MADDOG10's Blog

I’m confused.

The rules of political correctness keep changing.

In the old days, the multiculturalists told us that racism was a one-way  street – that blacks and other minorities couldn’t be racist, it was strictly a  white disease.

That was because blacks and minorities were not in positions of power, and  whites had what was called “white-skin privilege.”

But all that was turned upside down recently when a Bronx teacher, Petrona  Smith, a native of the West Indies, was fired for allegedly calling a student a  Negro, though she claims it was part of a language lesson and was using the  Spanish word for black.

The 65-year-old Smith, a junior-high instructor, was let go from the  bilingual PS 211 in March 2012 after a seventh-grader reported the alleged  insult.

She’s been unemployed ever since.

“They haven’t even accounted for how absurd it is for someone who’s black to  be using a racial slur to a student,” said Shaun Reid, Smith’s attorney. “Talk  about context! There’s a lot of things wrong here.”

The teacher took a sabbatical from teaching special education in 2005 to  learn Spanish in South America, because she was passionate about learning the  language in a cultural context, Reid said.

Smith was also accused of calling her students “failures.” But in court  papers she claims that second insult was also a misinterpretation. Smith had  allegedly asked students who had failed a test to move to the back of the room,  but says she never called them failures.

According to the New York Post, she denied calling the student a “Negro” and  explained to investigators she was teaching a lesson about how to say different  colors in Spanish and said the word “negro,” which is Spanish for the color  black. She told her students that it was not a derogatory term and that the  Spanish word for a black person was “moreno.”

She added that she’d been verbally abused by her charges, including being  called a “f—ing monkey,” a “<snip>roach” and a “n—er,” but had never stooped to  their level.

A 2011 investigation substantiated the student’s undated claims based on  accounts from four seventh-grade witnesses, even though the student’s own  parents said he’d lied about the event.

But it’s even crazier than that.

What’s wrong with the word Negro?

Didn’t Martin Luther King use the term?

Do terms become racist over time?

Isn’t there an organization specifically designed to benefit American black  students called the United Negro College Fund? Will that organization be deemed  racist by the PC police now? What about the National Association for the  Advancement of Colored People? Doesn’t that group, too, use an archaic racial  term? Should Julian Bond be forced to rename his group because of new  sensitivities by multiculturalists?

Do public schools need to stop teaching Spanish because blacks might be  offended by the term negro, which simply means black?

What do decisions like this do to foster understanding between blacks who  speak English only and Hispanics who haven’t yet been thoroughly indoctrinated  in the latest politically correct forms of speech?

What’s the difference between black and negro anyway?

And I thought these new PC rules were designed to help minorities? The victim  here was a black teacher who lost her job more than a year ago over an apparent  misunderstanding by uneducated teenagers.

It sounds like a case of the inmates running the asylum. Almost like the President and his troupe running this Country.

But, then again, isn’t that what public education has become across the  country?

Sir John Dalberg-Acton famously observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and  absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No federal agency enjoys more power than  the “absolute power” wielded by the Internal Revenue Service. It’s little  wonder, then, that under this power-drunk Obama regime, the IRS has become  “corrupted absolutely.” It’s become the hammer to this president’s favorite  nail: political dissent.

The bureaucratic cat’s out of the bag, and the evidence is undeniable. The  Obama IRS has been illegally targeting conservative, Christian and Jewish groups  and individuals for political retaliation, intimidation and, ultimately,  destruction. These revelations have spurred calls for criminal prosecution and  even impeachment. Still, little has been said about how to prevent such  Stalinist abuses of power in the future. 

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,  and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,  and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or  affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the  persons or things to be seized.”

No individual – and especially no federal agency – is above the law.  Regrettably, and largely through both citizen and government acquiescence, the  IRS has been brandishing arbitrary and extra-constitutional authority,  unchecked, for well over a century.

Imagine if the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or the ATF suddenly  began “searching” and “seizing” the “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” of  millions of U.S. citizens every year without a warrant – without probable cause  or even reasonable suspicion that any criminal or civil violation had occurred.  People would be outraged, and for good reason. Such actions would rightly and  universally be decried as unconstitutional. The lawsuits would fly, heads would  roll and the courts would immediately shut down such “unreasonable searches and  seizures.” This is exactly the kind of government tyranny our founders  endeavored to thwart.

So why has the IRS been allowed to do just that – to violate, systemically  and systematically, the Fourth Amendment? How is it that this one federal  agency, with neither probable cause nor a warrant, is permitted to invade your  privacy and confiscate your “houses, papers and effects” on a whim? How is it  that if you fail to comply with their warrantless searches and seizures, they  have the authority to ruin you financially and even throw you in prison?

No warrant? No problem. When the IRS arbitrarily and capriciously says  “jump,” America opens its doors wide and says, “how high?” Is this the IRS or  the ISS? Either way, it’s time that “we the people” put an end to this  unconstitutional abuse of power.

At least some good has come from Mr. Obama’s IRS-gate scandal. It’s exposed  the unprecedented depths to which corruption has weaseled its way from the top  down. It’s also underscored the autocratic nature of the contemporary IRS beast.  It’s unified many Republicans, Democrats and independents around this  fundamental reality: America must de-politicize the IRS.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle love to pay lip service to a need for  “tax reform.” Well, honorable sirs and madams, put up or shut up. It’s time for  a new federal “Taxpayer Bill of Rights.” A centerpiece to such legislation must  be the simple codification of that which the Fourth Amendment already mandates;  namely, that, when conducting “searches and seizures” (aka, audits), the IRS  must adhere to the same U.S. Constitution that restricts every other federal  agency.

Such a bill, notes Phillips, “would codify as federal law that no IRS audit  (or any other agency audit) of a person, organization or business could be  conducted without first having the IRS agent (or agent of the agency conducting  the audit) to prepare an affidavit that is sworn to in front of a federal judge,  federal magistrate or a tax court judge that states with specificity why there  is probable cause to believe the audit will result in either the discovery of  criminal activities or the discovery of civil wrong doing. It will be the  functional equivalent of a search warrant.”

Phillips is on to something big here. Especially when you consider this last  minor factoid: The IRS is also the OEA: the “Obamacare enforcement agency.”

If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, then nothing will.

What do you get when you cross one tyrannical, hyper-politicized bureaucratic  beast with another?

You get tyranny on steroids. You also get one happy Barack Hussein Obama.

Contact your legislators and A) respectfully request that they  re-constitutionalize the IRS; B) that the IRS be required to observe the Fourth  Amendment; and C) that they hold this president accountable for his  unprecedented and despicable abuse of executive authority.

Finally, request that Congress pass a new Taxpayer Bill of Rights that covers  “all of the above.”

We ought to get perspective on the real nature of the most recent push on gun  control, initiated out of the White House.

This is classic bait-and-switch politics, characterized by what current  Chicago mayor and former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once described as  never letting a crisis go to waste.

This has been sadly and transparently the case with this latest round of gun  control politics.

One target of convenience in this round of “never let a crisis go to waste”  is New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

Sen. Ayotte sticks in the craw of the left because real conservatives are not  supposed to get elected in New England. 

But Ayotte, the lone Republican in New Hampshire’s four-member congressional  delegation, elected in 2010 to take the seat of Republican Judd Gregg who  retired, is a conservative.

She was a tough-on-crime prosecutor in New Hampshire and is staunchly  pro-life.

As New Hampshire’s attorney general, she appealed to the Supreme Court a  federal district court decision, which found New Hampshire’s abortion parental  notification law unconstitutional, and personally argued the case.  This despite  opposition of New Hampshire’s then-Democratic Gov. John Lynch.

She is a staunch supporter of traditional marriage, traditional values and  limited government.

In a state that went for Barack Obama in 2012 and has been in the Democratic  column in five of the last six presidential elections, it is no surprise that  Democrats have drawn a target on the back of a conservative like Ayotte.

So the political barrage from the left has been pouring in attacking her for  her vote against the Manchin-Toomey bill, which provided for new, expanded  background checks on gun purchases. The bill fell six votes short of the 60  votes it needed to move forward in the Senate.

The Manchin-Toomey bill was problematic for a number of reasons, one of which  was weakness in its supposed provision against setting up a national gun  registry.

Ayotte supported an alternative measure sponsored by Iowa Republican Chuck  Grassley, and she has sponsored legislation that focuses on the mental-health  aspects of this problem.

The real issue here, and why Ayotte and those who have been in opposition to  rote expansion of current gun control law should be viewed as heroes, is  bait-and-switch.

The tragic Sandy Hook murders that provoked these new initiatives to expand  gun control would never have been stopped by anything being proposed.

No background check can stop a kid from taking a gun from his mother’s  lawfully owned gun collection, as happened in this case.

Further, as I have written before, criminals will find ways either to get  guns they want or commit their crimes some other way.  So any perceived benefit  from giving up any of our Second Amendment protections to arm and defend  ourselves is not justified by the costs incurred.

But those pushing new controls could care less about this, because this is  about “never letting a crisis go to waste.”   It’s not about carefully thinking  through whether we will wind up freer or safer.

It’s about the left using this crisis for their ongoing agenda to expand  government control over our lives.

A good chunk of the resources financing the onslaught of ads and protests  against Ayotte is coming from out of state from the pocketbook of New York Mayor  Michael Bloomberg, whose net worth, according to Forbes magazine, is $27  billion.

Bloomberg might consider tending to his own city, the nation’s abortion  capital, where 40 percent of pregnancies end in abortion – almost twice the  national rate.

Kelly Ayotte is a hero for courageously standing her ground despite the  well-financed liberal onslaught.  She can proudly claim the banner of her  state’s motto “Live free or die.”

Under President Obama, Americans’ liberties are being neutralized at a  mind-blowing pace, and thanks largely to the establishment press, most Americans  are still too addled to see that tyranny is coming to America. The methods the  Obama administration has been using to bring this about appear pretty  transparent to some of us, but practically imperceptible to others.

Since 2009, some have maintained that Obama has dangerously compromised,  sabotaged and subverted this nation on more levels than I have room to list  here. Those of us who were aware that Obama and his cronies are in fact  actualizing the century-long dream of Marxist radicals’ for a totalitarian  America said so – and we were ridiculed. We described it as it began to take  shape under our noses – and we were ridiculed. We pointed out the Marxist  character of countless Obama policy maneuvers, Democrat-sponsored bills,  regulations, recess appointments and executive orders – and we were ridiculed  even more. Each and every example we brought to light also brought the ridicule  of the press and mincing liberal twerps at large.

Then came the attack on the Libyan embassy in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.  Although the administration was able to forestall scrutiny until after Obama’s  re-election, for once there appeared to be people willing to come forward with  the truth and a handful in Congress willing to pursue the same. So many  Americans had reason to be optimistic, if guardedly so.

On the heels of hearings into Benghazi however, came the two scandals that  changed the game: the systematic targeting of conservative nonprofit groups for  undue bureaucratic scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service and the systematic  targeting of journalists for clandestine investigation by the Department of  Justice.

So why were these latter two scandals different?

Without question, the IRS scandal was significant because of the depth and  breadth of the bureau’s power and the fact that its action and influence affects  each and every American. In the case of the Associated Press debacle, the  Obama-worshiping press was forced to realize that – like every entity,  individual or corporate – it was no more than a tool to be used, abused and if  necessary, summarily discarded. Suddenly, that neighborhood fence-hopping dog  started doing his business in their backyard, and they took offense.

A conceit perhaps, but better late than never, I always say …

Earlier this week, it was announced that a House committee was looking into  whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress when he testified on  May 15 regarding the DOJ obtaining journalists’ personal records. While I  realize that this is gratifying to a lot of folks’ sense of justice, it occurs  to me that there is nothing to investigate. Appearing before the House Judiciary  Committee on May 15, Holder testified that he’d had no involvement in the  process. The video record of his testimony was viewed by millions of Americans.  Last weekend, the DOJ revealed that Holder himself had signed off on paperwork  that allowed the Justice Department to search the personal email of Fox News  reporter James Rosen.

The fact that Holder lied has thus been demonstrated unequivocally. He is  criminally liable with respect to lying to Congress, period. Likewise, we have  seen nothing but obfuscation and denial from every official connected with the  IRS scandal.

What is essential in the big picture is not that people realize how dirty  some of those in the administration are. This is important, but the imperative  is that people come to grips with the fact that the messianic figure they were  sold in 2008 doesn’t only fall short – but that he is a nightmare of historic  proportions. It is my sincere hope that the press – and subsequently a  preponderance of Americans – will now see the abject madness that people such as  myself have been railing against for four years.

It is madness to ignore the aggregate of evidence against Obama just because  a lot of people want to believe that he’s a good guy. It is madness to ignore  all of the evidence that shows us very clearly going down the road of every  other civilized nation that has descended into tyranny. It is madness to ignore  the evidence that speaks to Obama having deliberately and willfully sabotaged  our economy, even as he continues to do so. It is madness to ignore his cozy and  very open relationships with America’s sworn enemies. It is madness to ignore  that we pretty much have the framework for an entire totalitarian state build  right into Obamacare, the president’s crowning achievement.

And it’s madness to ignore that these things did not come about until one  Barack Hussein Obama became president.

Although the media are starting to pay attention to certain “irregularities”  of government, I pray that those who are not too ideologically kindred with  Obama learn how criminal this administration truly is and act accordingly, as  opposed to letting the president simply sacrifice a few key operatives and  continue to play out his diabolical game.

Let Americans of conscience continue to exercise our influence, so that any  honest elements of the press (as well as our neighbors) wake up enough to these  truths. Let them also wake up to the fact that the leaders and regimes Obama and  his closest advisers grew up admiring are the ones that committed some of the  worst atrocities in modern history, and that in any administration, the tone is  set from the top.

We’ve had a dicey month here in the Lewis household, because for the first  time we’ve had to face some serious medical issues.

For the 23 years of our marriage, my husband, Don, and I have been blessed  with good health.  Oh sure, we’ve had the occasional issue, but on the whole  we’ve been lucky.

Now let me go back in time about two years.  Because we’re self-employed and  fairly low-income, we struggled for many years to pay for high-deductible  catastrophic health insurance.  Because the deduction was so high, we literally  never used it – all doctor visits were paid out of pocket.  After 10 years of  this nonsense – essentially pouring nearly a hundred thousand dollars down the drain – we were notified that our premiums were going to increase by 40  percent. We couldn’t afford it anymore.

So we dropped it.  It was scary, launching into the world of the uninsured,  but we had no choice.  In this, we joined hundreds of thousands, if not  millions, of other Americans who have been priced out of health insurance.  We  got Aflac coverage for cancer and accidents, but for everything else –  nothing.

Therefore, when my husband was hospitalized, we girded our loins for a  massive series of financial setbacks.  So far we’ve paid every bill we’ve  received, even if it meant putting some of the larger amounts on the credit  card.  I can’t even begin to describe how thrilled the hospital and other  practitioners were to actually get PAID from an uninsured patient, or how eager  they are to work with us to make sure future payment schedules are possible  within our income.

We thank God there is no cancer; but because my husband is not responding to  medication to shrink the prostate, he is scheduled for laser surgery in  mid-June.  We’re gearing up for the cost of this surgery and hope to have it  paid off within a year.

Modern medicine is one of our present-day miracles, and I’m acutely aware  that my husband would have died had he not received the prompt care he did.   This is just a taste of what endless other people experience as they battle the  frailties of the human body.

Now how will this all change in the next few years as Obamacare comes into  effect?

In many respects we had it easy.  My husband’s hospitalization and subsequent  care was costly; but it was simple.  He was sick, he was taken care of, we paid  for it.  But once the government gets involved, it’s anyone’s guess how much of  a nightmare health care will become, or how much more scarce doctors and  hospital beds will be.

How will the implementation of Obamacare affect self-employed people like  ourselves, folks who can no longer afford regular health insurance?  Technically  we’re the type of people Obamacare is supposed to “help” – hardworking but not  wealthy – yet I know from experience that government “help” almost always  becomes bureaucratic, inefficient and even punitive.

Obamacare frightens me.  It frightens me that health care could be used as a  sledgehammer against people who disagree with the government.  It frightens me  that faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away will determine what, if any,  treatments someone is permitted.

Above all, it frightens me how many doctors hate Obamacare.  On the  ground level, I have not found a single physician or administrator who approves  of this program.  Many doctors talk about leaving the field or retiring.  Others  become almost incoherent with rage when the subject is brought up.

Yet it’s being crammed down ALL our throats, patients and providers alike,  whether we like it or not.  And now we’re looking at thousands  of new IRS agents (IRS!!) to help administer this program.  These are the  people who will be collecting your medical data and fining you if you  don’t understand the 70,000 pages of rules and regulations (which no one understands).  Yet people think Obamacare is fair, equitable and civilized.

In light of the IRS scandal in which conservative organizations were targeted  and harassed, the potential for punitive behavior on the part of the IRS with  regards to health care is high.  After all, the IRS official in charge of  tax-exempt organizations at the time conservative groups were being targeted now  runs the IRS office responsible for health-care legislation.  And the IRS  already considers itself above the law when it comes to stealing  health-care records.  Doesn’t that give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling?

How many Americans will suddenly be deemed “unfit” to own firearms based on  their medical history?  How many will be denied health care because of their  political affiliation?  How many of our elderly will be left out in the cold  because their “usefulness” is over?  How many more American jobs will be shipped  overseas by employers who can’t afford to pay Obamacare penalties?  These are  all legitimate concerns.

But beyond all these ethical issues is the simple question of finances.  We,  like so many other Americans in these harsh economic times, were priced out of  the health insurance market, but at least we had the option to work privately  with providers to pay our bills.  What happens when the government eliminates  private insurance companies and forces us to pay for something we can’t afford?   Already employers are (understandably) reducing employee work hours below the  threshold to avoid the massive costs associated with providing Obamacare to  their employees.  I can’t blame businesses, since the cost of Obamacare would  likely bankrupt them if they were forced to offer this overpriced nonsense to  their employees rather than the more sensibly priced insurance they formerly  provided.  But how many people are having to work multiple jobs just to get in  40 hours a week, and still won’t have health coverage?

Bottom line, we are heading into an Obamacare nightmare of unknown  proportions.  No longer will we be able to go to the hospital, receive superb  care, and pay our medical bills from our own pocket.  Soon every aspect of  health care will be dictated by faceless punitive overbloated bureaucrats who  loathe half the citizens of this country and would just as soon see them all  dead.

How’s that hope and change working for you?