POTUS – America's Deadliest PC Acronym - A Tool of Social Programming

The common place usage of the term Potus is seeping into the everyday language of both parties, the media and the minds of Americans. It is a glaring red flag that the ideal of freedom is being replaced in our national consciousness. Since the inception of politically correct ideology, language, its usage and meanings, have been changing subtly within the collective American mindset. Such slow moving change is akin to the slithering of a viper. Said viper is now coiled at our very door.

America has elected over 40 presidents since our nation’s inception. I don’t remember ever hearing the acronym applied by the media, or in conversation, before the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Do you?

I first noticed seeing the term in common usage right after Barack Hussein Obama was elected the first time. At that time, I only saw it being used by conservatives and those who were not Obama supporters. Now, I’m seeing the term used by the Left controlled media. How ironic is that?

A term used by the Right to be derogatory is now being used by the Left as a matter of course. Perhaps, that is because while many of us like to call the media stupid, they are far from it. Or, perhaps it would be better stated, those directing the Main Street media are far from stupid. Many of us would concur that the Leftist media got Obama elected and keeps him in the good graces of his common folk supporters. I contend the Left's adoption of said term and their common place usage thereof is making the term part of the national consciousness.

The Online Etymology Dictionary states "potus" comes from the words pot and potion.

_Pot:

_{"vessel," from late Old English pott and Old French pot, both from a general Low Germanic and Romanic word from Vulgar Latin *pottus, of uncertain origin, said by OED to be unconnected to Late Latin potus "drinking cup" (c.600).}

_Potion:

_{c.1300, from Old French pocion (12c.), from Latin potionem (nominative potio) "potion, a drinking," from potus "drunken," irregular pp. of potare "to drink," from PIE root *po(i)- "to drink" (cf. Sanskrit pati "drinks," panam "beverage;" Greek pinein "to drink," poton "that which one drinks," potos "drinking bout;" Old Church Slavonic piti "to drink," pivo "beverage").}

The harm originated in the etymology of the term itself. When we consult the online Etymology Dictionary, we find the term evolved from two words, pot and potion. Hm. Let’s think about that, a pot and a potion, or perhaps, a pot with a potion in it. Following that line of thought, one deducts the Potus must be a vessel containing a potion.

Those of the more liberal persuasion might think this to be an accurate description since many of said group believe that the Potus has the power to bring about change in America, much like a magic potion brings about a desired change. Those of a more conservative nature would agree, to an extent, that the etymology of the word accurately depicts the President, though they feel the “potion” part to be of a much more sinister variety.

Conservatives often call this potion “Obamaid.” Following the ideological framework of the potion being an ideology put forth by the pot, the president, puts one in either the camp of the potion being good or the potion being bad. Sadly, no one is pointing out the fact that “potions” are not the answer.

While I doubt the first person to use the acronym had etymology in mind when he made that call, it still plays an important role in how the term is perceived on a subconscious level.

Furthermore, while that person some decades back probably thought nothing of it, in our modern political climate much money is thrown behind the research and application of terminology in all areas of politics, from image consulting to the micro-dissection of every demographic group conceivable. Do you really think the Left dominated Main Street media would be, now, affectionately using the term had not they been given the go ahead to do so?

Why on earth would someone do that?

Let's examine how the term has been used in the past before addressing that question.

William Safire, writing for the "New York Times" stated the term was not seen in the popular language until very recently. He wrote the acronym was used as a label on one of Nixon's phones, and bandied about by the Secret Service for some time, but not seen in print until 1983. While he does not state it specifically, It important to note that in the print article he speaks of, the acronym was used as a designation of parties involved in a list. It was not used as a means of address. He does state no one would have dreamed of using the acronym as an address to the President during Nixon's time.

Now, let us return to our question...

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell


"Political chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
George Orwell

This has happened many times in our culture.

Examples of words evolving to drastically different meanings than originally intended:

• Gangster: This word, not so long ago, was considered synonymous with bad guy. Now, it's a term of respect when used by our youth, oftentimes. Variations seen in popular language include gangster want-a-be, original gangster and OG. All have been used in recent times by the mediums of popular culture such as art, music and movies in such a way as to glorify those they are applied to. Notice, what was once considered bad is now by many thought to be good.

• Bad: The word bad used to mean just that. It referred to something one did not want. For some time now the term has been used in everyday slang to mean just the opposite. For example: "That's a bad ride!"

Changing the public mindset of what the idea of the President of the United States means to the people through repeated exposure and manipulation of the word potus is a dangerous game. At least, it is if you value freedom.

The term was originally applied by critics as one that implied an air of dictatorship, an air of being a self proclaimed king. That derogatory stigma was firmly associated with the term before the Left dominated media began using it in a supposed non-derogatory way. Because the subconscious never forgets anything, coupled with the fact that said term has already had negative connotations well established, it has been and will increasingly be implanted in the public mindset as synonymous with our elected leader. All the negative connotations of the word will remain attached, though they may not be consciously perceived as negative by all exposed as the word continues to evolve.

Through repeated exposure the populace is being subtly conditioned to accept those very negative attributes, even expect them, out of our President.

^{Antecedent - The critical right begins referring to the President as potus.}

^{Behavior - The Left controlled media is given the go ahead to use the term in everyday language associated with the President.}

^{Consequences -}

• ^{The new application and connotations of the term become embedded within the mindset of the nation.}
• ^{Testing of the limits of what has been traditionally allowed within the authority of the President increased.}
• ^{The President increasingly usurps the Constitution.}
• ^{Drones may kill you in your home on Presidential discretion alone.}

As if the world of address turned upside down overnight, now the Left controlled media is referring to the President of the United States as the potus, or simply potus. Does anyone think they mean it in any way that is remotely derogatory? Only Fox News goes there, and most Main Street Media news viewers know that. So, why?

To contemplate the why of any behavior one must first ascertain the function of said behavior. In this case, the function of the behavior is two fold. First, it gets the title firmly established in the minds of the citizenry. Secondly, since the term comes with negative connotations, said connotations are now more easily tolerated and possibly even expected.

Repeated exposure behaviorally conditions many to be more open to acceptance.

How susceptible do you think you are? Now, think about your children, grandchildren, the kid down the street. See where I'm going here?

The term "potus", as repeatedly used on a young and largely impressionable, uneducated populace, implies a single leader, a dictator or king, that holds ultimate power over those considered in his/her realm of authority. When the term potus is applied to the President of the United States of America, it sends a subconscious message to us all, a message of subservience, a message that the conclusion is foregone and freedom is a thing of the past.

_{I do not own nor did I create the video above. It was uploaded to Youtube.com by markhansel1 and I believe him to be the creator.}

It is a mindset first and foremost. Without the ideals of freedom being firmly held within the minds of the populace, freedom is doomed. Anything that moves the national mindset away from the ideal of the President of our great nation being anything other than the one elected to represent the people, to defend the Constitution and the nation is as lethal as a viper.

Sh.

Can you hear the hissing?

_{I do not own, nor did I create this video. It was uploaded to Youtube.com by chrisologos1.}

"Politics have no relation to morals."

Niccolo Machiavelli

Look at the photo and think about the symbolism.

Do you see an American flag anywhere in the picture? Do you see the colors of America? Do you see anything that stands up and says Presidential? Do you see anything that evokes thoughts of Hollywood movie night? While I wish I could say I spotted the following first, I did not.

The honorable Reverend James David Manning did, to the best of my knowledge. He pointed out that those standing behind the First Lady, while being Secret Service agents, sure don't look it. They look more along the lines of royal guards. I understand they were in no way acknowledged during the presentation, much like royal guards never are.

Think about it.

^{I do not own, nor did I create the video above. It was uploaded to Youtube.com by pseudohippie55 and I believe said up-loader to be the original creator.}

Alex Pappas, writing for "The Daily Caller" stated that Potus and Flotus spent 1.4 BILLION of our tax dollars on vacations last year. He further reported The real Royal Family spent only 57.8 million.

My, my.

I have to wonder if the Obamas aren't experiencing a bit of that syndrome known as keeping up with the Jones'... On our dime. So, while the once poor, currently disbarred attorneys hailing from Chicago live out every child's dream of playing royalty with no expense to themselves, Americans are increasingly being bowed down.

As King Leonidas once said, loosely paraphrased, in the blockbuster movie, "300" ...

"That's a problem."

_{(c) Vix a.k.a. Rhonda Enrayne}

_3-5-13

^{Disclaimer: The above article is my opinion. Did it offend you? One good thing about being offended, it gets folks thinking. Agree or disagree as you chose, but please, think about it.}

_{All images are from clker.com unless otherwise attributed.}

_{All bars were made by Vix at Cooltext.com.}

This politically correct ideology

is rooted in behavioral psychology.

Pay attention and be most wary.

America, it's getting really scary.