Oath Takers

by L. Douglas Hogan

  The Congressional Black Caucus

  BET (Black Entertainment Television)

  NUE TV (New Urban Entertainment Television)

  Black Family Channel

  The United Negro College Fund (UNCF)

  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), etc.

  My conservative opinion on affirmative action is that it is the government’s answer to correct a wrong with a wrong. The problem with affirmative action is that it can discriminate against a potentially more qualified individual, despite their ethnicity. No person should be given preference based on skin color, whether white or black. The standard should be equality across the board. Providing better instruction on cultural diversity is the answer. Now that we have elected a President who happens to be “black,” the problem with affirmative action has escalated. I now feel that my argument against affirmative action is stronger with a “black” President. Here’s my rationale:

  I don’t like the term “African American” because we are “Americans.” It is socially divisive to use terminology such as “African American.” But, for the purpose of explaining this, we have elected an “African American” to the highest office in the world. It was not only “black America” (also divisive) that elected him; ninety-six percent (96%) of “blacks” voted for Barrack Obama. In a color-blind world, that should have been 50/50, or close to it. Barrack Obama’s overwhelming electoral and popular vote means that a consolidated effort of both conservative and liberal efforts won him to be the first “black” President. Undoubtedly, it was nothing less than conservative America that looked through his skin color and saw a man they wanted to fix their national financial crisis. Republican States voted for Obama because they believed his promises. They were unaffected by his ethnicity. He, with the combined effort of the majority of Americans, made his way to the top to get to where he is. He had all the words, and apparently, the right education, to become America’s 44th President. That tells me that America is not racist and it’s not holding back “black Americans.” There is no longer any reason for “white” Americans to feel “guilt” for something their great-great-great-grandfather did wrongly. If “white” Americans voted 96% in favor of the “white guy” the way the “black” community did for Obama, his victory would have been impossible! It’s time to dissolve institutional racism. It is unconstitutional and needs to be deleted from our law books as a means to correct a wrong with a wrong.

  CONTRASTING A DIVIDED AMERICA

  I’m especially sure in today’s political queries that you are, at least somewhat, aware of the stark differences between the Republicans’ agenda and the Democrats’ agenda. Even in today’s muddy arena of mud-flinging showdowns, it is becoming more apparent that many political officials are seeing blurry lines between the two political party giants. No matter what political party you feel you are more appropriately aligned with, you still have an obligation to uphold the Constitution.

  Wake after wake of controversial topics are overwhelming the most committed politicians. Democrats are leaving the Democratic Party; Republicans are speaking out against their own party. The hate and bitterness are reaching near unprecedented levels. Paint them red or paint them blue, Republican or Democrat, it really doesn’t matter what party you claim to be; it all comes down to Liberalism or Conservatism. Politicians tend to paint Conservatives red and Democrats blue. Be it as you will, it really doesn’t matter what color you are, the question is, “Are you Liberal or Conservative?” Are you upholding LIBERTY or are you dismantling it?

  There are many political stances that would render you a Democrat and others that would render you a Republican. Issues that split the two giants are domestic policies, foreign policies, defense issues, abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and the economy. These issues can be divided into three primary categories: national, civil and moral. These issues are the backbone of party issues.

  For the purpose of this chapter, I would like to step away from two of these issues and focus on moralism. An idea, I think, America is slipping away from. I’m under the awareness that morality dictates virtually every aspect of life. The absence of morality causes a tailspin that slings out anything that’s not grounded. Two major political powers are tearing this country apart by their differing views and polarizing issues. But, specifically, it’s not the party names that’s causing all the ruckus. It’s the morality that ushers in ideology within the parties. Moral groups are not called Republican or Democrat; they are called Liberal and Conservative. While morality may be fluid, the lack of it is the definition of depravity.

  Let’s consider this; Liberalism is not necessarily Democratic; and Conservatism is not necessarily Republican. Hang on, I’m building up towards my big spill. There are Liberals in the Republican Party and there are Conservatives in the Democratic Party. Now both sides are swooning at the notion that, like Roosevelt’s term of office, an unwelcome party has infiltrated political lines. It’s not like that! Keep reading.

  A political party is objective. They are material organizations to which you must be a registered member. It is, in a sense, an object of attention. This is not the case with Liberalism and Conservatism. These two things are not political parties. It is nothing you can register into. They are subjective. They are philosophies, ethics, values, principles, ideologies, and moralities. They differ depending on the person to whom they are a part of. They evolve as the person evolves. They are subject to the individual and are, in many cases, the product of the environment in which they were raised.

  Now, let’s expand the scope a little bit. Earlier I basically said that Liberalism and Conservatism were codes of conduct. Let me suggest to you that they are states of mind, if you will. One state of mind is that of high moral clarity and ethics. The other is a separate set of rules that apply to the individual. It is a sense of feel-goodism, or the quick and easy path (the dark side). One is selfishness and the other is selflessness. One says, “I’ll take what I can get,” whether it’s for political gain or for the individual’s desire, and the other says, “That is not ethically and/or morally correct.” An opportunist will almost always be Liberal.

  Another type of person that will almost always be Liberal is the pacifist, but only if others are involved and there is no stake involved on their part. A pacifist that is pacifying for his own sake is not a Liberal but a Conservative. Whereas, a pacifist that is pacifying when something larger than himself is at stake is a Liberal. Liberalism was exemplified in the Liberals lack of concern in the growing threat of the Red Curtain, that is to say the Communist threat of the mid-century. Nothing was done for the better part of twenty years; therefore, the threat grew. Liberal ideology was that the United States was in no “imminent” danger. Thus pacifying the Communist threat until America was living in fear of annihilation. It was conservative values that caused the Red Curtain to fall. Why? Because somebody understood that pacifying evil will only enlarge evil’s boundaries. It must be destroyed in its tracks.

  We are seeing the same thing with the current threat known as ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). The Obama administration has been pacifying the terrorists because they feel that they are no “imminent” threat to the United States. They maintain this view until the threat has grown and become a legitimate and imminent threat to the United States. Now, they are beheading Americans, crucifying children and burying them alive, burning caged people and animals, because the threat was allowed to grow and embolden itself.

  The nature of Conservatism is to pacify others when they are the issue, but pacification against large legitimate threats is not how Conservatives deal with them. They understand that the threat is a menace to the liberty of America. The Liberal wants that threat to be ignored until it threatens his individual liberty. When his liberty is then threatened, it becomes paramount to take action. Liberals care little about the liberties of others until their personal liberties are at stake. They would rather not be bothered with the nuances of fo
reign affairs. The Liberal nature is to indulge themselves and ignore external threats, in the hope they will not become victims. The Liberal will clamor until his/her beliefs are imposed on everybody. The Conservative understands his/her rights are unique to themselves, but will not pacify themselves if it means securing liberty for all; they will sacrifice themselves in a manner exemplified only by patriotism.

  Unfortunately, for Liberals, they feel their unique individualism should be forced upon every American. Because the Liberal does not like guns, they push gun control upon every American. My personal message to Liberals is, if you don’t like guns, don’t buy them. When you are experiencing an emergency, wait twenty minutes for the police to arrive. They have guns too, but for some reason, Liberals believe the police and military should be the only ones equipped. That assumption is incorrect, given the Constitution’s Bill of Rights has forever given the average American the right to keep and bear arms, in order to secure LIBERTY forever in these States.

  No American has the right to impose their belief system upon that of another. Thomas Jefferson once stated, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” You heard it here; Thomas Jefferson says that when laws violate the rights of the individual, it is done so by a tyrant.

  Let me conclude this chapter by saying all aforementioned Liberal and Conservative chatter was done in order to establish that there are very differing views in this country. The views expressed here are pretty concrete. I understand that there are exceptions in every case. There is a mixture of people, considered “moderates,” and also there are exceptions in the ideologies aforementioned. But, for the most part, the views are so contrary that they literally divide America into two categories: Those who seek to undermine and destroy the Constitution’s writ of individual liberty and those set to defend LIBERTY at great peril to themselves. Oath takers ought to be on the side set to defend LIBERTY at great peril to themselves. Be liberal, be conservative, with the willingness to die for something greater than yourself. But do it defending the individual liberties of all, so that we can remain American.

  DEAR MR. PRESIDENT

  I think the following letter should be a required reading for all Presidents

  Throughout the pages of this book, I am making every possible effort to reveal truth as it is. I believe that truth is truth and the fact that someone may view truth in a different light does not take away from the fact that truth is unalterable. Truth does not care what race, sex, or ethical background you are. It does not exist within the realm of human perception. It transcends time, culture, ethnicity, and sex. It does not matter how it is viewed, interpreted, or expressed. Therefore, I plan on telling you how it is. How you take it is entirely up to you. It will not be watered down, it will not always feel good, and it certainly will not appeal to “Feel-Gooders.”

  I define a “Feel-Gooder” as a person who looks for the moment and allows that moment to determine his/her standing on any given issue, despite his/her system of values. It is the person who says to himself/herself, “If it feels good, then do it.” Perhaps, for the sake of defining this doctrine, I will refer to the attitude as “feel-goodism.”

  This attitude is the spirit America is discovering for a second time. Many of you may have experienced it through the Woodstock period. It was a time when peace, love, drugs, and rock-n-roll were all that mattered. It is the spirit that says to our children, “If it is not harmful to others or violating any rules, then do it.”

  The liberal element of these “children of the flowers” have become scornful and filled with hate through the years. Their hatred has taken them over and now they are teaching America’s sons and daughters in the colleges. They teach their point of view and radicalize our sons and daughters. Our kids leave their professors behind and scorn the United States as if they are their professor’s champion of all that is good and right. Unfortunately, they are on the left. Their mind’s eye has been seared shut and their new attitude is one of “tolerance.”

  The problem with this attitude is that once a generation accepts it, the proceeding generation will not only accept the attitude as the norm, but also will undoubtedly add his/her own perception to it. What was tolerance to the preceding generation is no longer tolerance, but the norm. Therefore a new level of tolerance must be created and accepted. With each acceptable state of tolerance, a standard is dropped.

  With political correctness on the scene, it has become apparent to many Americans that Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Righteousness have become blurred. What our Founding Fathers held to be “inalienable” suddenly becomes “alterable.” And it’s all for the purpose of political correctness.

  Political correctness is a lot like pepper spray. Not only does it temporarily blind the person it hits, but it also (unavoidably) gets in the eyes of everybody that is in the immediate vicinity, whether you want it there or not.

  With political correctness, once a person views something a particular way, the law concerning the view must reflect the new perception of that law. The person, in turn, is blinded to seeing the law as a violation upon his/her rights until it is changed to suit the new point of view. Fellow “Feel-Gooders” now see this with alarming clarity, and they, in turn, become blinded by the same point of view, even if they do not particularly want to view it that way. I guess the issue at hand would be “alternative.”

  An alternative must now be met for the person who is seeing his/her rights being infringed upon. For political correctness, this person must not be allowed to feel that his/her rights are being violated.

  I purposely used the word “alternative” because it’s a word that many people these days feel comfortable with. The sad truth is this: alternative is a fancy word for “compromise,” which brings uncomfortable feelings of unrighteousness into a person’s being. Political correctness says that this person must not be allowed to feel “uncomfortable.” Everybody must be appeased so that no particular person feels as though his or her rights are being violated. Suddenly, we see the laws being “redefined” by liberal black-coats. Therefore, we do not have “compromising lifestyles” in America; we have “alternative lifestyles.” We do not have “compromised Christian music”; we have “alternative Christian music.” We say “alternative” to be politically correct; but let’s face the music, it is compromise; and compromise is what’s causing our society to degrade with each passing generation.

  We hear our parents tell us how things were in their day. Their parents told them similarly. You might tell your kids how things were done in your day. With each passing generation, if you will take the time to consider, society becomes worse and worse. The reason is compromise and tolerance.

  It was in my lifetime that homosexuals became openly homosexual. When I was a child, it was taboo. In my parents’ time it was almost fictional. In my grandparents’ time, it was unheard of. I want to say that, before them, it was nonexistent, though history would prove otherwise.

  We see it on television commercials, men and women in their undergarments. This was taboo twenty years ago. The language we hear today on television and on the radio is unlike anything we heard as children. The music we hear today is unlike the music our parents listened to.

  Tolerance has a weird way of blinding you to the reality of what’s really happening to society. Standards are no longer necessary for social graces. Social graces use to be alive in every aspect of life. Today it is only seen in certain circles, and even then, you had better watch your back.

  Concerning political correctness, it is of utmost importance that we exercise extreme caution when trying to make everyone happy. Don’t forget that in an attempt to please the new generation, you are abolishing the very standards your parents and your grandparents held so dear. Ask them about their way of life. N
ot now, but then. They will be the first to tell that so much has changed. Now more than ever, it is detrimental that we hold to the goodness that once thrived in our nation and, may I dare to say, the goodness that originates from the Almighty. Dare I say the “G” word? That’s right; the politically incorrect word…GOD! So before you dare to remove “one nation under God” from our pledge to the flag and “In God We Trust” from the face of our currency, all for the purpose of political correctness, try to picture our nation without the God that has given us the rights and the powers we currently enjoy so much. Because you can mark my words, “If you desire the Almighty to take the passenger seat next to political correctness, He will not waste any time leaving, and the beauties you enjoy so much will be lost.” And it doesn’t bother me to talk about God, because it’s my right as an American. If you don’t like me bringing up God in a book, then stop reading. Bottom line is this, political correctness is poison. Political correctness is a violation of the First Freedom; it is a violation of the American way. It says you can no longer use terms like “homosexual” in the workplace. Why? It’s because political correctness has entered into bogus ethic reform. While some ethic reform is necessary, certain forms are a violation of my freedom of speech. There’s no amendment protecting a person’s right from being offended! It’s your First Amendment right to express your homosexuality. Be content in that and leave me alone to express my opinion that heterosexuality is natural.

  FROM THE BOTTOM UP