Words ..

It is amazing how words change things.

When I went to school, my teacher taught me the word “often” should be pronounced “off  nn”, not “off ten”.  She said that the latter pronunciation marked you as “uneducated.”  Of course, most people pronounce it the wrong way, but for me to hear it that way is like hearing a fingernail on a blackboard.

In my early days, when you drove around the city,  the fuel trucks had the word “inflammable” painted on their  sides, which is the correct word.  But presumably the uneducated thought that that word meant that the contents were not combustible.  So the word inflammable has been replaced by “flammable.”

I hear people, mostly in the military, talking about where they store their goodies on maneuvers.  They say that they “caa shaay” them.  The proper word is cache (caa  sssh).  Caa shaay (cachet) is an entirely different word that has nothing to do with storing goodies.  (Another fingernail on the blackboard)

How do you properly write “there are three (2’s, to’s, too’s) in the English language?”

Another word that I like to muse upon (like inflammable vs. flammable) is awe.  Now awe is defined as a feeling of amazement and respect mixed with fear that is often coupled with a feeling of personal insignificance or powerlessness  The word awful should mean something that fills us with awe.  In modern usage, we use the word to mean just the opposite … something horrible.  So if we want to give awe the correct connotation, we say “awesome.”  Let me give you an example how the word and its cousins could be used:

A number of years ago a friend of mine was speeding down the local interstate when he       happened upon a stunning, awesome scene.  Just a few minutes before, the driver of the local animal waste truck, the “gut wagon,” had lost control of his large truck and had rolled it right straight down the highway, scattering several tons of guts and gore clear across the road for a considerable distance.  The first car to happen on the scene was a Volkswagen Bug full of Nuns in their habits.  The holy ladies must have been in a hurry to get somewhere, because they began easing their “Bug” through the sea of disgusting gore, to a tragic conclusion.  When my friend came upon them with his 4 wheel drive pickup they were high centered, spun out, on a bug eyed, horned cow’s head … and nearly hysterical.  He, being a gentleman, got out his tow chain and pulled them off the head.  He showed where to go through the guck and followed them to the open road.  Wasn’t that awful in all senses of the word?

He was awed when he came upon the awful sight of a truck load of offal strung down the road with a car load of over awed Nuns stuck on top of the awful specter of an awful piece of offal.  I am awed by this story, but although that it is awful in the true sense of the word, I guess I will just have to settle by calling it awesome.

Then there are the prohibitions on our free speech.  I have also mused upon the unarticulated  prohibition of using some very common words.  I have wondered how a person from a foreign country would handle understanding the “f” word.  It is not in many dictionaries, yet it is heard everywhere.  It is very flexible, it can be used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb and expletive, even commonly, incestuously … basically, a totally versatile word.  My research shows that it can be used in a least 63 different ways.  I have an acquaintance who can give you a 60 word sentence, 42 of those words being the “f” word or its derivatives, and it makes perfect sense.  It seems to me that our society is being a little anal retentive about its use.  My son tells me that my concerns for the English learner are not well founded … that the word is so self explanatory that I need not fear, the learner will very quickly figure it out.

Many people, especially those on the left, toss around the word, “bigot.”   The definition of bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.  I ask, wouldn’t you be bigoted yourself if you called someone that you know nothing about a bigot?  What does a person from blue America know about someone from red America?

Feminists love to call red blooded macho men misogynists … is it possible that they are misandronists?

Another word is the “n” word.  The “n” word is not always a derogatory word in speech or print.  The black people in present America use it all the time to describe themselves.  My grandfather built levees on the Mississippi between Memphis and Natchez before 1900.  He supervised black workers who had been born in slavery in doing this work.  In describing the work that he (and they) did, he used the word that they called themselves, the “n” word.  I cannot convey the rich stories that he told me about his experiences without using the vernacular that he used.  Ernest Hemmingway, arguably America’s greatest author, has been quoted as saying that the greatest novel in American history is Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.”  It is a story that canonizes “Nigger Jim.”  This marvelous story uses the “n” word 231 times.  I am told that modern, self appointed speech censors have taken it upon themselves to purge modern editions of the story of that word.  In a country where freedom of speech is one of our God given rights, how dare these insignificant human mice commit such an odious atrocity.  Thank God that my copy of the story was published before 1910.  Really, we should not judge our ancestors by our standards today … isn’t it possible that they were more moral and ethical then than we are today?

Whatever happened to our good humored jokes jabbing the ethnicity of our neighbors and friends.  There used to be jokes about Krauts, Bohunks, Japs, Nips, Squints, Slants, Slopes, Ruskies, Greasers, Wops, Limeys, Jews, Pollock’s, Finns, Huns, Camel Drivers, Turban Heads, Arabs, Heimes, Pierres,Wetbacks, Niggers, Kilroy, Queers, Frankie and Jonnie, Rastus and Liza, miners, farmers, Gooks, loggers, mill workers, Preachers, WCTU, railroaders, Bums, Hobos, flyers, sailors  … and on and on.  All now lost to political correctness … maybe a good thing, but a sad day for ribald humor.

What kind of a hunter would say that he went hunting and euthanized a deer?  What is gay about the homosexual lifestyle?  It does our society no justice to use euphemisms for real life actions or situations … it demeans our personal and national character and civilization.

Vegetarians  tell me that they would never eat anything that had been killed (euthanized?).  The simple truth is that everything in the salad that the vegetarian eats is alive.  All animals ultimately depend on plant life for food, that is, if you think about it.  We need to get real and use our thoughts and language correctly.

The bankers and government officials talk about “inflation” ostensibly caused, they aver, by the ravenously greedy general public and corporations, but they should be talking of the “deflation” of the value of our money caused by their interjection into the economy of fiat (counterfeit) money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank.

But the political uses of words to incite discontent and war are without a doubt the most profound manifestation of the bastardization of the language.

Let’s get this straight … the American Republic was set up to protect the freedom of the individual, something never done before in human history.  Socialism is premised on committees of intellectual elite dictating every part of the life of the individual … it is the antithesis of freedom, it is dictatorship by committee.  Karl Marx called it dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Socialism always requires a strong police force to force the masses into compliance, a command society.  In Germany it was the Gestapo, in Russia the NKVD, in China the Red Guard.  Of course, the Communists were (are) an International organization and absolutely savage, with their purges and Gulags … they were (are) the far far left.  The Nazis were a socialistic national movement initially in one country and therefore more responsive to their constituents, the German people.  They did not attack the general public like the Communists did in Russia.  Their system, called fascism, was a compact between big business and government designed to control the masses … true, very evil, but much milder than the Soviets, a command society nonetheless … but well to the right of Russia.  Therefore, they were right wing leftists.

The guardians of our Republic, the Libertarians, the Constitutionalists, the “Original Intentors” and the Right Wing Republicans are branded by the Progressive, Left Wing Socialists and Communists in America as “Right Wing Radicals.”  Have you ever considered the irony of calling people who believe in the Constitution “radicals?”   Their favorite tactic is to equate believers in the Republic with those on the right side of socialism, the fascists of Germany and Italy, Hitler and Mussolini.  Although the fascists were to the right of the Communists, those right wing socialists were (are) so far to the left of the American Right as to be out of sight over the horizon.  However, the American Left can easily see the left wing of the socialists.  Just listen to them every day.  They are always calling on government to force business to do something to the people.  The American socialists are in fact lovers of that which they denigrate, the fascists.  Their tactics have been fruitful in the past, when they have and do brand the far right as bigots and racists, conveniently forgetting that the antecedents of their existence, the old Democratic Party were the slavers, the authors of the “Jim Crow” laws, and the members of the Ku Klux Klan that lynched and terrified the postbellum south.  They accuse their adversaries of the crimes that they themselves commit or have committed and many of the credulous American populace believe them.  A present case in point are the actions of the acolytes of the Hillary Clinton campaign who colluded with the Russians to affect the last Presidential election and who are now accusing the Trump campaign of what they themselves did.

The story is that Vladimir Lenin and one friend went to a meeting of the Socialist 2nd International, probably in 1896, ostensibly representing Russian socialism.  When he got there a numerous delegation representing Russian socialism led by Leon Trotsky was already in attendance.  Lenin was undeterred and harangued the gathering relentlessly.  He was questioned about his authority to speak, because the Trotsky delegation was much larger.  He replied that in Russia his group, although in fact it was not, was the far larger group.  He said his group were the Bolsheviki, Russian for majority and Trotsky’s group were the Mensheviki, Russian for minority.  Through this lie, the words stuck and the Russian Communists became the Bolsheviks.

But the word-lie that troubles me the most is when the American left, the Statists, the Socialists, the Communists, allied with the leadership of the modern left wing of the Democratic party call themselves, Progressives.  Applying the word Progressive to socialism is like applying gay to homosexuality.  The word Progressive infers an advancing society, excellence in the arts and sciences, in medicine, education and philosophy … generally the advancement of all things good.  Once again, they are co-opting the meaning of a good word to mean just the opposite.  There is nothing progressive about any of the socialistic command societies.  Ultimately socialism has to be forced upon a society by gunpoint.  Free Americans fought these horrible societies for the entire 20th Century and finally contained , minimized or defeated them all.  But for us oldsters we must remember that we are well into the second generation of people that know nothing of those horrible societies. We must make the uninformed  informed about the dangers of the demagogues preaching to us with perverted words about the glories of socialism with their honey dipped words of enslavement.

Yes, words and the perversion of words have great effect on our lives and freedom … it is time to start calling a spade a spade and use the correct words to explain things as they actually are.  I know that you can add to my list of misused words and lying phrases … give it a try and then stomp on those you find.

The Oxford English Dictionary has over a half million English words in it … there are plenty of words for us to express exactly what we mean.

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

More Pieces of the Obama Puzzle

Readers of this column will agree… perhaps complain… that I have harped on the subject of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility for at least a decade, and that, in spite of all my passion and my never-say-die approach to the issue, that worthless piece of excrement was still able to serve two full terms in the White House.

But, just as early explorers were convinced that they could reach the East Indies by sailing west, I am just as convinced that I have been right about Obama’s lack of eligibility from the first day he stepped into the national spotlight.  And, as each new piece of information presents itself, I feel duty-bound to see how it fits into the puzzle.  So please bear with me as I add a new piece or two to the puzzle.

From the day that Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president, millions of patriots who love the Constitution and who believe in the Rule of Law have steadfastly insisted that he is not a “natural born” citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to a 17-year-old American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a 25-year-old African father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony.  Since one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other was a British subject, it is indisputable that he was born with dual US-British citizenship, making it impossible for him to ever qualify as a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.

But Democratic “kingmakers,” who regularly demonstrate little regard for the Rule of Law, apparently harbored doubts about Obama’s presidential eligibility because of his dual US-British citizenship at birth.  Accordingly, on June 11, 2003, more than a year before anyone outside Chicago or Honolulu had ever heard of Barack Obama, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59, proposing to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution.  The Snyder resolution was followed on September 3, 2003 by H.J.R. 67, introduced, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  Nearly identical to the Snyder proposal, either of the amendments would have legitimized an Obama presidency.  Neither proposal was acted upon.

Nevertheless, in spite of those strategic failures, when Democratic leaders were satisfied that Obama had presidential potential, they arranged his dramatic “coming out” as keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Then, undiscouraged by their failure to win approval of a resolution to amend the Constitution in the 108th Congress, both Conyers and Snyder made second attempts in the 109th Congress in 2005 with the introduction of H.J.R. 2 and H.J.R 42, respectively.  Like their predecessors in the 108th Congress, both 2005 proposals died in committee.

Undeterred by their failure to legitimize a potential Obama presidency, Democrats elected him to the U.S. Senate in November 2006.  And within months of taking his seat in the Senate he went to Springfield, Illinois, to announce his candidacy for president of the United States.  Following a bitter primary campaign against former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama won the Democratic nomination on August 27, 2008, in Denver, Colorado.

But, aside from their unsuccessful attempts to amend the Constitution in Obama’s favor, there is further circumstantial evidence that Democrats knew when they nominated him that he was ineligible for the presidency.  On the closing day of the 2008 convention, as Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary of the convention, respectively, prepared certificates of nomination for the 50 state election boards, so that General Election ballots could be printed, the Democrats tipped their hand.  The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, read as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  Other states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”  The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.  Other than that, the documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

Having nominated an inexperienced and unqualified man for president of the United States, the Democrats were past the point of no return.  Accordingly, when WorldNetDaily published the details of a sworn affidavit by retired Chicago postman, Allen Hulton, on March 19, 2012, as Obama was preparing to run for a second term, there was nothing to be gained by attempting to refute Hulton’s affidavit… so they simply ignored it.

In his affidavit, the retired postman recounted his experiences delivering mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, some 25 miles west of downtown Chicago.  Hulton explained that, on numerous occasions during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, as he delivered mail to the Ayers’ front door, he engaged in brief conversations with Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’ mother.

On one such occasion, Mrs. Ayers explained that she and her husband, Thomas, CEO of Commonwealth Edison, were financially supporting a young black man, a “foreign exchange” student from either Kenya or Indonesia, with his education.  [Note: This would have been at a time between Obama’s first and second years at Harvard Law School, when he worked as a summer intern at the Sidley Austin Law Firm in Chicago.]

Hulton described one occasion on which he had a conversation with the young black man in question, who he identified as being Barack Obama.  After a friendly greeting, Hulton asked the young man what his plans were for the future, after he finished his schooling.  Hulton recalled, “He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States.  There was a little bit of a grin on his face as he said it… He sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant…”

One can hardly escape the feeling of having walked in at the middle of a movie.  What was it that made Democrats so anxious to launch constitutional amendments in 2003, a year before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, and again in 2005 when he was seen as the wunderkind of the Democrat Party, and was just beginning to contemplate a run for the U.S. Senate?

Was Barack Obama a plant, a young communist who was selected and groomed over many decades to become president of the United States?  And, if so, who planted him?  Who was the grand puppet master?  A potential answer to these questions appears on page 158 of Edward Klein’s current best-seller, All Out War – The Plot to Destroy Trump.  Klein tells us that, in organizing the effort to undermine the Trump presidency, “(Valerie) Jarrett arranged a visit by Hillary Clinton, who urged Obama to join her in leading the ‘resistance.’  Jarrett made sure that Obama received assurances of support from George Soros, who had been funding Obama since his early days in the Illinois state legislature (emphasis added)…”

If Klein is correct in his assertion… that Obama and Soros were joined at the hip as far back as the early ‘90s…, he adds credence to a letter published by California software developer, Tom Fife, in 2008.  Fife claims to have worked in Moscow in the early ‘90s, developing joint ventures with Russian software engineers.       

As Fife explains, he and his American associates were invited to dinner one evening at the apartment of their Russian partner, referred to as “V.”  As the evening progressed and the vodka consumption went unabated, V’s wife, a hardcore communist, became surly and argumentative.    She said, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?  Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”  V attempted to change the subject, but his wife was determined to gain the upper hand.  She said, “Yes, it is true.  This is not some idle talk.  He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.  You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents.  He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’  You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name.  His name is Barack.  His mother is white, and American, and his father is black, from Africa.  That’s right, a chocolate baby!  And he’s going to be your President…  He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist… He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

She went on to say that the young man named Barack, who was being groomed to be president of the United States, was from Hawaii, that he went to college in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he was soon to be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Could all of this be true?  Since the day that Barack Obama was first mentioned as a candidate for president of the United States, few among the leaders of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, fearing the certainty of being dismissed as racists and “birthers,” have had the courage to openly challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility.  They have allowed the issue to be framed in terms of the “place” of Obama’s birth, which is irrelevant, while allowing the all-important facts of his nationality at birth to be a non-issue.

But now, after fourteen months of the most vicious attacks on Donald Trump, his family, and his loyal supporters, what is to be lost by causing the Obama eligibility question to be fully and completely examined?  Is there any leftist invective so cruel and so unthinkable that it could further elevate the coarseness of today’s political discourse?  At a time in our history when a coarse and thoroughly unlikeable billionaire real estate developer from New York can be elected president of the United States, exactly what remains outside the realm of possibility?  It’s time that our side started fighting back, and what better target than the Democrats’ beloved Barack Obama?

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.




Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

The Silent Majority

My friend, Olani, a devout Christian and Patriot sent this to me and I share it with you.

The Silent Majority

Where is it?

In a kinder, gentler and more respectful time, politically speaking, we spoke of the “silent majority.”  This group was represented with individuals from all walks of life, from the north and the south, for the east and the west, democrat and republican.  Who speaks of the silent majority today?  Who represents them and what effect do they have in our society today?

I would like to make a proposal about this group and then discuss several points to back up my proposal.

As Barack Obama began his first campaign to become president of the United States, he created a theme of “hope and change.”  Little detail was ever discussed about his proposed “transformation of America” during the entire campaign, but it worked – Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America.

During his first year in office, he gave a speech in Pennsylvania.  In that speech, he isolated a group of people as “enemies” of the country.  He referred to them a “Bible huggers and gun toters.”  I was appalled.  I could not remember any President speaking in such terms about a relatively large and meaningful group of people -people who love their God and are protective of citizen’s rights to hold and bear arms.  At the time, I wrote several letters to President Obama accepting his challenge that I was an “enemy of the United States.”

Let me propose a different way of analyzing the presidency of President  Obama.  Instead of reviewing the first term and then the second, let’s review his first two years and his last two years.  In 2009 and 2010, the democrat party controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House.  They also held a majority of the governorships of the nation and most of the state legislatures.  However, when 2015 rolled around, President Obama found himself with a republican House and Senate.  As he stated, “I have my phone and my pen”, and for the last two years of his presidency he ruled as he desired with executive orders, regulatory pronouncements and personal declarations.  That has changed, now the republicans hold a majority of the governorships (today they have 35 governorships) and over 1,000 democrat seats in state legislatures have been lost.  Apparently someone was not pleased with “transformation” they had experienced in the previous 6 years.

Who was the leader of this great change in the political landscape of America?  Which pollsters were driving this change?  Were there elite marketers and organizers driving this change?  None of the above!  A mass of Americans stood up and said, ENOUGH!  This group has several common characteristics, such as:

  1. Love of our heritage, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence
  2. Willingness to obey the law themselves, and a desire that all citizens obey the law
  3. The felt need to fix our entire immigration system
  4. A total disgust of the way business is done in Washington D.C.
  5. A desire to have religious freedom and for Christian values to be respected

This “indefinable group” caused the massive political change from 2009 to 2015.

Now it was time for the presidential campaign of 2016.  The “silent majority” were seeking a “catalyst” to continue and complete their desires.  The Republican Party started with 16 candidates, all of whom were fine individuals, with some great ideas and a desire to serve.  One of them, Donald J. Trump, was considered to be a “joke”, a “farce”, a total outsider.  He was rough around the edges and, in the beginning no one thought he had a prayer.  The Media laughed, were incredulous and totally disbelieving as to his credibility.  But a funny thing happened on the way to the election –  he didn’t go away!  His followers were quickly dubbed, the deplorables, racists, white supremacists, ignorant and unsophisticated, and many other names.

Mr. Trump made many mistakes, spoke outrageously at times and was often counted out, but he never quit.  At 8:00 PM on the night of the election, most people still assumed he would lose.  No group of people has been so consistently wrong as the group who opposed Donald J. Trump from the beginning until the present time.  This group includes democrats, the liberal media and even a fairly large slice of the leadership of the Republican party!  Every excuse in the book has been heard and discussed, but here are a few facts that will not go away:

  1. “We the People” provided President Trump with 307 electoral votes. Not a landslide, but 37 more than were required
  2. “We the People” helped him win 30 States
  3. “We the People” helped him win more counties than any president since Ronald Reagan. More than George H. W. Bush, more than Bill Clinton, more than George W. Bush and yes, more than Barack Obama
  4. To my knowledge, no one has yet shown how the Russians helped Trump win a single county, let alone more counties than any other president since Ronald Reagan
  5. By the way, all those deplorables, racists, white supremacists, ignorant and unsophisticated people, they are the silent majority. The left wing politicians, quickly becoming socialists, just renamed them, trying to get them to go away
  6. There is a real war going on in America today. There are no guns or battle lines.  However,  the left got so arrogant after the 2008 election, they thought they would always control government groups.  Obamacare was designed to become a “single payer system” in 2017.  The left could not conceive of the possibility that a democrat would not be in the White House on January 20, 2017 to make sure the transition occurred.  Today they are fighting to remain relevant.  Sadly, our education system, and Bernie Sanders, have been training the young people of America to value socialism and communism.  They felt they were close to “transforming America” as President Obama desired, but they have not yet succeeded.

Now comes the critical question – “Will the deplorables, the racists, the white supremacists, the ignorant and the unsophisticated” be around in2018?  In 2020?  The answer is a resounding: yes!  “We the People” still seek the same goals, they are crucial for our survival as a nation.  “We the People” continue to hold dear, the qualities and integrity that some have such a desire to destroy.  We will not allow that.  We do not need a leader, we have our standards.  We aren’t  sure what politicians have similar  standards,  but we are identifying them daily and we will work hard to get others to run against them and conquer them!

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment