There are a myriad number of ways to bring our Republic to its knees.
Obama is employing two he believes prove effective all the while protesting he is simply trying to accomplish fairness; that squishy, amorphous word no one can adequately define in a 'fair' manner.
First, pass a profuse number of laws so that Obama's corrupt The Justice Department becomes the final arbiter of what freedoms, so called, free citizens can and cannot enjoy.
The second is, pit citizen against citizen and do so by attacking those who, according to the PC police, use language deemed offensive and therefore, are obviously racially biased. The use of ordering 'black coffee', the decision to eat 'red meat' are all offensive and biased descriptions that must be banned because there are those who are sensitive to such racial slights and epitaphs.
We know, from listening to Messrs. Obama and Holder, all police are prejudiced against black citizens who see them as objects for random target practice.
Recently self-righteous liberals were offended by the way a football team owner wanted to continue describing and marketing his team.
It is only 'fair' that we become a color blind society and judge everyone by the content of their character, as suggested by a great American leader. Of course, getting close enough to know a person well enough to judge them by their character can be difficult so I propose we start by judging them by their conduct which is more observable.
But that would mean someone or entity would have to establish definitions of acceptable conduct and that, again, would offend because there are some who might suggest the Ten Commandments makes a good start and that, of course, discriminates against those who do not believe in God or have their own God so that would not be 'fair.'
Obviously, the 'fairest' way to resolve the issue of describing what is acceptable conduct is to allow the government to do so because we know the government is efficient and imminently 'fair.'
Just ask those persecuted by Obama's IRS or veterans who fought for our freedom , were subsequently wounded or emotionally impacted and became jerked around victims of those who were hired to serve their physical and mental needs.
I could go on and on in pursuit of defining what is 'fair' and 'acceptable' conduct but I presume you get the point how difficult it is , possibly impossible, unless we embrace the government philosophy that one size fits all which raises another question.
Why do PC'ers want to ignore differences between the sexes? I believe the reason is once we are all viewed as the same then it is easier to define 'fair' laws which placate.
Living in a society where there are no differences might be dull but at least think how 'fair' dullness would become over time.
Furthermore, once we dumb down everyone to the lowest common denominator no one should feel inferior or be in the position of having their low self-esteem challenged.
Now that would be the penultimate achievement called 'fairness.'
In two other cases, Obama decided Netanyahu is his enemy and Iran's Ayatollah is his friend.
Reality suggests Netanyahu will not cave to Palestinian demands and therefore there is little hope there will be a two state solution until: a)Abbas comes to the table to negotiate same, b) agrees to recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish State and c) will not allow terrorists to occupy the area he ultimately governs. Only then will Netanyahu, and for that matter any Israel Prime Minister, subject themselves to considering a two state solution.
Obama plays poker by giving everything the adversary wants first then hoping it will produce results sought through negotiation.
Meanwhile, the second event produced by Obama's government is new fracking rules regarding drilling on federal lands which will drive up costs, keep us dependent upon foreign energy sources and weaken our energy sector.
When people are interviewed they never suggest Obama's decisions are purposeful and intended to weaken our nation's competitive position . They always answer by asserting Obama does not understand the impact of his decisions.
Even though I thought Obama was unqualified from the git go, I was willing to give him some slack but I have come to a more cynical belief Obama knows exactly what he is doing and wants to weaken our nation.
He views America through the lens of a Muslim mentality shaped by radical associations and Obama meant what he told us when he said he was out to transform America.
What he did not say was transform us in ways that disregarded the dictates of our Constitution and in ways we would reject and/or even recognized.
===
Have those who fear a rising China become totally neurotic? (See 1 below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1)
The U.S. currently has its plate full due to a volatile Middle East — from a nuclear Iran, to the Israel-Palestine conflict, to never-ending attacks from the Islamic State.
But, because of these factors, is China a real, external — even intertwined threat — that’s flying quietly below our government’s foreign policy radar?
A new three-part video series entitled “Made In China” makes the case that we should be paying closer attention. Featuring PJTV's Scott Ott and hosted by Bill Whittle, esteemed foreign policy panelists have joined this series to show why we’re concerned.
Will China Attack Us?
James Carafano, of the Heritage Foundation and The Ayn Rand Institute’s 700, joins Yaron Brook and Bill Whittle to consider the capabilities of the country as an economic and military superpower —from the industries now there to possible armed conflicts that may arise in the future.
And adding to this first conversation is Gordon Chang, “The Coming Collapse Of China,” who notes that “China has the most fearsome cyber warriors on the planet
Go to PJTV.com and watch the video!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment