maddogs hideaway

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?

Among politicians and pundits who identify with the GOP, there are many who  pay lip-service to the U.S. Constitution. Yet when push comes to shove they seem  disposed by all means to avoid implementing its provisions.  But left unused,  the constitutional provisions intended to exercise the just powers of the body  politic waste away.  In this respect they are like the muscles of the human  body, but even more so.  They must be flexed to keep their fitness. If, in  practice, their vitality and purpose are not conveyed to each new generation,  they will soon be lost to memory and so, quite literally, cease to matter.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s rise to, and abuse of, political power has  proven to be a litmus test. It has exposed the GOP’s protestations of allegiance  to the Constitution for what they are: a hollow ploy, used to get votes from  gullible conservatives loyal to the Constitution and its principles.  Meanwhile,  by action or inaction, many of the people they vote into office end up helping  the would-be tyrants of the Obama faction cultivate the seeds of its  destruction.

So when Rush Limbaugh says that “efforts to try to have Obama impeached or  held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,” he  is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect  of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters.  With all due respect to Rush  Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ.  The  judgment about “wasted effort” depends on what we’re trying to achieve.  If  politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side  or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted  effort.  After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow  Obama to be removed from office.  Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? 

Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In  this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in  Federalist No. 65) that “… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses  which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a  nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they  relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

This  year’s summer blockbuster  — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of  impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack  Obama from Office”

Insofar as they wish to preserve their constitutional self-government, can  the American people have a greater common interest than to react against abuses  of power that may threaten it? Before they can do so, however, mustn’t the facts  be examined in order to be sure that the abuses in question are so  extraordinarily malicious that they warrant the removal from office of the  person or persons responsible? As Hamilton says of the impeachment process, “Is  it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public  men?”

The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr.  Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan  factions.  But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e.,  individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society  as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests.  From  Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is  therefore a test of their concern for the common good.  If they act, or refuse  to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or  factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a  whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold,  whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.

But the challenge of holding them accountable has political implications that  we have to think through before we rush to agree with Mr. Limbaugh’s conclusion  that, in our present circumstances, impeachment is a waste of effort. The  Constitution divides the authority for impeachment from the authority to convict  and remove for good reason.  It makes the majority needed to approve a bill of  impeachment in the House no greater than that required for ordinary legislation.  It thus provides an ordinary way of calling civil officers to account  for what appears to be extraordinary misbehavior.

If those officers, at the behest of the president, cooperate with the  NATIONAL INQUEST, and let the facts speak for themselves, they at least do  nothing to confirm their contempt for constitutional constraints.  If, with the  open support of the president, they defy the constitutional authority of the  U.S. House, both they and the president confess by this defiance their  disposition to do what they are suspected of doing, defy and disregard the  provisions of the Constitution.  By itself this confession warrants a bill of  impeachment.  If, despite such open and palpable proof of their contempt for the  Constitution, a factional partisan majority in the U.S. Senate protects them  from the consequences, their action, too, is a palpable dereliction. For this it  is up to the people to convict and punish them, at the next election.

In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton reports that the impeachment process in the  U.S. Constitution is, in important respect, modeled after the procedures of the  British government.  This appears to be true of its political implications as  well.  Properly used, it provides an opportunity for the people, through their  representatives in the House, to approve and publicly register a vote of no  confidence in the president and all those willing to uphold his abuses in the  U.S. Senate.  Given the periodic elections provided for in the Constitution, an  opportunity is never far off for the people to change the composition of either  or both chambers of the national legislature.  By what they do, they can signify  their agreement or disagreement with the results of the no-confidence vote (or  votes). Seen in this light, the purpose of impeachment is to inform and mobilize  the citizens for their duty as the arbiters of constitutional integrity.  They  are the ones ultimately responsible for defending constitutional  self-government, or letting it perish.

But the leadership of both wings (Democrat and Republican) of the elitist  faction are working to overturn constitutional self-government in the United  States.  As I discuss in the most recent post on my blog, they have no use for  the constitutional provisions that engage people in the exercise of their  constitutional responsibility, thereby strengthening the responsible sovereignty  of the people in every generation.  Neither of these parties cares to practice  government of, by and for the people.  That’s why Americans who believe in it  need urgently to construct a political vehicle that will.

Among many things I discuss in my book “Negrophilia:  From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession” is the lack of  accountability imposed and expected with regard to black Americans from the  lowest to the highest stations. This is a device of the political left; in its  inherent racism, it was only natural that liberals impart a lack of expectations  for this “culturally inferior” segment of society. It also made blacks easier to  manipulate as a group. Since blacks’ socioeconomic progress had been stultified  for so many years, the attendant propaganda was easier to sell to the  public.

Thus, where blacks are concerned, Americans at large (and black Americans  themselves) have been conditioned by politicos, activists and the media to  overlook and even expect such things as high rates of poverty and crime,  misfeasance in high places, nefarious tendencies, illegitimacy, and elements of  general social instability and poor character. These expectations have been so  thoroughly ingrained into our worldview that most Americans are not even  cognizant of the fact that they have been so conditioned.

So, in pursuing his diabolical Marxist agenda, Obama knew that he would be  able to gain far more ground than a white individual with the same plan. He may  not have known precisely how dedicated and effective the press would be, or how  long Americans would remain asleep, but he and his Cabinet had a pretty good  idea of how far they could go.

Or so one would think …

This  year’s summer blockbuster — a guide for Congress to draw up articles of  impeachment — Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack  Obama from Office”

Obama’s political opponents – the GOP leadership – also knew that their more  confrontational or controversial interactions with Obama would have to be  handled with extra diplomacy for the reasons listed above. In analyzing  Republican leaders’ deportment with regard to this president, we must ask  ourselves: How much of their reticence in holding Obama accountable was due to  fear of political fallout? How much was due to their low expectations of Obama  as a politician and a human being? How much may have been due to their approval  of aspects of his agenda?

The impudence and tyranny of the Obama administration is indeed  precedent-setting, as is the outrageousness and magnitude of the falsehoods it  is willing to offer in defense of same. Claims that the Internal Revenue  Service’s singling out of conservative groups for inordinate scrutiny is not  politically based is almost laughable, and akin to arguing that Jim Crow laws  were not racially based. Singling out a political group because of its politics  is politically based by definition. Press Secretary Jay Carney’s charges that  the Benghazi scandal is a Republican contrivance, and his comparison of the  Associated Press leak investigation to “birther” conspiracy theories is just  plain desperate.

It is the desperation of criminals.

The administration’s ideology, though odious, is still not on trial – but its  actions are. As a result of the inquiries focused on Benghazi, the IRS and the  Associated Press, their abject criminality is what elements of the press and  many Americans are beginning to perceive, even if they are late in so doing.  These issues deepen and reveal more untoward goings-on daily; as I write this,  evidence for at least three other potentially serious scandals has just broken  the surface in the press.

Circumstances have indeed changed – but to what degree? Some recent polls  demonstrate a startling percentage of people who believe Obama should be  impeached, and it is safe to say that no past president would have survived the  current spate of public indignities. Still, the final disposition comes down to  this: Who in Congress wants to be known as having brought down America’s first  black president?

Suddenly, Obama’s removal looks a lot less likely, yes?

Governing against the will of the people has been an increasing proclivity of  lawmakers in Washington, regardless of party. So it is altogether possible that  Congress will avoid initiating regime change for shallow and dangerous political  reasons, even if a majority of Americans are clamoring for Obama’s  impeachment.

Our federal government has clearly grown increasingly corrupt, but this  administration is one for the books. In the operative sense, ethnicity is  irrelevant to Barack Obama having betrayed the trust of the American people. It  is no consolation to me personally that I knew he would, and that the solemn  responsibility of stewardship over this great nation was a joke to him from the  start.

The question is: What are we going to do about it? Contrary to Marxists’  rhetorical glorification of “the masses” (utilized only to manipulate them,  naturally), historically the masses have never done anything. It is the  inspiration and motivation of visionaries, whether individuals or small groups  thereof, that initiates change in the world.

Evidently we need leaders, and they must be unifying ones. Though they will  have to be followed with judicious discretion, we still have to identify them  first – and we are running out of time.