American Elephants


Here’s A How-To Guide To Avoid Offending Anyone by The Elephant's Child

political-correctness-school-u-penn-buffalo2“In the late ’70s, “politically correct,” “PC” for short, entered the public lexicon. Folks on the left used the term to dismiss views that were seen as too rigid and, also, to poke fun at themselves for the immense care they took to neither say nor do anything that might offend the political sensibilities of others. “You are so PC,” one would say with a smile. In the ’80s, the right, taking the words at face value, latched on to the term and used it to deride leftish voices. Beleaguered progressives, ever earnest, then defended political correctness as a worthy concept, thus validating conservatives’ derision. Today, on both the left and the right, being PC is no laughing matter; three decades of culture wars have generated a bewildering thicket of terminology.”

A little history, a little humor, and, if you take it seriously, and Human Resources and the principal’s office often do — here’s a list of what not to say and how not to say it: Do read the whole thing, it might keep you out of trouble.

political-correctness-voltaire



Want to Know Why They Keep Calling You Racists? by The Elephant's Child

Attorney General Eric Holder plans to push for a “new standard of proof for civil -rights offenses”. In an interview with Politico. he said that “he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.” Uh huh. Just not in the way he meant it.

The Democrat Party’s history with race is interesting. Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States, is generally considered the founder of the Democratic Party. He was one of the largest slaveholders in the South.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the nation into free states and slave states, the South seceded, and we fought a long and very bloody war to preserve the Union and end slavery.

The Republican Party was founded as the party of abolition. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation into law. Republicans passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, ending slavery, with 80% of Democrats voting against it. Republicans passed the 14th Amendment granting freed slaves the rights of citizenship—unanimously opposed by Democrats. Republicans passed the 15th Amendment giving freedmen the right to vote.

Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferring U.S. citizenship on all African-Americans and according them the “free and equal benefit of all laws” unanimously supported by Republicans who had to override Democrat Andrew Johnson’s veto. Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867. Republicans sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the constitutional rights of freed slaves. Republicans were the target of the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction.

Republicans continued to try to pass federal civil rights laws in the next century — most were blocked by Democrats, including a bill banning racial discrimination in  public accommodations (1875), guaranteeing the right to vote in the South (1890), anti-lynching (1922, 1935, 1938), anti poll-tax bills (1942, 1944, 1946).

Republican President Teddy Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House (1901), the first black to do so. Republican platforms starting in 1908 called for equal rights, equal justice, anti-lynching legislation, integration of the military (1940), endorsed Brown v. Board of Education, (1956), and Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to desegregate the schools.

By the sixties, the civil rights movement was gaining ground, and Democrats became aware of the trends. To succeed in  American politics, they would need black votes, and their record with matters of race was pretty bad, especially in the South. President John Kennedy sought a civil rights bill to outlaw discrimination, but then he was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became president.

Johnson’s own record with civil rights wasn’t very good, and he pushed hard to pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, which outlawed discrimination by race, color, religion or national origin. equality in voter registration rights and outlawed racial segregation in the schools. Although Congress was controlled by Democrats, 61% of Democrats in the House voted for the bill, 29% against, 80% of Republicans voted for it, 20% against. In the Senate 69% of Democrats supported it with a long filibuster, and 31% against. 82% of Republicans voted for it and 18% against.

Well, the Sixties! Freedom Summer. Students came down south to march for civil rights, There was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (voting rights ), 1968 (Fair Housing), and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” which would end poverty and racial injustice, rebuild the entire urban United states, end boredom and restlessness, slake the hunger for community and enhance “the meaning of our lives” all by assembling “the best thought and broadest knowledge.”

When Johnson left office, 10 percent of Southern schools were desegregated. When Richard Nixon left office, the figure was 70 percent. But “the Southern Strategy” didn’t Nixon try to get Southern votes by appealing to the racist segregationists? Nixon helped to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights act of 1957 and supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968. In Nixon’s presidency , the civil rights enforcement budget rose by 800%, record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office, an Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created, SBA loans to minorities soared by 1,000% and aid to black colleges doubled.

What happened was that Democrats, realizing that blacks were being registered to vote in big numbers, needed to disguise their past and become the party of civil rights and the war on poverty, the party that cared for minorities, and they did it by lying about history, their own and the Republicans’. Oddly enough, at the same time new terms like “Diversity” and  “Multiculturalism” not only initially entered the political lexicon, but became the guiding factor throughout education, business and human resources departments everywhere. Coincidence?

Suddenly, Republicans, the party of abolition since its founding, became the party of racism, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, lynching, poll taxes, and every time that Republicans disagree with Democrats they are called “racists.” This is the communist perfected technique of the BIG LIE. You just tell a whopper, and keep telling it and keep telling it, and embroidering it until it is considered to be plain fact. Progressives are very good at this kind of political warfare, and Republicans, who assume that Democrats are just misguided, are not.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is exploring a run for the presidency, and the Southern Poverty Law Center put him on their list of “dangerous extremists.” (They had to apologize, and deleted the “dangerous.”) Economist Thomas Sowell is called an Uncle Tom. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Senator Tim Scott, Economist Walter Williams, Representative Mia Love — any black who has succeeded in this country in reaching high office and is a Republican, is called an Uncle Tom, and receives death threats and slanders to their reputations.

The plight of Detroit, which is 85% black, is a shining example of 50 years of Democrat governance. They have reduced Detroit from one of the richest cities in the country to an example of urban blight and human despair. Their plan for “social justice” turned the once great city into a cesspool of racial politics and antibusiness practices, and poverty.

The War on Poverty has encouraged single black women to refrain from marrying the father of their children. Incentives keep women from getting off welfare, for if they get a job they will lose their higher benefits. The Democrat sponsored Community Reinvestment Act was designed to get more poor black  people into their own homes, without regard to their ability to pay back the loans. Normal prudent banking rules were set aside and when the “Great Recession” hit, many middle class blacks lost their homes because they lost their jobs and couldn’t pay back their loans. The Obama administration swept into office on the wings of “the first black president,”promising help and caring for black Americans has, instead, devastated black families and returned race and racism to politics in new and troubling ways.

But why? The Progressives need blacks. If the Democratic  Party lost just 30% of the black vote, it would mean an end to the liberal agenda. Walter Williams said:

That means blacks must be kept in a perpetual state of grievance in order to keep them as a one-party people in a two-party system. When black Americans finally realize how much liberals have used them, I’m betting they will be the nation’s most conservative people.



Trey Gowdy On President Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Policy by The Elephant's Child

CNSNews.com) – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has a message for those who may approve of — or even benefit from — President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy: “Be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever,” he told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Gowdy said the law is the nation’s greatest unifying and equalizing force — “but one person does not make law in a republic.”

President Obama, by doing exactly what he once said he could not do, is not only going beyond the considerable powers of his office; he is assuring that future presidents also will expand the power of the executive branch, thus “threatening the constitutional equilibrium.”

Mr. Chairman, the thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The law is the greatest unifying and the greatest equalizing force that we have in our culture.

The law is what makes the richest person drive the precise same speed limit as the poorest person. The law is what makes the richest person in this country pay his or her taxes on precisely the same day as the poorest person in this country.

The law, Mr. Chairman, is symbolized by a blind woman holding a set of scales and a sword. The law is both a shield and a sword, and it is the foundation upon which this Republic stands.

We think so highly of the law, Mr. Chairman, that in the oath of citizenship administered to those who pledge allegiance to this country — to their new country —  it makes six different references to the law. So attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are detrimental to the foundation of a democracy.

President Obama, after the November midterm elections I hasten to add, announced one of the largest extra-constitutional acts ever by a chief executive. He declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on those same people.

You may like the policy. You may wish the policy were the law. But one person does not make law in a republic.

If you enjoy a person making law, you should investigate living in another country, because our Framers did not give us, nor have generations of our fellow citizens all conserved and sacrificed, for a single person to make law in a unilateral way.

So removing consequences for breaking the law is one thing; bestowing benefits such as work authorization and immigration benefits is another.

The president himself recognized his own inability to do this, Mr. Chairman — more than 20 separate times he said he lacked the power to do what he ultimately did.

In 2011, he said this, and I quote: ‘The notion that I can just suspend deportation through executive order, that’s just not the case.’ He told us time and time again, Mr Chairman, that he was not a king.

His position may have changed, but the Constitution has not; and that document is clear and it is time-tested and it is true, and it says that Congress passes laws and it is the responsibility of the chief executive to take care that those laws are faithfully enforced.

Prosecutorial discretion is real and constitutionally valid, Mr. Chairman, but it is not a synonym for anarchy.

As U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his recent opinion, DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the express will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress but actively moves to thwart them.

The Constitution gives the president a lot of power, Mr. Chairman. He’s the commander in chief, he nominates Supreme Court justices, he can veto legislation for any reason or no reason, he can fail to defend the constitutionality of the law, he has the power of pardon. He has a lot of power, Mr. Chairman, but what he cannot do is make law by himself. That is the responsibility of the Congress.

And if this president’s unilateral extra-constitutional acts are not stopped, future presidents, you may rest assured, will expand that power of the Executive Branch, thereby threatening the constitutional equilibrium.

“And the argument that previous administrations have acted outside constitutional boundaries holds no bearing with me. The fact that other people made mistakes is not a license for this executive to do the same thing.

Mr. President, in conclusion, we live in a country where process matters. The end does not justify the means, no matter how good the intentions.

When a police officer fails to check the right box on an application for a search warrant, the fruits of that search warrant are suppressed. When a police officer, even though he has the right suspect for the right crime but he just fails to include one small part of those prophylactic Miranda warnings, what happens? The statement is suppressed, even though you have the right person, even though you have the right crime — because we view process over the end.

And I’m going to say this, and then we’ll finish. I’m going to say this to those who benefit from the president’s policies.

You may be willing to allow the end to justify the means in this case. You may well like the fact that the pres has abused pro discretion and conferred benefits in an unprecedented way.

You may benefit from the president’s failure to enforce the law today, but I’ll make you this promise: There will come a day where you will cry out for the enforcement of the law.

There will come a day when you long for the law to be the foundation of this republic. So you be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever.”



Wars Are to Be Won. Enemies are to be Destroyed, Not Merely Admonished by The Elephant's Child

Poor Marie Harf, State Department deputy spokeswoman, has been endlessly held up to ridicule for her statement that “We cannot win this war by killing them.” She was simply repeating the direction of the State Department. But of course we can kill our way to victory. That’s what wars are all about.  Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, thought so too. I thought it was funny, but Mr. Greenfield appropriately took it more seriously as a long time misdirection of the progressive mind, in a piece titled “We Can Kill Our Way to Victory”
……………………………….*****************

“We can not win this war by killing them,” Marie Harf said on MSNBC.

 Reversing thousands of years of battlefield experience in which wars were won by “killing them”, the State Department spokeswoman argued that you can’t defeat ISIS by killing its fighters.

“We can not kill our way out of this war,” she said. “We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs.”

War is one of the few things in life we can reliably kill our way out of. The United States has had a great track record of killing our way out of wars. We killed our way out of WW1. We killed our way out of WW2. The problem began when we stopped trying to kill our way out of wars and started trying to hug our way out of wars instead. Progressive academics added war to economics, terrorism and the climate in the list of subjects they did not understand and wanted to make certain that no one else was allowed to understand. Because the solution to war is so obvious that no progressive could possibly think of it.

Harf’s argument is a familiar one. There was a time when progressive reformers had convinced politicians that we couldn’t arrest, shoot, imprison or execute our way out of crime.

We couldn’t stop crime by fighting crime. Instead the root causes of crime had to be addressed. The police became social workers and criminals overran entire cities. The public demanded action and a new wave of mayors got tough on crime. While the sociologists, social workers, activists and bleeding hearts wailed that it wouldn’t work, surprisingly locking up criminals did stop them from committing crimes.

It was a revelation almost as surprising as realizing that it does take a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Addressing root causes won’t stop a killing spree in progress. (That’s another one of those things we can and do kill our way out of.)

But bad ideas are harder to kill than bad people. And stupid ideas are the hardest ideas of all to kill.

The same plan that failed to stop street gangs and drug dealers has been deployed to defeat ISIS. Heading it up are progressives who don’t believe that killing the enemy wins wars.

General Patton told the Third Army, “The harder we push, the more Germans we kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed.” That kind of thinking is passé. General McChrystal, Obama’s favorite commander (before he had to be purged for insulting Obama) had a much better plan.

“We will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill,” he said. “We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories—but suffering strategic defeats—by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people.”

Under Obama’s rotating shift of commanders, we avoided the trap of winning tactical victories. Instead of following Patton’s maxim, American casualties doubled. The Taliban struck closer to Kabul while US soldiers avoided engaging the enemy because they wouldn’t be given permission to attack unless the Taliban announced themselves openly while avoiding mosques or civilian buildings.

“We will not win simply by killing insurgents,” McChrystal had insisted. “We will help the Afghan people win by securing them, by protecting them from intimidation, violence and abuse.”

But we couldn’t protect the Afghan people without killing the Taliban. Civilian casualties caused by the United States fell 28 percent, but the Taliban more than made up for it by increasing their killing of civilians by 40 percent. Not only did we avoid the trap of a tactical victory, but we also suffered a strategic defeat. American soldiers couldn’t kill insurgents, protect civilians or even protect themselves. We’ve tried the McChrystal way and over 2,000 American soldiers came home in boxes from Afghanistan trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans. Many more returned missing arms and legs. The Taliban poll badly among Afghans, but instead of hiring a PR expert to improve their image, a Pentagon report expects them to be encircling key cities by 2017.

Unlike our leaders, the Taliban are not worried about falling into the trap of winning tactical victories. They are big believers in killing their way to popularity. As ISIS and Boko Haram have demonstrated, winning by killing works better than trying to win by wars by winning polls.

Now the same whiz kids that looked for the root cause of the problem in Afghanistan by dumping money everywhere, including into companies linked to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, think that the way to beat ISIS is with unemployment centers and job training. Many of the ISIS Jihadists come from the social welfare paradises of Europe where there are more people employed to find the root causes of terrorism through welfare than there are people working to fight them. So far they haven’t had much luck either.                                  (continued below)
Continue reading



The Character of The President Is Being Exposed For All To See by The Elephant's Child

Goodness, we must have really irritated President Obama with that recent wave election. One might have hoped that it would lead to more cooperation, but he has proved that he has no ability, nor inclination,  to negotiate. It’s plainly his way or the highway. He ‘s gone full tyrant.

We have never before had a president who says essentially— the hell with the Constitution, I’m going to do exactly what I want. We’ve had advice handed down from our first president, and many subsequent presidents, but never one before that behaved like a petulant spoiled child.

What we need to understand is that for the present crop of progressives, the issue is never the issue. Our immigration system is not broken. It is not enforced. Obama wants poor, poorly educated peasants from Mexico and Central America because by giving them work permits and welfare benefits, food stamps, driver’s licenses and other goodies, they will be Democrat Party voters, and make America permanently Progressive and permanently socialist.

Regulating the internet as a public utility to protect users establishes government control over the web, who uses it, and what kind of speech will be allowed.

Threatening public officials if they don’t obey Obama’s illegal executive orders while they are questioned by Congress and the courts is reprehensible.

John Hinderaker, one of the attorneys at Powerline offers “A Modest Proposal For Amendments to the Constitution.” “Barack Obama’s scofflaw administration has revealed some ambiguities or omissions in our Constitution–loopholes, if you will–that should be closed via constitutional amendment, to eliminate the possibility that future administrations may also act lawlessly. I have in mind three amendments that should accomplish that purpose.”

Do read the whole thing, which explains the very brief amendments, and why we need each one. Just a matter of clarifying the wording so even ideologues can understand.



Didn’t Obama Promise That Iran Would Not Be Permitted to Have Nuclear Weapons? by The Elephant's Child

Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor at The Washington Post asked “Can President Obama sell an Iran deal at home?’

If his negotiators strike an agreement next month, we already know that it will be far from ideal: Rather than eradicating Iran’s nuclear-weapons potential, as once was hoped, a pact would seek to control Iran’s activities for some limited number of years.

Such a deal might be defensible on the grounds that it is better than any alternative, given that most experts believe a military “solution” would be at best temporary and possibly counterproductive.

But making that kind of lesser-evil defense would be challenging in any circumstances. Three conditions will make it particularly hard for Obama to persuade Congress and the nation to accept his assurances in this case: the suspicious, poisonous partisanship of the moment here, with Israeli politics mixed in; worries that he wants a deal too much; and the record of his past assurances.

Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be anything in any proposed “deal” that would control Iran’s activities for any significant period whatsoever. Straw Man. What experts believe that a military “solution”would be counterproductive? The scare quotes around solution are probably deserved. Blame all on partisanship? Sorry, Republicans are not in doubt of Obama and Kerry as negotiators because of their party preferences, but because from the past history with the mullahs of Iran, we know that you cannot believe anything they say, only consider the evidence of what they do.

To give Mr. Hiatt credit, he goes through, gently, a list of Obama’s “unfulfilled assurances” that are “less than a case of Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and stubborn adherence to policies after they have faded. But before anyone can suggest that he is not following the party line,He hastens to include successes like the killing of Osama bin Laden and a “potentially groundbreaking” agreement with China on global warming. That one is utterly meaningless. There is not much anyone can say in favor of the negotiations with Iran.

Iran is being granted the “right to enrich.” It will be allowed to retain and spin thousands more centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor.Obama has accepted Iran’s demand that any restrictions on their program remain time-limited. Assuming that they would pay any attention to time limits anyway.

Did you know that Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all? It is not a part of the negotiations. So why do you suppose Iran is building intercontinental ballistic missiles anyway? Does that question not trouble either Mr Kerry or Mr, Obama? The key word there is “intercontinental.”

Iran cannot be trusted at any time, or for any reason.

The sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, but inexplicably Obama lifter them as soon as Iran demanded it. He’s really not much good at negotiating much of anything is he. That was before oil prices collapsed, which would heighten the effect of sanctions. Iran has plenty of oil for their own energy needs, less you think they are pursuing the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

They keep saying that Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s “new, more moderate president”, but have offered no evidence that he is more moderate, except that he smiles more than his predecessor. He said “Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.” Kerry countered that “nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”

An Iranian dissident group known for exposing key aspects of Iran’s secret nuclear work claims it now has evidence of “an active and secret parallel nuclear program” operated by Tehran. John Kerry said ‘We know about that.’

At the core of the Obama policy is an ideological aversion to American power. there’s some belief that everyone is reasonable and wants the same things.

“Obama’s approach to the world is predicated first and foremost on his bedrock intention to be a “transformational” president. The transformation is largely domestic—hence his preoccupation with the Affordable Care Act, which remakes a rather large swath of the American economy. Abroad and in aid of the main focus on his domestic agenda (‘nation-building at home”), the president’s overwhelming objective has been to keep international affairs at bay. But when world events do inevitably impose themselves, Obama is no less confident of his unique ability  to exert a transformational impact.”

Is the “transformational impact” of this self-infatuated narcissist going to be a large hole in the United States where the nation’s capitol used to be?

Here’s some of the essential reading:

Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy by Michael Doran

What the President Thinks He’s Doing by Elliott Abrams

The Obama Doctrine by Eric Edelman

The Reform Delusion by Reuel Marc Gerecht

Now we know who to believe on Iran by David Horovitz

There’s Nothing Unpatriotic About Challenging Obama on Iran by David Harsanyi



A Reminder, In Your Words Mr. President: “That’s Not How Democracy Works” by The Elephant's Child

childhood-immigration-flood-620x396

The year is 2011, and election coming up, the president is making lots of speeches and fundraising. On May 10, President Obama spoke at Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso Texas. He vowed to “keep up the fight” to pass comprehensive immigration reform through Congress, because the immigration system was broken. (Not broken. The immigration laws simply are not enforced).

He assured the audience that the border fence was essentially complete, (if  “essentially complete” means that 84 miles of the mandated double fencing have been built of the 1,933 miles of our border with Mexico). That pertains to compliance with the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Then he added:

“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself, but that’s not how a democracy works,” Obama said. “What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.”

Back in the halls of Congress, it is Jeff Sessions who once again spoke of constitutional government in defense of American workers in a clarifying speech yesterday on the Senate floor:

A number of things have been happening today with regard to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. There’s been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the Republicans are blocking the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. This gives new meaning to the word “obfuscation,” I suppose, or “disingenuousness.” The truth is, the House of Representatives has fully funded the Department of Homeland Security. It’s provided the level of funding the President asked for. It’s kept all the accounts at Homeland Security as approved through the congressional process. It simply says, but, Mr. President, we considered your bill, this amnesty bill that will provide work permits, photo IDs, Social Security numbers, Medicare benefits. You can’t do that. We considered that and rejected it. So we’re not going to fund that.

Now, the President has told us and his staff that they have across the river in Crystal City, they’re leasing a new building and this building is going to hire a thousand workers, paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, part of Homeland Security. Are those thousand workers going to be utilized to enforce the laws of the United States? Are they going to process applications for citizenship or visas? No. Those 1,000 people, costing several hundred million dollars, in truth, those people are going to be processing and providing these benefits to people unlawfully in America… (Read on below)

Continue reading




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,958 other followers

%d bloggers like this: