwise, he would have been impeached and likely in prison for treason by now.

Barack Obama’s sole aim has been, since he first entered politics and continues as he winds down this presidency, the complete destruction of America as it was founded.

It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans who must listen to elitist pundits on Fox news and elsewhere, and political drones in either party endeavor to make Obama’s behavior fit a pattern of normalcy. Attributing his destructive policies to “legacy building”
is either self-delusion on the part of the people who make that claim or cowardliness.

This is my take.

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has nothing to do with legacy but rather to enable a Muslim nation to wage nuclear war with America and Israel – the two nations that he most despises. Does anyone wonder why Russians praise Vladimir Putin despite what the rest of the world might think of him? Putin cares about his country, that’s why.

Obama despises the American military because traditionally it has been a mainstay of America’s strength, and our strength infuriates him.

Imposition of a polluting homosexual, anti-Christian agenda upon the military ranks destroys unit cohesion and literally terrorizes male members with the prospect of sodomy rape. Such rapes have increased since the forcing of open homosexuality in the ranks, against the will of a majority of members I might add. Couple that with an infiltration of
women, for whom all standards of strength must be reduced, and Obama attains his goal of emasculating and demoralizing the forces.

He could not care less about a legacy of making the forces more diverse. Besides,
President Truman diversified the military as much as it should be when he integrated it. Obama’s objective is its destruction.

Obama reopened relations with Cuba because Cuba is Communist. Legacy is not his concern here either, but rather to scuttle America’s attempts to keep Communist influence out of the Americas. That Cuba has major issues with human rights does not matter. Like
his Marxist African father before him, he despises the West and all that it represents.

Obama lawlessly declares open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, because he wants to overrun America with third-world people who bring little more than dependency with them. This tactic not only does not ensure a legacy, but rather it guarantees the eventual conversion of America itself into third-world status, if it is allowed to continue.

Bill Clinton started the travesty of increasing the numbers of third-world immigrants at the expense of culturally more suited immigrants from European and European-influenced nations, but Obama has taken the trend to lawless, destructive extremes. He is fully aware
that many of these invaders have no intention of assimilating.

It is only the outcry of a majority of Americans that holds back this hateful invasion scheme, and Donald Trump’s entry onto the political scene to oppose that scheme is a saving grace for our nation.
These are but a few instances of behavior that display the loathsome character of Barack Hussein Obama. And he is allowed to roam freely through the American landscape poisoning and polluting as he goes, sure in the realization that no one will stop him
because he is “black”.

The day that we no longer have to hear the prattle about his “legacy building” will not be soon enough for me.

Many, many Americans are thoroughly fed up with Barack Obama and the spineless crop of political leaders who ignore his criminality. It is yet unknown whether Republicans will ever garner the backbone to become a true opposition party and hold him accountable.
Promising signs are the House conservatives’ getting rid of establishment types John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker and Speaker hopeful, respectively, and
Donald Trump’s entry into the 2016 presidential race with enough money and testicular fortitude to tell the Establishment and the Left where to shove it.

Should these positive trends not continue and the 2016 election cycle yield no movement to counter all the harm that Barack Obama has done to this nation, I think there will be
massive disruption. Those folks in the National Rifle Association ads currently running on television seem very serious to me, and that is a good thing.

Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal, leftist spin
on issues pertaining to race and culture. Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently
residing in Tennessee. She grew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve as long as the voices of many are stifled by intimidation from the few. She believes the nation needs resounding voices of opposition from true patriots and Bible-oriented Christians, to stem the forces that would transform this nation into something it was never intended to be.