↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → political

See-Saw Reactions Indicate Something is Up

When a political party or a movement politicizes every single thing its opponents do, in the hopes of turning every action taken into a negative, you’ve already got a problem.

It is a problem because nothing positive is being sold. It’s just hate and anger and fake outrage piled on top of more and more hate.

Trying to demonize people has many downsides. It is emotionally unsustainable. And it is politically unsustainable. Just ask Adolf Hitler and his Nazi socialists, who perfected the heaping of hate upon their opponents.

Hitler and the Nazis reaped a whirlwind of backlash.

And the credibility gap grows, because the daily bobbing and weaving in search of an opening leads the accuser to become the blesser and vice versa. It looks nutty because it is nutty.

So we have Obama jetting around the planet to sell his carbon control message. The huge SUV convoys taking Obama from place to place aren’t low on carbon emissions, either.

His TV interviewer asks him why he is against eating meat because he has cooked “thousands of steaks” for Obama. Obama admits he sure likes steak.

In other words, don’t do as I do, do as I say.

Obama’s credibility may remain high with a small group of highly partisan hard leftists, but the rest of us shake our heads at his naked hypocrisy.

This Comey firing business is even worse, if it can be imagined.

For months and months, one American political party was demanding that Comey be fired. They blamed him for the loss of their candidate.

Then he gets fired by the president yesterday, and within an hour the same exact people who hated Comey and demanded his firing are now hating the president for firing him and are saying it is a political act.

This irrational hate isn’t just hypocritical. It is self-damaging, because normal people see it as nearly schizophrenic.

Someone quipped last week that Democrats are now so confused, if Trump came out for gun control, the Democrats would be “outraged” and immediately be against gun control.

Somewhere this acting and fake outrage works on people who are not independent thinkers. I understand that. Enough people anywhere simply follow the lead of someone, anyone, to make a real movement. Might only be five or ten percent of a society, but it is usually enough to raise hell. And that is what is happening here.

Folks, if you are reading this, I hope it is to expand your own thinking and not just to try to find fault. One of the huge challenges the left faces is the constant hatred expressed for people who simply disagree on policy. For decades the Left has been calling opponents haters, bigots, racists, xenophobes, sexists, etc., with no substance to back it up.  Just toxic hate.

What our nation loses when these illogical, erratic see-saw reactions and wild hateful accusations lose their sting isn’t just a diminished political party on the left, but the real issues suffer.  That is because the political mix and debate is reduced and the normal people somewhere in the middle back away, disgusted by the antics.

Don’t be a hater. Be a thinker. For a long time liberals were open minded, thoughtful, reflective, and analytical. That great tradition is gone. And that is sad, because all Americans are impoverished as a result.

Obama the Domestic Spy Part 3

You know what all this “Russia hacked the election for Trump” noise was all about?

It was a distraction to draw attention away from the fact that Obama had an aggressive and totally illegal domestic spying program against his political opponents.

Including and especially Donald Trump, who threatened everything Obama had done to America over eight years.

The illegally gathered and illegally “leaked” Flynn transcript, the leaked transcripts of Trump talking with the leaders of Mexico and Australia. These are wiretapping results from people controlling the levers of government power. They are the remnants of Obama’s administration, dug down deep in the DC bureaucratic morass, dishing out their best efforts to undermine and damage Trump by whatever means they can.

Before the leaks they were simply wiretapping Trump, when he was a candidate and after he was elected, in his home, his business, his car.

Oh sure, the Obama folks have tried to cover their tracks by saying this was all a legitimate “investigation” of Trump.

But there never was an investigation of Trump. Unlike with Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Russia, there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump.

Trump didn’t do anything wrong or illegal. His only “crime” is that he opposed the Obama machine, which illegally weaponized the federal government against its political opponents, using the IRS , the NSA, EPA, Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, etc.

Obama took this risk because the information was highly valuable for the campaign, and he bet that Clinton would win. Obama expected this whole thing would be swept under the rug and no one would ever really know after Clinton was elected.

But now that Trump is president, and the facts are coming out, Obama’s malicious persona is becoming public knowledge. He is not a nice man. He is not an honest man. Obama makes president Richard Nixon look like a puppy, a kitten, a baby monkey, whatever image of a cute, cuddly, non-threatening adorable little pet you can imagine.

That is the contrast. That is the truth. And the truth is becoming more widely known. Russia didn’t hack anything, and they didn’t make Clinton run a terrible campaign nor did Russia force people to vote a certain way. Russia is a false flag by a group of people who we now see deserve to be treated like the deposed tyrants of Europe, at the hands of a mob.

What ever will we now do with this illegal squatter in our midst, this criminal alien with his anti-democracy machinations against the American People?

Is there no one who will rid us of this meddlesome priest?

Where are all the rogue judges when they are really needed to administer true justice?

 

Judicial independence, or over-reach?

Judges do not technically have an ability to do more than rule “Yes” or “No” on an issue that is both before their court and also justiciable.

However, for decades activist judges use “broad powers” to advance a political agenda and have continuously put average Americans on defense. This means overstepping boundaries around the judicial branch, reaching deeply into the legislative and executive branches. These activist judges ignore the elementary separation of powers at the heart of the American republic, and they establish themselves as rulers by fiat over all the little people.

Because all people (literally everywhere) want to respect judges, and the justice system, as the heart and soul of democracy and quintessential justice, a culture of deference has built up around even the most active judges who legislate from the bench. That culture is at work now as several extreme judges have ruled that President Trump’s executive order on immigration must stop. The truth is that the recent immigration order is both in keeping with existing law and with the Constitutional purview of the executive branch. Judges really have nothing to say about it. Technically speaking.

But, so powerful is the draw of an independent judiciary that Americans have for a long time given up their rights, liberties, even our immediate safety to even the most obvious judicial political over-reach. Plenty of judges create “rights” where none existed before, or take rights that are expressly stated in the US and most state constitutions.  The problem with this is it is unsustainable.

Judges are not elected, and when they act as if they are, and as if they are part of the political system from which they are supposed to remain aloof, they undermine the entire system of law that delicately balances upon their shoulders.

What is now happening as more and more judges engage in out-and-out political action, is the American citizenry believes less and less in what those judges do. The citizenry is losing confidence that those judges are capable of upholding the basic tenets of America, first and foremost.

A truly independent and cautious judiciary is one that passes up most legal complaints, focusing instead on the truly important ones that cut to the heart of American representative government. America is far beyond that now, and here is what we ought to be doing about it:

First, the executive branch must ignore the rulings of imperial activist judges. Simply ignore them, because judges have no actual enforcement power. Ignoring activist holdings will strand activist judges and draw attention to their powerlessness, re-focusing attention on the real heavy weight of truly well-considered holdings. Activist judges have only themselves to blame for this.

Second, activist judges must be removed from the bench, either through elections, impeachments, or administratively. For far too long judges acting far beyond their natural limits have gotten away with murdering democracy, and it is time for Americans to reclaim their freedoms. It is time to focus our efforts on reining in judicial over-reach, so that we might have an independent judiciary worthy of our admiration, respect, and deference.

NPR’s alternative facts undermine media credibility

Seasoned NPR employee Mara Liasson asked a question at a White House press briefing the other day, and it has taken me days to accept the brazenness of her bald-faced lie.

Asking Trump Admin spokesman Sean Spicer about allegations of voter fraud, Liasson asserted that Trump had claimed the number of fraudulent votes in the November 2016 election were between three and five million.

Unfortunately, Spicer is new and did not challenge Liasson’s lie. Trump never claimed that number. He did say he believed between one and two million of the votes for Hillary Clinton were fraudulent. How Liasson arrived at five million votes is something only she knows.

But we know why she did it: Mara Liasson is personally opposed to the Trump Administration.

Unfortunately, Mara Liasson is like the other NPR employees, she is a partisan political activist. Her personal politics shapes her professional behavior. Nothing that Mara Liasson does is news reporting, as in reporting of actual facts. Her brazen creation of alternative facts in this one instance resembles her many prior years of alternative facts creation and fake news aimed at her other political enemies.

In one public moment, Mara Liasson has re-opened the worm can of fake news and alternative facts, used to attack and undermine the mainstream media’s political enemies.

And NPR fans wonder why their credibility is so low, and why there are so many loud calls to defund NPR and strip it of the publicly owned intellectual property it manages, like its trademarks and logos.

UPDATE: Fifteen minutes after writing this, I read a New York Times article published today, written by Richard Fausset, another political activist who wears the credentials of a “news reporter.”

What catches my eye right away is the following statement by Activist Fausset:

The scrambling of what’s real and what’s illusion began well before Mr. Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway offered the concept of “alternative facts” on Sunday when commenting on false statements by Mr. Trump and Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, and before Mr. Trump’s repeated false claims on Monday that millions of illegal voters cost him a popular vote majority.”
…….Without presenting data or evidence to support his own claim, Mr. Fausset simply asserts that Trump and his spokesman Sean Spicer made “false statements,” and “repeated false claims.”
……..Plenty of recent evidence from Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia show voter fraud. Hell, in November Detroit had more votes than registered voters, and in 2012 some Philadelphia voting precincts reported 100% voting for Obama, and not even one ballot cast for Romney. California issued driver’s licenses to a million illegal aliens, which can be used to cast illegal votes, and the governor of Virginia defied his own state’s laws and issued illegal voting rights to hundreds of thousands of ex-felons.
………So despite lots of up-front, easily accessible evidence to the contrary, and having done no investigation of their own, the New York Times goes right out there and calls President Trump a liar.
………You talk about alternative facts, hell, the New York Times doesn’t need no stinkin’ facts, not even alternative facts. They just simply assert the opposite of what their political opponents say and print it, hoping their zombie-like readers will not check the facts.
……..And the mainstream media wonders why Fox News, Breitbart, and other actual news sources have emerged…it is because the New York Times and its sister mainstream media organizations, like NPR, have zero credibility as honest brokers of news or accurate facts.
UPDATE: 2/1/17 Listening to the radio news over the past week, I have heard a professional CBS “reporter” state that President Trump’s assertion about vote fraud was false, and then mock Trump’s goal of having an investigation into vote fraud, and then complain that an investigation will be funded by the American taxpayer…and the mainstream media wonders why their credibility is so low. This is Exhibit Z, but who is counting….and then yesterday on our local NPR affiliate station, the “news” involved NPR hosts asking softball questions about Trump Admin policies of elected Democrats and leftist activists, with no alternative voice. This means NPR is simply a propaganda outlet for one political party. This means NPR is Fake News.

“Alt-Right”: What it is, what it is not

“Alt-Right” is one of the buzz-phrases popularized by the hard fought election, and it started with Breitbart.

Because I have been a Breitbart reader for six years, since the news site’s inception, I have closely followed the political developments spun off from its reporting.

One of those political developments has been the emergence of the “alternative right,” or “alt-right,” a loose assembly resembling the grass roots Tea Party activists who started in 2009, whose unofficial identity began to solidify and coalesce as the international “news” media, academia, and BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES openly flouted accuracy and integrity in favor of their common big government agendas.

Primarily Constitutional conservatives and libertarians, whites, Asians, and intellectually emancipated Blacks, this newly named Alt Right is nothing more than your next door neighbor – you know, the guy with a job, a backyard grill, a family dog, a pretty wife and a couple kids – getting disgusted with BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES and the establishment media, and deciding to make his own political way without their misguidance.

These are Americans who do not identify with the Right as defined by the washed out and spineless Republican Party, but who instead arrived at conservative values from alternate experiences and places. They are not “official” conservatives because of some political party affiliation, but because of their run-ins with bad government and official overreach.

Enter into it the gay guys who recognize that they are not only now accepted by general society, but they are desirable neighbors sought by normal suburban taxpayers throughout America.

No longer content to live in gay ghettoes within depressed crime-ridden Democrat-run urban hellholes, these gay men have ventured farther afield and found themselves warmly welcomed by our neighbor, the guy with the family, grill, and dog, because gay men are overwhelmingly law abiding taxpayers whose biggest crime is looking contemptuously upon their neighbors’ unraked leaves. These are pretty damned good neighbors to have, and in return, these gay men have increasingly left the old liberal political ghetto and accepted that they are safer with a strong national defense, concealed carry laws, and immigration enforcement skeptical of gay-killing Muslims newly arrived from Islamic hell-holes.

The one man most responsible for the coining and use of “Alt-Right” is Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo was one of the first politically incorrect purge victims at Twitter, whose gay CEO truly hates the openly gay Milo, because Milo is a conservative.

Typical of the Left, Twitter tried to deny Milo a platform for his unique political perspective and simply shut down his Twitter account. No reason given. No free speech rights for you, conservative gay Milo!

But Milo refused to butt out of politics and instead went head-to-head with Twitter, culminating a six-month battle with his highly effective “Dangerous Faggot Tour” (indeed it is called that, I am not making it up, go look it up). Across America, Milo the dangerous faggot was threatened, assaulted, maligned, and repeatedly denied access to university campuses as a speaker because his gay conservative message does not comply with politically correct culture.

As leftist activist Sally Kohn recently said, conservatives do not have free speech rights “because they are wrong” (again, I am not making this up, you must look this up). Milo discovered this un-American attitude on his own, and he broadcast for any and all to see just how hateful and intolerant liberals are. As a result, he became an Alt-Right hero and icon.

Because he’s on the political right, but coming at it from an alternative place than the traditional political party source, Milo, and by extension Breitbart, is Alt-Right.

What the Alt-Right is not: Racists, bigots, kooks, although the establishment mainstream media liberals would like you to think so. Then again, they are the same people who call flamboyant Milo a homophobe. Seriously.

 

PA Leadership Conference gets better and better every year

Thanks to the hard work of Lowman Henry, Dan Mosel and others, the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference was a resounding success.

Scott Davis did the straw poll (I have not been emailed the results; I voted for Cruz and Ben Carson), and despite running around on a million errands, he managed to keep a chipper air.

Chris Liliks was center stage Mister Organization, and USMC Col. Frank Ryan gave the most convincing Pledge of Allegiance ever.  Frank and I were opponents in the 2009-2010 four-way congressional race for the then-Tim Holden seat, now gerrymandered into something unrecognizable.  Frank is a great guy and it brought me a lot of pleasure to see him again and shake his hand.

Dauphin County Commissioner Jeff Haste had endless patience discussing with me the dynamics and aggravations of the establishment versus the grass roots, and although he was dead wrong on every single thing, he still kindly sat with me and provided great company (as well as thereby serving as the genesis of some great political rumors…).

Business guru Fred Anton provided opening remarks that impressed everyone at our table, as he succinctly hit on every hot political and economic issue in a Spartan speech that artfully blended politics and economy without sounding so dullingly or partisanly political.  Vote for PA Supreme Court candidates who are going to fill out their full ten-year terms, Fred told us.  That’s not bad advice. But remember that the legislature is considering raising the mandatory retirement age for judges, so candidates who might only serve for two years now could get on the court and then serve seven years, which is plenty long enough.

Rick Santorum gave a heartfelt, moving, extemporaneous speech about Iran that brought inspired tears to the eyes of many audience members. It was a stellar performance that reminded everyone in the packed ballroom why Santorum is still in the political leadership mix – he operates from the heart and from principle, not from from some shallow, meaningless political calculation.  Iran’s danger to Western civilization was the topic of Santorum’s speech, where he pointed out that both Republicans and Democrats are failing to lead on this critical security issue.  He also hit the Republican Party hard for not incorporating working people into their mantra of money and prosperity, suggesting that if the R’s miss this much more, then maybe it is time for everyone to become Independent or some other third party.  Ouch! And he is 100% right, as can be seen from the machinations in the PA 15th Senate District, where yet another super-rich businessman with the articulate capabilities of a junk yard dog is the “chosen one.”  If you ask me, and who am I to criticize (;-D), this looks like another one-dimensional effort to lose the seat to the Dems once again.

Senator Pat Toomey gave one of his trademark understated policy speeches where you’re half-way into it and falling asleep before you realize “Oh My God this is serious stuff.” Although I do not agree with Toomey that the senate Democrats should have been allowed to exploit all of the procedural niceties they did not allow the Republicans for five years.  Recall that as US Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid conducted “the nuclear option” and dismantled 150 years of Senate procedural rules designed to let the minority have some say and have some votes.  Recall that for five years there were something like a total of 16 actual votes on the Senate floor, a historic embarrassment and indication that American democracy was held hostage by the Senate Democrats.  Despite suffering under Reid’s mismanagement, Toomey believes in being “nice” now with his Republican majority, somehow proving that the Republicans are nicer than the mean ol’ Democrats.  I think he is mistaken.  But I am not a US Senator, so I have little to say about it but what I write here.  Let us not take away here from Senator Toomey his outstanding and laser-like focus on Iran’s nuclear threat to America.

Everything went as smoothly as possible, with the only unusual thing the large walk-out by a significant portion of the audience when Grover Norquist took the stage.  A couple things struck me about Mister Jihadi Norquist.  One, he is remarkably small in stature and frame, almost child-size with a squeaky high voice, like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. This may explain his need for a larger-than-life personality and desire to dominate everyone.  The second unusual thing I noticed was how Norquist required all kinds of security guys, and a big limo, and superstar treatment, in contrast to Santorum, Toomey, and other well-known speakers who just walked right in to the Radisson with a “Hey How are Ya?” attitude and hallos and handshakes and other casual chit-chat on their way to the podium.

It seems that Mister Muslim Brotherhood Secret Operative Blow Up America From The Inside Grover Norquist requires lots of marching band accompaniment to look and feel good. I was happy when I looked around and saw the steady stream of audience members heading for the doors with me, while my colleague remained behind at our front-and-center table “so I can say I got to hear Grover lie in person to a whole room of people.”  In other words, it does not appear that Mister Ollie Snackbar Nukem Norquist enjoys much political cover any longer.  He was asked to suspend himself from the NRA board of directors four days ago, an indication that his weaseling ways and sneaky days are numbered.

So that is my brief round-up and I could write so much more, but why should I? Really, you should come to next year’s PLC and see how grand it is for yourself.

 

 

Junk social science drives bad policies

Another fake social study has poor ammunition and even worse aim, but it is indicative of the purposefully low quality “studies” used by politicized “academics” to pursue certain social policy goals.
Go ahead and read the report on the “youth suicide” “study,” and then read the analysis I wrote below.
Analysis: It is an utter crap study with a 100% political goal.
First of all, Gallup and other sources demonstrate huge gross and relative increases in gun ownership among Americans over past thirty years, not decreases or moderate stability, as the study asserts.
Second, the anti-gun editorial at the end is a dead-giveaway that the study is about guns and gun ownership, not suicide.
Third, if suicide rates are stable in rural areas but dropping in urban areas, then it seems the story is that they are dropping in urban areas.  Is that because more urban youth are dead from homicide before they can commit suicide?
Fourth, after 17 or 18 years of age, a person is no longer a youth.  Counting 24-year-olds as youths is another hint that the researchers were hunting for the right mix of numbers to serve their political goal, and could only get them by warping the definition of their study population.  I am willing to bet that the actual youth numbers are way down.  But that would defeat the purpose of having a good anti-gun study.  So the net is widened.
Fifth, the study apparently does not identify or quantify the relative amounts of suicide by type – firearm, hanging, suffocation, poison, etc – so that it is impossible to make a logical connection between the study’s results and firearm policy, but the policy result of the study is nonetheless all about guns.  What would be really interesting to see is the method type among actual youth – including 17-year-olds and excluding anyone older.  I am willing to bet that firearm use is down among youth.
These anti-gun junk “studies” are epidemic.  They are funded by anti-gun foundations, completed by politically active anti-gun academics who do not pursue excellence, but rather particular policy goals at any cost, and these studies are then marketed by anti-gun media in a cycle of self-reporting that becomes its own story.
The Left has this stuff down very well.  A compliant liberal media plays right along.

A lot of work, buried under the Internet

For about a year I wrote for watchdogwire.com, a professionally led citizen reporter-fueled website that exposed a lot of local issues the mainstream media will never write about.  Then the website changed, a few months ago, and my favorite editor, Jana, left to find another job.  All of the essays I wrote for Watchdogwire remain enshrined there, cryogenically frozen in some Internet deep-freeze visible only to those who really want to dig around.  Here is the URL to those essays.

What is in a political “party”?

The Communist Party.

The Democrat Party.

The Republican Party.

What is the difference between these three and many other active political parties?

Their party agenda is what defines them.

Their cause, their unifying principles, their policies and political platforms, these are the things that separate political parties from one another.

All political parties have their own structure, their functionaries, their own bureaucracies, lawyers, and bosses.  All have become self-interested organisms, influenced by a constellation of special interest groups.  At a certain point, the party exists simply for its own benefit.

But what happens when these parties begin to bleed into one another, when they begin to blend across their boundaries and blur their boundaries?  When they lose their distinctive appeal?

When political parties lose their way, do they lose their reason for being?

Although my own Republican Party has pledged overall to serve the taxpayers, plenty of fellow Republicans hold personal and official positions contrary to the interests of taxpayers, voters, and citizens.  Their positions are subtle, often only visible in the important background decisions they make.

Many times in recent history, the Republican Party has been used as a weapon to silence voices of political activists who sought to return the brand to its more basic principles and its more elementary purpose, which would naturally be defined as the cause of liberty.

It is my own hope and the hope of many other dedicated citizens that the Republican Party, also known as the establishment, will stay out of any upcoming elections around Central Pennsylvania.

It is one thing for a candidate to ask, say, State Rep. Ron Marsico for his individual support, or to ask individual party committee members for their support.  It is entirely another thing for the Dauphin County Republican Committee to endorse a candidate so that the Pennsylvania Republican Party can spend money to challenge a Republican candidate’s nomination ballots, because he (or she) is too independent-minded.  Or too “conservative.”  Or not enough in the pocket of some party boss.

My experience tells me that this controlling, anti-freedom behavior has happened so often that many political activists are inclined to become political Independents, which means that the Republican base, the most passionate Republican voters, become driven away from the party and become less interested in its success.  We saw this with the past election, where former governor Tom Corbett had little street game.  The people with the most passion were not going to do door-to-door for Corbett.

Even more worrisome is if the one-time Republican becomes an Independent candidate, or mounts a write-in campaign.  Sure, these efforts may hurt the Republican Party’s nominee, but if the party didn’t want that independent-minded candidate in the first place, what right does anyone have to expect him to stay loyal to them?

Put another way, if some political boss doesn’t want a certain candidate to get elected, then what expectation does that political boss have of earning the support of the candidate he opposed?

Put another way, if you don’t want John to get elected, then why would John want you or your ally to get elected?

Do the Democrats have this problem?  Sure.  But that political party has become overrun with foreign policy extremism and anti-capitalism.  Wealth redistribution is completely contrary to American founding principles, but it is nevertheless now a core of the Democrat Party.

That is sad, because at one time, the Democrats just wanted more opportunity for everyone.  Now they want to take from one person and give to another person, which is theft.

But I am not a Democrat, so this is not my political problem.

My problem is with so-called Republicans who actually share a lot in common with liberal Democrats, but who stay in the Republican Party.

There are different ways a Republican can share values with a liberal.  For example, a Republican staffer who believes in the supremacy of  bureaucracy….despite bureaucracy being the enemy of freedom and individual liberty.  Working from within the party, these functionaries stamp their own flavor on policy and principle alike, often softening edges and blurring lines, giving the voters fewer choices, more government intervention, and ultimately less liberty.

The same could be said for certain “Republican” lobbyists, whose connections to money, political funding, cause them to promote bad policies such as Common Core, which strikes deep at the heart of liberty.  They would rather ally with liberals than support a conservative Republican candidate.  People like this have great influence in the Republican Party.  They influence its agenda, and the kind of decisions the apparatus supports.

If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.  I myself will stand for liberty, freedom, and opportunity for everyone.  If that puts me and others like me at odds with some political party, then that says everything a voter needs to know about that party: It does not have your interests at heart.

I am a Republican because I hold old-fashioned, traditional American values, the kind of values that created America and kept her great for so long.  I will vote for and support only those candidates who hold similar values.  Regardless of what a party spokeswoman may say, a Republican Party that has no conservativism in it isn’t really a Republican Party any longer, is it?

Obama admin flees from Paris free speech rally

Neither Obama nor VP Biden, nor Sec. of State Kerry, nor any other high ranking US figure attended the free speech and anti-terrorism rally in Paris.  Over forty heads of state participated.

Why would the Obama administration make no attempt to have high level representation at a historic rally for free speech and against terrorism with America’s oldest ally?

Simply put, for six years Obama has punished America’s allies, he has rewarded our enemies, he does not believe in free speech at home or abroad and instead has done all he can to undermine it (IRS and NSA scandals), and finally, he will not lend his hand to anything that might appear like criticism of Islam.

Obama is not ham-handed or tone deaf about this, as his friends in the US media have complained.  Rather, he is utterly opposed to the very things that the people marched for in Paris.

No matter what Obama says, his actions always speak louder, and his actions on the subjects of protecting free speech and stopping terrorism say loud and clear that he is not on the side of America or its allies.  Obama identifies with Muslims to such an extent that he cannot bring himself to admit that it is Muslims who are committing atrocity after atrocity.  He keeps denying that they are Muslims at all, which is just silly, and if he really were forward-thinking, he would join Egyptian president Al-Sisi, who recently called for Islam to undergo a dramatically needed reformation.

Under Obama, the NSA spied on Americans exercising their basic rights to free speech, and the IRS was weaponized to suppress and even criminalize political free speech with which Obama disagrees.  Of course, free speech is a threat to his agenda, so the Obama FEC is now trying to control political speech on the internet, too.

And no matter what someone does in the name of Islam, Obama will permit no official criticism of Islam, a logic he abandons when he blames legally owned guns for criminal behavior (what if the staff at Charlie Hebdo or the police protecting them had had guns to defend themselves? The whole attack could easily have been over in seconds).  The civilized world says “Je suis Charlie,” and Obama says “Je suis Muslim.”

How the heck did Obama ever get elected to be anything more than dog catcher in the first place?  His values are diametrically opposed to those of all but a very small fringe percentage of the American people.  For those who disagree with this statement, just open your eyes and look at the sad facts.  Obama should never have been president of the United States.  He cannot even pretend to represent our nation any longer, and he is a disgrace.  He should resign, or be impeached.