The President Bob Report

There was a trend for awhile, and it's seemed since to die down a little, for some minority groups to oppress other minority groups by going through the court system and getting rulings in their favor.

Environmental extremists started this with suing the EPA, which would simply cave and accept whatever they wanted. Meaning that the laws Congress set in place that authorized regulations were then bent or avoided by the environmentalists - making some of these laws as implemented very destructive to farmers and rural landowners, a very, very tiny minority.

The "reverends with out flocks" who were profiting off supposed inequities used even the threat of their organized marches, boycotts, and lawsuits to get big corporations to pay them off with donations to their cause. (One of these, Sharpton, allegedly owes the IRS millions in taxes from his former organizations - a long-standing scheme to defraud - reportedly.)

The LGBT community learned they could align together in the area of extreme minority sexual orientation, and sue to get whatever they wanted. They even claimed it was a civil rights scene, much as the fight to remove the consequences of slavery in the U.S.

They won in the courts, but this only made other minorities their slaves - because they didn't get agreement on a natural evolution of society (as had finally happened in the nearly 100 years after slavery was outlawed with the 13th amendment - and culminated in Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.)

This court ruling tended to enslave white Christians to the LGBT beliefs, and suppressed their own right to expression and religious-belief affirmation.  You could no longer "discriminate" against any form of marriage (well human-animal, and polygamy are still in question - but probably not for long...) - and that "discrimination" would be anything that was not affirming the full right of that minority to do whatever they wanted to sexually and being completely authorized by the courts to do so by the legal consent of a marriage document, church or not.

You see, what happened is that you don't win the hearts and minds of people by force. And the backlash is still to happen on this. It takes time for the trained-in opinions of people to change. That is generational, meaning it took five generations of people to accept the point that the descendants of former slaves should have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. (Never mind that a black slaveholder invented lifetime slavery in Virginia, and the largest slaveholding in the South was by a black (well, technically mulatto) - who had white and Amerindian slaves as well - and yes, beat them all as he saw fit. Simon Legree personified.)

Five generations before people could agree upon a law change.

Getting the courts to force the issue in a handful of years doesn't change people's minds.  Only time will do that.

It doesn't get such court-arranged marriages accepted. You'll still find most of these in the biggest cities where those ideas are more accepted. And you'll also find that most of the repercussions will be in the rural areas, where that concept of federally (not church) approved marriages hasn't gone that route. Such a couple is actually offensive in those areas - so they actually started the dance when they drove into town.

Safest advice? Flyover and ignore everything between the coasts - unless its a major population center or government-sponsored city like a college town. Live only in like-minded communities (such as San Fransisco.)

Meanwhile, everyone should move out of cities if they don't like the attitudes being supported or promoted there. Let them lie in the beds they made. Better and cheaper ways to live in suburban and rural areas, anyway. Just watch those planes fly overhead and you don't have to listen to queer conversations...

(What most people don't see coming is that it's been a long-time trend where people are leaving the coasts and moving to the South to avoid high taxes. And Texas can be a bit "intolerant" of outsider's beliefs at times. They also carry guns and have been known to shoot burglars rather than just put up with being ripped off. Not like Chicago...)

- - - -

Well, we tried to help out as much as possible. But we quit catering to minority groups of any kind over any other kind. We'd hold parties for various functionaries  when we had to - and I'd make an appearance. But as soon as I could, I'd make my excuses, change out of those dress-up duds so I could go out back and blow off steam with a good round of horseshoes.

You could blame "political correctness" for the disaster which nearly bankrupt the country.

It would have been too easy to simply blame an earlier administration - but it has been building up because of both parties and numerous Presendents.

Let me insert my usual disclaimer that this is really just a memoir of a very short and unique Presidency by an un-elected citizen. And since I'm now an "Ex", it's too easy to say I'm just a senile old fool.

That's why I can get away with this memoir. Both main parties disowned me, as well as most of the smaller parties (can we again say minority here?)

This disaster had been a long time building, as I said.

While the Republican's weren't blameless by any means, the Democrats had gone after a "majority of minorities" as a way to win elections. Not bad, but this really divided the country.

When you break down statistics (caveat: remember "Lies, Damned lies, and statistics"?) you actually see that the nation is built of minorities, including the white (non-colored) working male part - which included me.

(Let's "sidebar" here: If "people of color" are "black" this also means you could call whites "non-colored" - I don't think anyone should object, as much blame as some in the media heap on "whites" for the wrong reasons.)

So it means that both Left and Right assemble various minority groups - niches, to use a marketing term - in order to secure elections. You can't count on the Non-colored to vote one way any more than you can count on the Colored ("people of color" to vote one way. Your Queer ("LGBT") vote no more uniform than the Latino ("people of partial color") were.

Politicians then had to appeal to various minorities with various promises which were impossible to keep. (Oh, and that's a big surprise?) Democrats had a problem in that church going "blacks" hated "gay marriage", for instance. If they want to encourage Hispanic ("slightly colored") votes, the encouraged legalizing illegal immigration (formerly known as "wetbacks") which then took jobs away from blacks.

What a scene.

Republicans were afraid of the press, because they would all jump on a story (even if false) and then repeat that story on later stories - until it became Gospel truth (aka: urban legend.)

So the whole deal was to break apart the coalition of minorities of the other guy's party.

The way to keep your minorities on your side was to pander to them, by apologizing for the slightest discomfort anything you said or did (if imaginary) to them. Political Correctness and stupidity ruled.

This led us all to a national financial breakdown, narrowly averted.

One urban legend got started some time after I got into office that the Republicans were going to shut down the banking system - which of course started a run on the banks. The FDIC tried to get in front of it, only to be called a "front group" for the One-Percenters. Some simple sleuthing by my staff showed that this turned out to be someone's gambit to get the Democrats back in charge after my term was over.

The damage had been done, though. Without a steady flow of money, banks weren't able to make loans, and so businesses started to fail. So more people went out of work - and had to spend what they had left. You could see that if this weren't stopped quickly, there would be another Recession going on.

So I went on the radio and gave them all hell. Did that for several weeks. My typical "political-correctness-be-damned approach."

My general approach was to compare the Media to a pack of asinine hyenas who bayed at the moon for waking them up at night. And then I labelled anyone who listened to the media as "blindly going from one ditch to the other down the street, with manure-covered feet."

(Media didn't like that one bit, as soon as they looked up what "manure" was. Then they realized hyena's were colored - we countered with "mix-parentage"; they said the quote was from the Bible - and we punted back that a similar phrase was in both the Old Testament and the Koran - so which religion were they persecuting? That shut them up a little bit - being anti-Semitic was one thing, but you didn't want a Jihad going after your New York or L.A. media offices...)

My staff also took a comment I made about how people would soon be burying their money in their back and front yards - and started running a Twitter campaign with photoshopped holes in the White House lawn. People loved this and started adding to the scene, posting any image of any city excavation job as a way to find income for city budgets. (Unfortunately, they also started calling them #obamaholes or #o-holes...)

After that campaign backfired, then people put their money back into the banks (especially after a few well-publicized home invasions in cities where they weren't allowed to have guns. Texas had a few of these as well, but the burglars weren't very successful - they arrested the ones which survived.)

With regular cash flow going again, banks were able to lend money and the nation got going again.

And both main political parties went back to figuring out how to get their guy elected next.

I continued to insist that I wasn't going to run for re-election and I wasn't going to recommend any candidate.

And I was shown on national TV playing horseshoes in the White House back yard (with no holes in it, BTW.)

That seemed to calm down the scene. The Media won't follow boring.

(Photo: "Tax Credits")

The news started being filled with success stories of entrepreneurs, while we also quit seeing racist and intolerant minorities showing up with sob stories.

Factually, most of this was the Mainstream Media trying to get ratings out of controversy - the more they stirred it up, the longer it lasted. They had some funny idea that they could "control the narrative." Far from the truth.

"Can't we all just get along?" was the phrase we started using - and the history of that statement speaks volumes about how minority "oppression" is exploited by various sources for their own good.

The LGBT community had to swallow a bitter pill - that they had to tolerate other's beliefs just as they sought (and marched and boycotted) to get theirs.

Because you win in the courts doesn't mean you ever won over the majority which put that law into action originally. Hearts and minds are different things. Such take time to change and to heal.

The Mainstream Media was always pitting the overpopulated coasts against the more traditional middle (Flyover Country.) And they held to this odd-ball concept that controversy kept their advertisers (mostly drug companies) happy.  Makes sense, in a perverse fashion.

The more interesting point was how people were watching less and less news in favor of stories which they could get online that weren't so disaster-driven.

Mostly, our work in Washington was to get the government out of the meddling business. Since that "community-organizer-in-chief" (aka "reverse-discriminator-in-chief") left, things calmed down rapidly. When the White House was asked for a comment, the standard line was to ask a question back - such as, "What would you have us say?" Then a conversation would ensue - the PR person was coached to encourage discussion amongst the reporters - and the whole thing was covered on CSPAN so people could make  up their own mind.

(Our own website would often excerpt these, posting to YouTube and then embedding it for all to see. Very calming when your favorite reporter has a personal paradigm-shift on national television.)

Press Conferences Gave Back

In fact, my press conferences (held each Ides of the month, poetically) got  quite interesting. The ground rule was set: For every question, the person on the podium was then able to ask that person a question.

Long "exclusive" interviews were filmed by CSPAN as well as that station, so that the entire give-and-take was recorded, unedited. Generally, the interviewer got 25 questions and I got 25 questions.

This got real interesting after awhile, where reporters were asked personal questions about how they personally felt about things, and their own employer's policies. This kept my staff busy researching reporters and the media - and those reporters soon learned about living in glass houses.

Soon, some reporters quit asking for interviews. And the ones that did (and could thrive in that give-and-take) usually got a bigger following on the social media.

Minority Intolerance

Because a person was "gay" or "islamist" meant no difference to me or to the government. The laws of the land were as they were. When a person was discriminated against, then they could seek relief from the courts. But where a person discriminated against others in order to push forward some extremist-minority view which attempted to force others to change their own beliefs, then the shoe was on the other foot.

Gays had no right to force a person to sell stuff to them. Like the old ploy of the government forcing contraception coverage on religious groups. Commerce is not a natural right or law. It's governed by man-made laws.

Chiefly, we stayed out of things and referred them to state and local areas for resolution. And we encouraged outside groups trying to take advantage of a scene in a local area to "butt out." That community needed to resolve it's problems on it's own. It's been the natural order of things since history started being written.

Governments only exist through vast majority opinion. Minorities should be heard, and also have their rights to exist and to believe as they want. But you can't use any government to force someone else to change their beliefs just for your own personal benefit.

Those who were shouting loudest for tolerance usually ended up exposed as hypocritically intolerant of those who didn't believe as they did.

Weird, huh?

It just goes back to what a person says. You get back what you give out. Be supportive and understanding, and you'll get more of this back in your life. Let people choose their own beliefs - and as long as this doesn't deny natural rights and laws to others, then you can pretty much do what you want.

It was our job to move the government back to honoring natural rights and laws as much as possible, just like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence states. A right to the pursuit of happiness.

Not so remarkably, revenue jumped up without an increase in taxes. More jobs opened up, less crime happened.

And yes, we pretty much ignored the U.N. - other than holding ambassadors responsible for their staff's parking tickets (those that could come to the U.S. because they weren't terrorism sponsors.)

Lots of commerce for everyone. American dream and all that.