TRANSFORMED ---GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT??

He said from the beginning he would transform this country,  and the people were not exactly sure what that meant, but they liked the sound of it---moreover, they blindly trusted him, this new, young, fresh, multi-racial, intellectual, articulate, and oh so cool, likable man who  knew how to use a cell phone and channel political data like a wizard. Obama killed it in the polls, drove Hillary from the presidential race, vanquished the very polished and experienced Romney, and finally we crowned him the new prince of power and keeper of all we hold dear in this country---our freedoms, our security, our place in the world.  The electorate appointed this man, of whom we knew so little, to lead honorably and to transform what he might for the better,  --after all, there is always room for improvement. There were questions, even mystery, and uncertainties, but we were sure that we were protected from an invasion of  over correction, too much change, or power grabs by our carefully designed government structure. We were wrong.

President Obama has shown us again and again that he meant what he said about transforming this
country, and if he could not accomplish that with congressional approval, he would find other ways, and he has.  Last week he announced that he would implement his own immigration plan to grant a form of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants presently living in this country. He has taken executive decision making to an elevated level and given new  meaning to executive privilege. In challenging those who did not like what he was doing,  he said "Pass a bill"---which evidently means, pass a bill that he completely agrees with, because it isn't that the Republicans haven't presented their ideas on the subject---they have, many of them, and he knows it.  Easier to call them obstructionists,   as either he didn't like what they proposed, or Harry Reid didn't bother to present them. In the meantime,  he has proposed a law that will allow 4-5 million illegal immigrants to remain here for an extended time. They will  be allowed to work and reap other benefits, including Medicare and Social Security.  It is calculated that this new law will cost approximately 2 trillion dollars, which of course will be passed on to the American tax payer, in addition to the loss of jobs they will suffer as a result.  But the real damage  is the dangerous precedent it is setting for a country whose very foundation and core reason for being depends on checks and balance--hammered out, by group agreement, no matter how fraught with difficulty and animosity.

It was an in your face move, calculated, bold, and especially outrageous because of the numerous
times Obama, himself, had said he could not, would not do such a thing, as it would be
against the constitution and "not the way we do things in the United States."  Yet, he will do it with
the stroke of his pen. It would have been nice if Obama had bothered to explain his change of heart and explained how it is appropriate and legal now, but  was not back when he was trying to persuade the voters how constitutionally respectful he was. Instead, he simply announced that what he was doing was perfectly legal ---we'll leave that for the lawyers and courts to decide, and they will, as law suits are being considered along with other measures of stopping this latest action, sans congress. It's another hot mess, and  will do nothing to stop the grid lock that plagues this administration.

It isn't so much what Obama is proposing, but how he does it that leaves one reeling at the audacity of it all--- that he has crossed a line, trespassed against our intrinsic sense of propriety, and is moving too fast for comfort. It is true he has used his executive powers to make law fewer times that any other modern day president, but none have acted as expansively, aggressively, and on such important matters as the national Healthcare Act,  energy, and now immigration. Both affect the entire country in monumental ways, and it has been shocking to observe how little we have been able to say about either--and how one man has been capable of changing so much.

The cavalier use of our laws and legislative process, by detour and deviousness, may seem justified, even heroic to some, but in fact, it is perhaps great cause for alarm---because when one man or one party cannot work with the congress, it should not be said that the system isn't working. Indeed,  it is working---gridlock occurs precisely because there is a glitch, a red light flashing caution, even to halt what is happening, ---because further thought and care are needed, as opposed to charging full speed ahead.  To do that on issues which beg majority support should not be done via an absolute decree by one man, which in the end is worse than gridlock, because it disrespects and disenfranchises congress---that's us, and our skin in the game.  It is tantamount to surrendering the pillars of our system, and it will affect all of us--- Democrats, Republicans,  and future presidents, because what goes around comes around. We will  no longer be who we were. We will be vulnerable to the  power and whims of both noble or unwise men,----and an occasional rogue.

 Got a problem with that? Eat dirt. Obama didn't say it in those words, but he may as well have, with his kingly attitude. What a guy. And what a country. A country whose transformation on so many levels occurred so stealthily and quickly that we hardly had, or took time  to notice.  We're noticing now---the last election spoke loud and clear---Yessir, we have a problem! Do you care?

Our only alternative, the Republican party does ---but do they have the spine and wisdom to stand up against what is proving to be an intractable, powerful wave of extreme left wing political and media manipulation---persuade most of the people most of the time, until sheer voter numbers win, and transformation is complete.   But not so fast--America is nothing, if not capable of re-inventing itself again and again. Usually by a democratic process---

The victors in the last election, must now try to effect change again, to right the ship without taking on too much water. They are being cleverly cautioned by the Dems, and even some of their own, not to come across as  shrill, or agents of "payback"---to resist shouting "No!" too loudly, or behave vigorously against their defeated congressional enemies or their wishes.  That would be politically incorrect---uh, wait.  Stop! Is anybody listening? The people spoke, and they are not happy with the status quo. Do their voices no longer count?

Memo to the Republican Party : Either put up or shut up. Show us what you've got---
yes, send Obama a bill, lots of them, on immigration, improvements to the healthcare debacle, the Canadian pipe line, the war on terror, etc., and let the record show it---but word on the street is that  you will make nice, and appear magnanimous  by finding areas of narrow, insignificant areas of agreement, sign off on budgets out of control, then sit down like petulant boys and girls, all of which  is to once again cave to the power and trickery of politics, to the fear of being unpopular,  and in so doing, bow to those who snicker on the sidelines at the the Republican's naivete---and are already planning their next executive move.  C'mon guys---go big or go home!

If we are to resist becoming a country we no longer recognize, the Republican Party must stand firm or fade into history as a relic of the past, and the days of balanced government;  because once begun, like an imploding building, the power of dismantling is hard to stop---and the walls keep tumbling down.  No-o-o- problem---never liked all that election stuff anyway. Can we have a Queen at least? I know one who's looking for the job----

TATTLING ON THE PRESIDENT --- OR "WORTHY FIGHTS", BY LEON PANETTA

When a president's own up close and personal administrative teammates begin to turn away, it's very lonely at the top. But timing is everything---and tattling on a president can only be of true service, if done at the right time. The tell all later authors are coming out of the woodwork. First we had a book by Mr. Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary, then Hillary Clinton stepped up with her contribution to let us know she was her own person,  fit to be the next president of the United States. Now enter Leon Panetta, former director of the CIA, and as Secretary of Defense, was Obama's chief advisor and one of few insiders allowed inside the president's circle. The man is likable, avuncular, almost unctuous when he speaks of others and their accomplishments--one can immediately see how he lasted so long in the world of politics---never burn your bridges, always put a positive spin on things related to your party, ---and never criticize too harshly.  But he just  did, with this new book, "Worthy Fights". It was a soft bombshell, an eye opener, and a stunning betrayal of confidence at the highest level of political partnerships. Why, and why now?

Mr. Panetta alleges in his book that  President Obama while good at listening to others' sage opinions, rarely heeds their advice, and that he is lacking in proactive leadership, governing only by crisis--- reacting slowly, rather than heading off problems before they grow too big to manage. He seems at a loss to explain the president's failure to lead, to overcome the rough give and take of Washington politics, saying that he thinks Obama gave up somewhere along the way out of frustration and anger.  His most damning charge is that Obama refused to take action in the earlier stages of the Syrian uprising, allowing red lines to be crossed, exhibiting a passive attitude, which in turn emboldened further terrorist aggression---all the while  knowing full well that this was the next hot bed for terrorism. Doing  so, wrote Panetta, was puzzling , a show of leadership paralysis,  and set the stage for the present and worsening situation with ISIS, with which we are now embroiled.

It is a serious charge and one that will erode even further Obama's credibility, which is at an all time low, and rivaling that of some of most unpopular presidents. In addition to the previous charge, Mr. Panetta also criticizes Obama's decision not to leave adequate US troop behind in Iraq.  He alleges that Obama was advised by himself, then Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton,  the military, and others to negotiate whatever terms it took to keep strong presence in Iraq so that we could guarantee stability and not waste the years and treasure we spent there.  Game over on that one---we lost.

There are other serious revelations in Leon Panetta's book, not the least of which are details
regarding the Benghazi attack and the ensuing false statements made by the White House to the public.  But in listening to several of Panetta's interviews, in which he discusses his book, one
gets the sense that while he questions many of Obama's decisions or lack thereof, he wishes to
maintain a public stance of respect and even a belief in the president's good intentions, intelligence,
and competence. When asked why he didn't wait until Obama was out of office to write this semi/ scathing book, Mr. Panetta responds that it was precisely because he believes in the president's ability to change, that he will rise to the occasion and our tumultuous times, and even perhaps that the book will somehow give this beleagured president impetus and reason to do so.  Seriously? That is highly unlikely, given Obama's politically driven record, and his penchant for digging his heels in.  Why would he listen now, at this late date, to Leon Panetta or others? That would require extreme humility, incredible bipartisanship, and a Damascus like epiphany. On the other hand, other presidents have done it,  most notably,  Lyndon Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton, when it became clear that they were moving against the tide of events ,negative repercussions of their previous decisions, and the general tone of the country. They changed course, and shifted more to the middle, even risking the wrath of their own party base. They listened not to their politically motivated opinions, but did what they thought was the right thing.

But don't hold your breath, Mr. Panetta--- and you might want to make sure your taxes are in order. Because while Mr. Obama seems ever so careful not to offend or attack those who oppose us abroad, his administration has no trouble going after those who disagree with him here at home via the IRS., or public chastisement, via his powerful podium. Recently the man who wrote and produced  two  films which were highly critical of Obama,"2016" and more recently, "America", Dinesh D'Souza was found guilty of wrongful use of campaign contributions and sentenced to jail, and a heavy dose of public humility.  Do the words "scapegoat" or "payback' come to anybody's mind, or do we
actually believe Mr. D"Souza is one of few ever to commit this very questionable crime, and that he was just randomly singled out?

Still, one has to wonder about the nobility of a trusted presidential servant's outing of heretofore privileged information. Were his motives purely for the good of the country and the president, as he states?  If so, one has to then ask: But if that was the case, why didn't you speak up sooner, or at least quit your lofty tenure, as a sign of protest over decisions made on your watch? Glaringly obvious, after all, that books make money, especially those that take no prisoners, as this one does not---sort of.  Mr. Panetta's interviews were interesting to observe in that he seemed to want it both ways--criticize the president, but make sure everyone understands that he is still a loyal soldier, that the Republicans are still largely to blame for much of the president's unaccomplishments, and that he wishes only the best for Pres. Obama. "Worthy fights"? A very strange title for one who was in the middle of those fights, and caved, rather than to stand tall against what he felt was seriously wrong. Think of the statement your courageous action to tell it like it was may have made---you might have lost your job, but the repercussions may have changed the course of history and possibly saved a country from further crises.

What was most troubling about Leon Panetta's words during one of the interviews were those that
expressed his deep concern for the future of this country---"I am worried", he gravely said.  So are we, Mr. Panetta, so are we.  His book broke about the same time the Ebola threat enveloped the world, and eclipsed the attention he was receiving. We have not heard from him or his book since, but his words haunt---that Mr. Obama is a crisis reactive president, not a leader with ability to head off disasters before they happen. But Mr. Panetta also expressed his belief that Obama could still leave behind an admirable legacy, if he will only learn to listen and act upon advice other than that with which his political fortunes depend. We can only hope. The crises mount, and the stakes climb higher.
Enter Ebola, exit trust bolstering---

Of course, there are those who remain loyal to the president and his often mysterious ways, saying that his style is one of caution and wisdom,  that he listens ultimately to his own drum beat, and those of his most left leaning constituents--- but when the polls, the condition and phyche of the country are signaling otherwise, isn't it time to reconsider? And when your own party members who are running for re-election wish you would make yourself scarce, shouldn't you get a clue?  Because the general impression is that either you don't, or that you simply no longer care
what people think--you have a"pen and a phone". Even David Axelrod, one of the president's chief advisors and strongest supporters is publicly worried about the "optics" of Obama's management style. But doesn't he get it? Egad, it's not about "optics", Mr. Axelrod---we don't need special glasses! Even the media has begun to take theirs off--we need a confident, competent country again, based on good, solid decisions by our leaders and the feeling that we're in good hands.

Note to Mr. Gates, Hillary Clinton, and future politically connected authors who knew things were happening that didn't seem right, and remained quiet---come forward, blow the whistle, stand your ground,  and resign if necessary--- before you write a book.  That would be called guts, integrity, and true concern for the country. After the fact, makes you look suspicious, not to mention  an accessory to the results of poor judgement,  enabling a president's arrogance, and  failure to uphold your duty to the American people who count on you to tell like it like it is, not like it was.

To those who would cry "foul!" to critical books on Obama, we can only say, ---perhaps, but letting the cat of the bag, even later rather than sooner, is at least a warning to a president ---careful how you proceed. The worthiest fight of all is that which is fought above politics and ideologies---and for
history to much later conclude that you did the right thing.

 

   

Barbarians at the Gate---

We call them ISIS, or ISIL, nobody seems to know which. They are calling themselves the The State of Islam  and  have taken over large swaths of Iraq and Syria,  and they are brutally, deadly serious about becoming the Caliphate---the ruling empire of the middle east, Sharian syle. They hold no sympathy for anyone who stands in their way, including women and children, and their acts of barbarianism include torture, murder, rape, and pillage. They especially despise those of the Christian /Jewish faith, and are actively engaged in genocide, the likes of which we have not seen since the Holocaust. They are a threat to civilization as we know it, and if their power continues to spread, we are in harm's way as in no other recent time---for we are looked upon as the greatest enemy, and they have told us they are coming---ready or not. Until then, they make do with be-heading American journalists held in their captivity.

Even more chilling is the fact that their numbers are growing, and many of their recruits are coming from Europe and America---increasing the threat to our shores, as now they are able to move freely
across borders, with or without passports, undetected, and free to setting up plans and cells for future attacks.These delusional, mostly young men and women, look upon jihadism as an outlet for their frustrations, an expression of their perverted, radical Islam faith,  and a just and righteous excuse to kill.  They are mis-guided and pawns for those who will use and abuse them, but we are losing them to a wave that is sweeping across the middle east like an out of control cancer, as Obama has aptly named it. Sheer terrorism may have been more appropriate--

Well leveraged and financed by mafia like operations, extortion, violent raids, and kidnappings, driven by passions we can hardly understand, much less deal with in a typical war like fashion, they are a formidable army on a vicious roll--  which makes the movement seem even more appealing to those who would join them---young, angry idealists eager to fight for their cause in a group that appears to be winning. This is not your average small uprising, as in Libya or Egypt. This is an outgrowth of Al Queda, only much more brutal, and this time they mean business. They have vowed to hurt us again, and to" fly the black flag of Islam over the White House"----frightening, insulting words, which would have sounded ridiculous in a earlier time, but now they have our attention.  Somehow we must stop them---but how?

To date, that question remains unanswered---our commander in chief appears not only without a plan, but stymied, clueless, and weak. "We have no strategy" was his first response . That was probably, unfortunately, an honest, naked remark---but why?  We are told that he and the White House knew about Isis and their increasing strength for a year in advance, but apparently did very little.  Now we listen to a president who seems to have become reluctantly aware of an actual clear and present danger and is using more aggressive words like "we will destroy and degrade", but are followed by milder verbiage, ("manage and contain") as if to tone down his previous rhetoric, almost like he went off the teleprompter and mumbled his own more personal, pacifistic  thoughts--'damn  what they tell me to say!'  And now we are back to harsher tones , playing catch up with his own Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, and Vice Pres. Joe Biden who are clanging the alarm bells in his
face. "We will follow you to the gates of hell---", proclaimed Biden. Ya think? But way to show some backbone, Joe.  Somebody has to, and maybe he's finally decided to step up to the plate. Must be somewhat embarrassing to be the last one out of bed, as the fire spreads----but still Obama dithered and dallied.  Or is it that he was taking, as one generous news anchor reported,  a very "measured" approach?  We don't know,  and are more than a little nervous, because the incredulous be-headings continue, the threats and taunts keep coming.

President Obama is an enigma --a puzzle whose pieces don't fit, and the picture keeps changing. His televised comments seem often at odds with his actions and  slip of the tongue remarks---as though he is told by others to say one thing for prime time,; and yet can't keep the dogs of his real truth at bay. It seems to boil down to this: Either he is completely out of his depth, incapable of leading, full of indecision because the options are in conflict with his true feelings --- or he is pursuing a loftier goal, biding his time, playing some supposedly enlightened, cool game of waiting out the crisis, regardless of the immediate consequences, ---  and true to his promise, deliberately transforming this country into an America who,  in his opinion, needed to dial itself down, take a back seat to world affairs, and stop acting like the boss of everybody---in other words, stop  being exceptional, thinking we're better than everyone else. And then, you see, everyone will like us more, and we will take our new global rightful place among nations---equal, magnanimous, and with rancor or malice toward none. Good luck with that----any bully in the school yard looking for a fight or a power play knows that's an invitation to dominate and control. And it's never been easier to invade and infiltrate our
security--the gates are hardly locked.

The American people on the whole are not "hawks", but neither are we willing to stand down in the face of our own safety, not to mention the worst world threat since Hitler.  We are indeed war weary, basically broke, our military stretched to the limit, and  its budget forcefully reduced. But one thing is painfully clear---the tides of war are not receding, as previously announced by Obama. The enemy, like a snake with many heads, is relentless; they seem to be gaining ground, and we are vulnerable, as in no other recent time. We need direction, clarity of purpose, not denial nor cowering in a corner.

President Obama is scheduled to finally make a speech tonight in which he will lay out his newly
found strategy and how we will respond to ISIS/ISIL, no longer calling them the "junior varsity". Will it be boots on the ground, massive air strikes, drones, or some kind of financial penalties? An actual war to be won, or just a pushback? Terrorism that could wreak havoc here very soon, or just a
manageable group of rebels?  Listen to his words carefully---for therein may possibly lie our future---and his. It may be too late to avoid war,  for the enemy is already among us---and finally, Obama
knows it, has no choice but to fight back. But how and at what latent price?

Now is the time to be paying very close attention, to decide what we are willing to pay, how many lives to be sacrificed, whether we can successfully win a war so entangled in religious factions---and whether we can continue to trust those whose most important job is to protect and defend---- and perhaps more importantly and preceding that, to demand respect, and fear  a gate through which an enemy enters at their peril---and with required passports!  Have our leaders  failed us, are we really at mortal risk, and if so, should we not be just a little angry at how we got here??  A black flag flying over the White House? Excuse me!?  Doesn't sound like respect or fear ---or love.  Fighting words---

GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR------????

They are tired, poor, mostly children, desperate, many of them alone---and illegal. They are pouring across our borders from Central America, Mexico, and possibly elsewhere----and turning themselves into the authorities. They have heard or been told that they will not be turned away, at least not immediately---and they are right. Under federal order, they are being treated medically, and eventually bussed to various states and towns, unannounced, uninvited, and in many cases, unwelcome.  Pres. Obama has asked congress for almost four billion dollars to help  care for these children until they can be processed and supposedly returned to their homelands, which could take years, and cause multiple problems, not the least of which is how to afford and absorb this huge, unplanned flood of immigrants into our economy, culture, and society. It is predicted that by fall there will be appox. 90,000 illegal children and adults who have crossed our borders seeking asylum from  poverty, starvation, gangs, violence, and sure death if they remain in their home countries. They have been not only encouraged, but told to come here--to run here, to escape fates worse than anything they might find here, and that we will not turn them away. But what will be the financial consequences of such an overload on our economy, schools, and medical facilities; what will it do to our already ever growing and complicated immigration problem; how will it affect our own poor and needy; and last but not least,  ---is our national security being seriously jeopardized by this unprepared for distraction? Those who wish to harm us, namely terrorists anxious to plant their cells here, can now easily slip  past guards too few and too busy to notice.

It is an epic crisis without precedence. In a normal year, we get around 6,000 illegal immigrants.  In a normal year, they would try to hide from the authorities and sneak in---these, in this year are running towards the police and border control officers, begging for help.  In a normal year, it was rare to see children trying to enter illegally without adults,  ---now there are thousands, 57,000 at last count, rushing in and past the overwhelmed guards.  In a normal year, we would have sufficient shelters and holding areas until we could process  those who were caught, according to immigration laws. Now, we do not have nearly enough places to put this excess explosion of people ---and so they are being dispersed to states without warning and without adequate preparation. Churches, foster homes, military bases,  and even refugee camps,  are being used as temporary solutions until we figure out what to do with them. And what do we do? Most of them are unskilled, uneducated, and many are
sick with contagious diseases.

The humanitarian aspect is almost a given--we dare not, cannot,  turn such needy children away, many of whom are orphans, street kids with no homes. We have no choice as conscionable people.
We must help them----forget about putting them on buses and immediately returning them like unwanted packages--not going to happen. Not now, probably not ever, as many will simply disappear into the crowds, and never show up for their legal proceedings. We will do the right thing, but it may be because we have been doing the wrong thing for too long.

The enforcement of our immigration laws were too lax to begin with, our borders way too porous, and this government too unwilling to deal with the problems of internal illegal"aliens", let alone external, and surely not equipped to deal with tidal waves of so many begging for help. Yes, they
have finally offered an immigration  reform plan for those who are here, and the Republicans turned it down because it lacked what they feel is key---more and strengthened border control. The present situation would seem to  support that argument.

This is bad,  it's likely to get worse, as states and their governors rebel against the Federal government demanding an onslaught of folks they cannot afford--- and it's happening, after all, on President Obama's watch. No getting around it---this president and his policies  are failing us.  Did he not see this coming, or did he, on the other hand, know the risk of ignoring the inevitable-- he's not stupid, he had to know the price of too little enforcement of laws already on the books, too much tolerance for those breaking the laws, --- and still made choices seemingly based on political reasons and his own deep ideology? He appears even more helpless and hapless than usual, refusing to even visit the overwhelmed Texan border---either he feels he already knows how bad the situation is, and doesn't have anything further to offer, other than to ask for money to treat the symptoms, but not the problem---or he simply, incredibly, washes his hands, believing somehow it's all the Republican's fault, and let the chips fall where they may. Admittedly, it's hard to say what can be done at this point,  but some have suggested sending in the National Guard to beef up the borders, while at the same time sending a strong message that we cannot, will not accept any more illegals. Sounds reasonable, helpful, even life saving---but so far, no dice.

It appears " the chickens have come home to roost." Where have we heard that folksy adage before? Does  Jeremiah Wright, President Obama's previous pastor, ring a bell? Has his pulpit condemnation of America come true? Are we now being asked to pay for our sins, by drowning in a sea of people clamoring to get in, our gates flung wide open, our borders useless, and our once prosperous and welcoming country, hardly able to support ourselves, let alone droves of limitless immigrants?

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Yes, that is our proud heritage and our history--but not all at once, invasion style.  Immigration laws and control over who and when we allow in are there for a reason---to protect those who are here,  maintain an orderly society, and offer those who come here legally a better life, not chaos and a dream that is fading fast. This is serious stuff---we are in trouble, and perhaps not even fully aware of the repercussions and danger of gathering storms on the horizon, rolling in on the heels of this latest crisis. As we seek to help, we are taking our eyes off our very own well being and safety.

 Reverend Wright also so memorably said, "God damn America". Really, Rev? Where would you be without us? And how is it, that this is still the ultimate desired destination for the oppressed, a beacon of hope? No, sir --- God bless America. We may fall short, fumble, fight, and fail at times---but we do the right thing when the chips are down. We just need a little more leadership about now----someone to show us how to save the land of the free and the brave, without giving away the store---or have it
taken from us.

WHILE IRAQ BURNS----

Iraq is on fire with civil war, and that's just one more crisis on top of about five more brain rattling scandals and rumors of war. One wonders what's next---Armageddon? So we took a breath and attended the Colorado Republican annual fund raising dinner last weekend. Would they have any
encouraging words or helpful hints?  It was predictably predictable---open bid auction, sit down dinner, accompanied by piped in dead Sinatra crooning, all manner of thank you's  and plaques awarded----and finally the speaker, a pinch hitter for the well known among conservatives, Michael Horowitz. A well known conservative speaker and author, Mr. Bill Whittle had some tough shoes to fill, but he did that and then some----his remarks were delivered with  rapid fire
style, and his message was electrifying-- don't let the country go downhill anymore! He was young, cool, crisp, and on fire with his message---i.e., don't buy into the narrative of defeat, that America has seen its better days, we're done, and hello socialism.  No, stand up and fight against a media who has sold their souls to a president who has sold us down the river with his policies, and failed us as a leader on almost all levels. But what to do? Get involved,  care enough to speak your mind, refuse to be shut up, called a racist, or politically incorrect for criticizing the cultural tsunami of intolerance for anyone who dares to utter anything at all against Obama, or not in harmony with the current attitude of tolerance for all, except those who are deemed intolerable. Freedom of speech, except for those whose speech does not meet the approval of the administration or the culture ---off with their heads, uh-so to speak. Ask  the NFL's Washington Red Skins.

The speech was a clarion call for a party who is down on their knees , suffering from a split personality complex, and a Tea Party grass roots faction, who have the very annoying habit of speaking their minds even against the more moderate establishment core of the party---and managed to unseat the Senate minority whip, Eric Cantor last week. How dare they? Who do they think they are anyway, to go against the grain of career politicians who know the ropes, which is to go along, in order to get a long career. Sorry boys and girls, but evidently Cantor was considered too middle of the road for their taste---or maybe he was just a victim and the nearest target for  fed up Americans, who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. The Cantor ouster was a blistering blow, and a warning shot across the bow to those who think the way to go is a little more to the left to please the liberal populace that has everyone thinking that the emperor is wearing clothes, when in fact, he is buck naked and shivering with one disaster after another. But how does one break the spell, wake people up, turn this country back to the prosperous, proud, and confident place it once was?  Not going to be easy--but the Repubs could start by losing Sinatra, presenting a bolder, fresher image, speak their opinions to all who will listen, and include the Tea Party folks, possibly the only ones who have the guts to call it as they see it. They could also stop bickering over the details of who loves whom, who lives with whom, or who wishes to get an abortion--ain't nobody's business but their own.

We don't know for sure yet, but the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party that was originally named after the idea that the republic of the people, not the government, should be in control of its own destiny----is a done deal, unless it can rise from the ashes of its near demise, refuse togive into a loser attitude, and instead, get red hot with the message that their idea of how to do things is the way, the truth and the light. Yes, he actually said that religious thing, and it resonated because Republicans so need passion about now---not religious passion, but faith and enthusiasm for their core mission statement---smaller government,  lower taxes, and the free market system.  He went on to say that capitalism, though imperfect, works the best, and socialism never has, and that the best way to help the most people is to let most of the people help themselves, without a supposedly benign government and their cronies promising to fight for the good of all, while feathering their nests with their own power and the inevitable greed that goes with centralized government. They, the oligarchs of power, are not immune to unsavory traits---Obama himself said once that anyone who is against him and his party's ideals is the enemy and must be destroyed. Not a very democratic concept, but one that he has managed to quite adroitly perfect within a very short span of time---We are not the better for it----we are divided, ripe for conquering.

We have been transformed. It goes like this-- we no longer believe much in ourselves, and neither doe the rest of the world. Exceptional? No, that would mean we are special, and that's not politically correct in today's globally thinking, kumbaya wishing world.  Much better to be one of the guys, instead of a pushy leader. That's been the new normal, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker---because some actually agreed, and liked and trusted Obama---but does he really like us?? And
are we really better now, more loved, and safer than we were before Obama??
Or are we simply his stepping stones to re-invent America into his very own different, European vision, and hang the consequences?

Obama apparently thought we needed to be brought down a notch or two-- give up our role as the world's policeman---mission accomplished, as we watch in dismay as country after country seems to be coming apart at the seams. How's that "re-set" button working for us in Russia, and isn't it  so high-minded and "tough love" how we've left Iraq to fend for itself? Yes, yes--- maybe we should never have gone there in the first place, but we did, and things were going rather democratically well for them for a while---until we turned tail and left  quite prematurely, basically rendering all our military lives lost for nothing, and allowing an open door for terrorism to come roaring viciously through. Same thing happening in Syria, Libya, and Egypt---and very likely Afghanistan, as we soon make our announced exit. Zero net sum---but all part of the pattern to surrender our power, and transform ourselves into an innocuous, neutered, hands off, just another country, --- too noble, war weary, and broke to fight, not to mention emotionally and physically exhausted from our own problems here at home.
 
Time to pick up our marbles, draw up the bridges, and stay home? Sounds rather good, doesn't it---home sweet home, and who needs anything else? Except that home isn't safe from the the wrath of a relentless  terrorism which has not gone away. ISIS is the new Al Queda and it is even more vile and violent---they are deadly serious about their goal to terrorize whole countries into submission, as witnessed by the kidnapping of young Nigerian girls, and now the brutal torture and maiming of Iraqi dissidents. Their ultimate goal is complete dominance over Iraq, Iran and Syria, the enforcement of Sharian law, and their next target is Israel, then, inevitably us, because we support Israel, and are the embodiment of their version of sin. They mean business, and we're already in their cross hairs. It is just a matter of time---and still, our President fiddles, and considers, and thinks some more---he is a reluctant warrior, slow to condemn terrorists, and an indecisive peacemaker.  And so, he does very little, and hopes that things will resolve themselves---as countries burn, people die, democracies fall to the brutality of religious fanatics, and the fires advance ever closer to our shores.

This week President Obama curiously released 12 more Guantanamo prisoners heretofore connected to terrorism.  This follows the very confusing and unsettling trade of 5 known terrorists for one American soldier who apparently deserted his base and his troops 5 years ago in Afghanistan.  Details to follow, but for now, one has to wonder---what is going on? Who is running the store, and isn't it time we start demanding more answers? In addition, we closed down the American embassy in Iraq, and all Americans are being asked to leave. A suicide bomber killed at least 15 people in Nigeria.  The tide of war is not receding, as Obama has previously announced---on the contrary, the perfect storm may be brewing.

Things are not going well---and like the man said, it may very well be high time we push back---before it's way too late.  Does that mean we want war, more lives lost to
a country that can't seem to help itself? Absolutely not. No more. We've lost enough, paid enough. helped enough. But it does mean serious accountability for an administration whose lack of  leadership may very well have weakened us to a point of vulnerability and last ditch defensive, survival actions. And, sadly, it may mean to prepare for things to get much worse, as the Middle East falls into anti-American hands, and the possibility of a caliphate, a united terrorist ruled Middle East, emerges as the face of an enemy we will have no choice but to fight for our lives and our way of life.

Speak up America---now is not the time to be docile as lambs, properly politically private, and silent as death.  It is time to take our country back from the brink of despair---if you're a Conservative, "man up", speak out, join forces.  If you're a Liberal---think about it. These are not good times. This is no time for petty politics, but for serious introspection and heartfelt debate---as Iraq burns, so too, do the embers of trouble simmer here at home.  We are not Iraq, but we are a country in harm's way, with deep problems of our own, enough to sink a ship.  Isn't it time we begin to pull together, or will we keep fiddling and fighting among ourselves until there is little left to fight for?

One of the things Mr. Whittle, the Republican speaker, said hit home hard----it went something like this:  Don't let one inexperienced man, or one politically driven party decide the fate of us all, as has occurred in other countries, to dramatically change the very foundations of our" house ", our economy, our history, the values by which we live, and our own sense of who we are--there are at least close to one half of us who are more than a little concerned that this is happening before our eyes---because we were too intimidated, timid, and disbelieving to stop it. Words to ponder---as Iraq burns, and we choose to either take wary notice or ignore both the smoke and our own growing fires.
 






   

WHO DO YOU TRUST???

Trust---such an over used word, still a sentiment frequent in our vernacular, and treasured as an honorable trait, but today almost considered naive, rather victorian perhaps, about as reliable as a weak handshake --- and most especially in our political/ politically correct world.

"Trust me "is often uttered as a joke now, a wink, and an invitation to doubt. Conversely,"Trust no one" may sound too cynical, but we're getting there fast. Donald Sterling, soon  to be the X owner of the L.A. Clippers, could appropriately and shamefully have that engraved on his tombstone. "Poor" man had the naiveté to trust not only his girl friend, but his private phone, and can you believe it, his own recording device--- In so doing, he exposed his core character and utter lack of respect for others, even those from whom he financially profited. Good riddance? Perhaps, but the fact remains that we are quickly becoming a nation of speech, if not thought, police. Political correctness has changed from a polite way to express ourselves, into a closely guarded, well edited, and obligatory manner of communicating---under threat of reputation and career loss---not to mention the possibility of the IRS suddenly taking an interest in your affairs.That actually happened to some, particularly political donors, who were associated with or supported the Tea Party and other conservative organizations, which precipitated the now famous  IRS scandal.

There are few secrets anymore---and maybe that's a good thing in terms of cleansing our public words of bias and outright prejudice, but the erosion of privacy and the freedom to speak our minds,  support causes we believe in, may be a steep price to pay in the long run, as all of us increasingly speak only that which is in harmony with the current trends and party lines---and trust no one, not even our leaders, the supposed bulwarks against the loss of our liberties, to know our true thoughts.

It's hard to trust a president who promised the most transparent administration ever, but who time and again has evaded, passed the buck, and disappointed us with his failure to deliver clarity and answers (Benghazi), refused to enforce accountability, (IRS scandal), and has even misled and misrepresented---"If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance----". As if only he speaks the truth, he counsels us to dismiss and disbelieve anyone or who oppose him---i.e., Republicans, especially the Tea Party, Fox news, even the Supreme court. Note that none of the Supreme justices  have appeared at the State of the Union addresses since  they were publicly reprimanded in front of the congress by Obama for their vote on Citizens United. Note also that Harry Reid has successfully shut down any possible resistance to future nominations by Obama, by enacting a law against filibustering. And while you're at it, know that as this blog is going to press, there is a special committee once again going after the truth of what happened with the Benghazi attack---why a special committee? And why now, again?  Because  the White House stonewalled and misled congress on this issue, and because a memo has now surfaced which proves the hiding of truth was deliberate. Not important? Only if you trust the government to do the right thing----

We could forgive an occasional betrayal of our trust, nobody's perfect, and there is such a thing as classified security secrets---  but it would seem that presidents of the United States are supposed to encourage trust in the honorability of our system, not strict loyalty to their own agendas. Further they are expected to be honest, above deceit, and divisiveness. Obama's polls show a public who no longer sees those qualities--- but rather that it's all  about politics and power, with no regard for laws already on the books to prevent  abuse. There is a constant pattern here, and it reeks of political pay offs, paybacks, manipulation,  election engineering----and perhaps even complicity and coercion between our government and other power brokers who seek to work against the constitution and continued existence of this country as exceptional, strong, and leader of the free world. The disingenuousness is painfully clear, but the inference that somehow we're so easily duped is insulting and frightening. We're beginning to get that we're being played to the tune of total conformity ---and worse, not allowed to complain about it. To do so is to be called a racist, unpatriotic, obstructive, mean spirited,  a denier, a hater, etc., etc.

The muffling of free speech does not conquer a free society with a gag order, but with a slow chipping away, a marginalization of those who dare to speak their minds, a media who is more biased than objective, and a public who doesn't see the muzzle coming until it's safely in place over their mouths and their lives. Some of this is happening now, as we see people who lose their jobs or never get hired because of their personal beliefs--- agree with them or not, they are victims of the current policing of acceptable speech. And no one is safe from the same fate, as the whims and opinions of public favor blow this way and that. Not important? Not unless you're sure you will always be on the
"right"side of the issue. Even President Obama wasn't, until recently, when he declared he had "evolved"regarding gay marriage---just in the nick of time for re-election.

A few examples of freedom of speech turned inside out----not too long ago, the Wall Street Journal printed an article written by Adam Weinstein, a global warming advocate, who had the outrageous temerity to suggest that "deniers" of global warming should be arrested! Not as stunning, but almost as aggressive, the U.S. government is on record for trying to remove right wing talk shows, under an old law called "The Fairness Act", supposedly created to make sure we hear a "proper balance" of opinions on the airwaves---wonder if they've thought of using the same standards on TV, the movies, and our newspapers. Interesting sidelight is that several left wing shows have attempted to attract radio audiences, but failed miserably--the market place at work, which is one measure of fairness, and could be part of the reason so many newspapers and TV shows are failing as well.  And in a stark display of academic freedom gone rogue, several well known and highly respected American universities and colleges, previously known as bastions of independent thinking, have recently dis-invited speakers from their graduation ceremonies, because the speakers' views differed from those of the students (and those who have supposedly taught them to be independent and knowledge seeking thinkers?)

Society has always naturally influenced the way we air our opinions, but the ramifications are getting beyond the concept of a free and open society. The first amendment is under attack, and unless we recognize it for what it is, the first nail in the coffin of tyranny, we risk losing everything---even our right to be ignorant and wrong. Because with that right comes the freedom to speak out against those who would seek to quiet any and all who would differ,
or threaten their cause. Bias, prejudice, and hatred of those who are different, may be ugly and undesirable in an enlightened society, ---but so is the  complete outcasting and intolerance of those whose hearts will not be changed by laws and punishment.

Who to trust in the government?? I asked that question recently at a small gathering of mixed political stripes and ideologies----the answer came back unanimously: Ourselves, our better, fair, more aware selves, we the people, the government of us.  Where to find the truth? It is to be found by educating ourselves, by reading and listening to both sides of the issues, studying history, by seeking balance, and constitutional guidance, and by electing representatives who will stay true to our basic values and their promises. Shorter term limits might help them to do this---and a public who will no longer tolerate suppression of free speech and other rights, done in the name of political correctness. Calling your congressman/woman to let them know you are here and watching them, and not being afraid to speak your views in a civil, respectful and calm manner. It is our precious right, and our duty to help steer the dialogue, and to prevent only the loudest voices to prevail.

It never fails to amaze how intolerant some who passionately preach tolerance can be. Beware of those who tell you how or what to think, who negatively label others with opposing views, and who proclaim they want only what's best for everybody, at the expense of a few. Police states start with a kind of disguised intolerance, setting themselves up as caring protectors and arbitrators of right and wrong, and then slowly, emerge as administers of punishment---and finally, comes the hammer--- censorship, silence, and complete acquiescence to social trends, and far worse,--- the state. Then, we no longer have to trust---simply obey.


















 

THE UKRAINIAN PROBLEM AND US

Overshadowed by the Malaysian airline disaster,  other world events were continuing to escalate and threaten a peaceful future--maybe even world war 3.  While we were riveted to the search for that airplane, Mr. Putin was stealthily, but assuredly moving towards overtaking Crimea , the little
peninsula off the Ukraine. Despite threat of economic sanctions by Obama and others in the European community, he has now done exactly that, flexing his muscular might and sticking his finger in the face of those who claim he has broken international law. This is true.  In 1994, Crimea and the Ukraine, were promised protection against losing their sovereign status, by the United States, Nato, and the U.N. if they discontinued their nuclear weapons program.  But Mr. Putin apparently doesn't see it that way---that was then, this is now, and he plays by different rules-----or none at all. This man comes from a whole different ideology, a pre-Prestroika, cold war Russia.  Rules? Whose rules? He learned his from the KGB; and proud overseer of the Olympic games, nice suit and smile aside, who says he's changed?

So how does all of this affect us way over here?  Depends on how you look at the ever changing global picture puzzle. Here's one way:  Russia has lots of oil, which runs through Ukraine and that they export to service much of Europe.  They are also the largest country in the world, connected geographically with Europe, yet allied with Iran and other unfriendly nations,  capable of nuclear war,  and therefore one of our biggest geo-political threats. Sound familiar? Mitt Romney spoke similar words to President Obama, during one of the last presidential debates--and was roundly mocked by Obama for thinking in such" old fashioned, cold war" terms.  Funny how mockery can become irony, and can catch up with those who speak so cavalierly from their own untested perspective.

But Obama holds to his belief that we ought not be operating with cold war thinking and seek first to negotiate, carry a soft stick,  and then move only if we have the support of our allies. He even sent Hillary Clinton to Russia shortly after taking office with a cute little box and re-set button to show our new, more loving attitude.  Putin smiled and accepted this quaint gift, but one can only imagine what he was thinking---push button diplomacy, or pushover president?

Obama, glacially slow to respond, has finally punished with economic penalties to a few key financial officials in Russia, and threatens more sanctions if Putin continued his march into the Ukraine, which he has, sending 40,000 troops.  He has also suspended Russia from the G-8 summit of world leaders.  It is doubtful that Putin will be very intimidated by these small measures, and even more doubtful that Obama will do much more.  It is too little, too late, for negotiation, and Putin will do whatever he wishes, quite unbothered and probably emboldened by what we do---or rather don't do.

Having said all that, there is the other side of the argument that goes thus: Putin has the right to do whatever he wishes with Crimea and the Ukraine---all originally part of Russia, and who are we to boss him around? Bossiness is exactly not what Obama wants to project on the international stage. After all,  Putin is the President of Russia, everybody breaks rules, and we don't want to make him too angry---best to keep your potential enemies close.  Problem with that enlightened  thinking is that Putin and his power grabs pose an economic and security threat not only to Europe, but us as well, intertwined as we all are in today's shrinking world.

It has been said by some and most defensively by Putin, that he is merely trying to strengthen the mother country, or "nationalize" everybody into a united mind set, and his recent speech to the EU in Brussels would reflect those feelings. Taking this concept further,  it is well known that nationalism can lead to ethnic nationalism, also reflected in Putin's speech,  referring affectionately to ethnic Russians as "Russkiis", setting them apart from the more generic, all inclusive term, " Russians". Stating the historical obvious, this can then lead to dangerous and twisted incentives for atrocities committed in the name of preserving a country's strength and superiority--and reminiscent of Germany and Hitler. Is that what Putin is thinking, or have we vilified him for our own purposes, misconstruing patriotism for power grabbing?

Enlightened thinking aside, and looking at the evidence, Putin is an outlier, a rogue among other major world leaders ---he does not play well with others, and we should not expect differently, or design our approach to him as though he will suddenly change and respond to our way of thinking. And some would ask, why should he? It is Obama's burden to respond to that question---and ours to ponder. Nobody is advising or wishing for military involvement but if it's true that all international power vacuums attract other hungry powers, then dare we dismiss this current move by Putin, as political posturing, and none of our business?  Perhaps, unless we consider it our business to survive, thrive, and remain the most powerful nation among nations. Too greedy? Ask the residents of  the Ukraine--too late for Crimea.

But what is President Obama to do now? It appears there is very little he can do to scare Putin---the train has left the station, and Crimea is a done deal. Putin has moved his troops along the border of Ukraine, as if to say, "We're here, and  we're in charge now." But wait---what a difference a day makes! As this blog goes to print, it looks like Putin may have blinked---yesterday, in a phone call to Obama, he said he was pulling 1% of his troops out of Ukraine.  That's not much, yet it's something---but hold on.  If this situation were a chess game, you'd be wondering if we were winning or simply being set up for further aggression. As of now, there is no evidence that any troops are being removed from Ukraine.

Obama's strategy of "leading from behind" has not been viewed as successful or admirable.  We have
watched on the sidelines as Egypt, Libya, and Syria have lost their bids to become
more free and democratic. Red lines have been drawn and crossed, penalties threatened and slowly meted out, but our actions seem reluctant, weak, and too late to be very effective. History may prove differently, but if  the past is any guide, we are losing our grip and our respect as the world's leader.  Peace through power may not appeal to everyone's sensibilities, but Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran wait in the wings to take our place--- they march to a different beat, and their idea of enlightened thinking is to take us down, forget the peace part.

Ukraine and us?  Keep an eye on it---it's a vital piece of a puzzle called the new world order---or disorder. If we stand down on this one, Katie bar the door.  It may not be the Russians who are coming, but anybody else who observes the splintering of our once sturdy resolve to keep our promises and the peace.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE "I" WORD

Can you say "Impeachment"? I have a friend who did recently, and it cleared the room. It's almost a  taboo word, but Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann used it recently, and it's being uttered and printed more than you may realize.  Please read the last several comments on the last post of this site for a short example of the latest, mostly whispered political buzz, and sure fire way to kill any polite conversation. In spite of its presently hushed tone, this may become the most behind the scenes word of the year---but is there substantial reason or more to the point, enough evidence to support such a charge against Obama? Of course, you won't read too much of this incendiary word in the newspapers or elsewhere---the  general media obviously doesn't share all the news, in particular news that may be too--- well, incendiary. against their agenda, which is generally liberal.

But before you get too excited, one way or the other, please consider that Impeachment is only the first step in removing a president from office It is not a new concept, and has been brought up many times previously, but only formally used three times---i.e. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.  It is not uncommon, but can be a hard charge to sell, and even harder to bring to the ultimate conclusion, especially under a Democratic Senate. Both Johnson and Clinton were impeached, but acquitted and not removed from office. Richard Nixon resigned before being being removed. The House of Representatives can Impeach, but only the Senate can remove a president. So, the issue of impeachment in this case, with a Democrat Senate, is certainly never going to result in the removal of Obama---it would serve only to curb, to give notice, ---- and that is the question. Is it necessary, and would it be worth it?

Truth to tell, Americans don't much care to impeach, much less, unseat a seated president.  It is disturbing, disruptive to the nation, and in some ways an indictment against the judgment of the very people who put the president in office initially, the majority of the American people. Even Bill Clinton, who was accused of shockingly unsavory, unethical acts while in office, was Impeached, but managed to stay in office. The people deemed him, though perhaps not ethical or moral,  still fit to run a country with good intent. We give our presidents the benefit of the doubt, because basically we want to believe that they mean well, have our best interests at heart, are human---and we don't like to admit we may have made a major mistake in electing them.  But still, the option is there for a reason---to stop an out of control president before he damages the office or the country any further.

So, does Obama need stopping?? And do his actions rise to the level of impeachment? If you don't think so, you should at least know that there are others beside Ms. Bachmann who do, including some members of the Senate and the House. In fact, Obama's reign of president has been so fraught with outcries of wrong doing, including unconstitutionality, illegal acts, and even tyranny that one wonders why those making the charges haven't taken the next step. His over reach of executive power is stunning, to name just a few: Federal appointments without congressional approval based on his incorrect definition and abuse of congressional "recess"; his discriminate, illegal healthcare changes and exemptions  to favor certain of his constituents,  and his refusal to enforce immigration laws already on the books. "I've got a  pen and I've got a phone", he said in a recent speech, as to how he would go about legislating in the future. Dictatorial, determined, and an in your face belligerent denial of his executive limits, Obama dazzles and boggles in an odd way that is paradoxical to his failure to do so on the international stage, where we could use a little bluster and bravado. There is no "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Instead, he seems overly ingratiating and reluctant to use his power abroad, bending over backwards to appease and apologize.  But at home he is outrageously disdainful of procedural, balanced government , and even bullying at times.  His divisive speeches as he rails against economic inequality run counter to his run up of our national debt by six trillion dollars, the slowest recession recovery since the depression, a staggering 35 percent of people unemployed, and more people on food stamps than ever before.  His policies have not worked, but he relies heavily on his loyal base and a faith that his oratorical skills will lull the people into acceptance and resignation, no matter what his failings----but what of those in congress whose job is to recognize, curb, and halt such abuses?

Could it be that the price of Impeachment is not, in the opinion of those in power, worth the chaos and damage to the psyche of the country? Or is it that congress itself is too invested in their careers to upset the apple cart of behind- the- scenes political machinations? Are there too many secrets, webs, and lies that would have to be uncovered to get to the bottom of such things as the Ben Ghazi attack, the Syrian crisis, the Fast and Furious Mexican gun trading fiasco, not to mention the incredible IRS scandal. We have gone through the motions of investigations on all these issues, yet nothing seems to result---nobody is blamed, demoted, or fired. But where is the outrage of people like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell---and even we dare say, a few Democrats who must cringe as they are forced to salute and acquiesce to among other things, a health care law that was predicated on a lie and so far isn't working well, and finally, a president who keeps insisting he knew nothing about anything, refusing to take any responsibility, or enforce any accountability .

 But ultimately, Impeachment is weighed in the court of public opinion, and that has everything to do with one's political persuasion. Is Obama an out of control president, abusing his executive power , inflicting untold damage to a country founded in desperate opposition to heavy handed government?  Or is he simply acting out his duties and goals as he perceives them to be? A man who was elected by a majority of the electorate, who believes he knows best, and is working the only way he knows how against a House of Representatives hell bent to defeat him, and whose ends and goals justify the means? I believe Obama's intentions are good, in that he believes in his cause----but  blatant disregard of our laws is troubling, and it begs examination. Are we up to it, or are we too afraid to speak up?  And what will be the price of silence?

It is an interesting question, and one which can break up civil conversations faster than those of racial
or religious content. But it is one which should invite and allow for debate, even among polite, tolerant conversation, because both sides deserve to be heard, not shut up or made to feel inappropriate. Our future, and how we wish to proceed is at stake. Impeachment now is perhaps  a matter of opinion, and perhaps an exercise in futility---but involvement,  awareness, and discussion among ourselves may be the only thing standing between us and a government who can make and break laws as they see fit---including the right to free speech. Don't think that could happen? Can you say IRS scandal? Ask the supporters of the targeted Tea Party, who suddenly were afraid to donate for fear of recrimination. Rights don't disappear suddenly. They slowly fade away in rooms of people too afraid  to discuss their thoughts, whether it be a congressional hearing or social gathering--- too politically correct and duty bound to superiors to be anything but polite and evasive, even as they see and sense something is terribly wrong.

 Our founders meant for Impeachment to be used sparingly and very carefully---because they knew how politically dangerous the abuse of it could be. The Impeachable offenses have to be almost completely devoid of partisanship, rise above idealogical disagreement, and must meet the criteria of very serious harm to a nation.  Do we have that going on now? That still may depend on your political bent, and how you perceive right from wrong ----for now we remain a country extremely forgiving and tolerant of even our worst leaders. Like a marriage, we promised to love, honor, and obey for better or for worse--- may our trust not be betrayed, and may the President uphold his end of the bargain.

One last personal, may surprise you, thought---similar to a marriage in trouble, one looks at what could have been different---Barack Obama, the first black man ever to be elected to the presidency of the United States, could have grasped the opportunity to be a great and magnificent president of all the people----he had the tools and capacity to bring us all together, to see both sides, and to champion changes in a manner that would  have made us stronger, smarter, and a more enlightened country. His diverse background, mixed race, intelligence, ability to connect, and even his world view to a point, could have been used to mix and blend with our more parochial views in a less threatening, dominating way. He could have been the Ronald Reagan or Jack Kennedy of our time. Instead, he chose to be more a politician, and a kind of rogue president, rather than a true leader----it has not turned out well for him, or for us.  How sad---and how very, very disappointing.