The Queen of Mean and Fauxahontas: A Dream Team…For Pathological Liars

June 28, 2016

image
The Presumptive Democratic and Republican Candidates have not even received the nominations of their respective political parties yet, but the battle to determine who will be the next President of the United States of America has definitely started to heat up.

Yahoo News reports that

Elizabeth Warren attempted to beat Donald Trump at his own name-calling game in her first campaign event for Hillary Clinton in Cincinnati on Monday.

The Massachusetts senator, who is reportedly being vetted as a possible vice presidential pick for Clinton, declared presumptive GOP nominee Trump “a small, insecure money grubber,” a “nasty man who will never become president of the United States” and a “thin-skinned bully,” among other insults.

Clinton and Warren made a striking pair on stage at the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal as they clasped hands and triumphantly raised their fists high in the air. Supporters hoping for a Clinton-Warren ticket were seen waving “Girl Power” signs as they cheered on the two women.

Hillary Clinton’s Inspiring Message to Every Little Girl

Warren, who has recently become one of Trump’s most vocal critics, also accused the billionaire businessman of being out for himself only and not for the American people.

“When Donald Trump says ‘great,’ I ask: ‘great for who, exactly?’ ” Warren said. “When Donald says he’ll make America great, he means greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump. That’s who Donald Trump is … And you have to watch out for him, because he’ll crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.”

Warren praised Clinton as “someone who gets up every single day and fights for us” and applauded her advocacy for families and children, her “steady hands” and her “good heart.”

And Clinton was just as effusive in her praise of Warren, telling supporters, “You just saw why she is so terrific, so formidable. Because she tells it like it is.”

“I have to say, I do just love how she gets under Donald Trump’s skin,” Clinton added.

Elizabeth Warren Campaigns for Hillary Clinton for First Time, Calls Donald Trump a ‘Small, Insecure Money Grubber’| 2016 Presidential Elections, politics, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Rodham Clinton

It looks like Warren was able to accomplish just that with her speech on Monday.

Shortly after Clinton and Warren’s joint appearance, Trump’s campaign fired off an email titled “Sellout Warren,” labeling the progressive darling – who many believe was enlisted by Clinton to win over skeptical Bernie Sanders voters – “a turncoat for the causes she supposedly supports.”

“While Warren claims that Wall Street businesses have too much influence in D.C., by paying ‘barely disguised bribes,’ through campaign contributions,” the statement reads. “The Clinton campaign has accepted over $41 million this cycle from Wall Street interests. Warren is also campaigning for the author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal she has routinely slammed. This is a trade deal that Clinton has expressed support for in over 45 public speeches.”

“Warren’s campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced,” the statement continues. “This sad attempt at pandering to the Sanders wing is another example of a typical political calculation by D.C. insiders.”

“Sellout Warren” appears to be a new nickname from Trump, who has previously shown a preference for “Pocahontas” – a reference to the 2012 controversy surrounding Warren’s Native American heritage – or “Goofy Elizabeth Warren.”

Warren turned one of Trump’s insults against him at the campaign event Monday, saying, “Donald Trump says he’ll make America great again … It’s stamped on the front of his goofy hats.”

“You want to see goofy? Look at him in that hat.”

Warren, who has recently become one of Trump’s most vocal critics, also accused the billionaire businessman of being out for himself only and not for the American people.

“When Donald Trump says ‘great,’ I ask: ‘great for who, exactly?’ ” Warren said. “When Donald says he’ll make America great, he means greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump. That’s who Donald Trump is … And you have to watch out for him, because he’ll crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.”

Warren praised Clinton as “someone who gets up every single day and fights for us” and applauded her advocacy for families and children, her “steady hands” and her “good heart.”

And Clinton was just as effusive in her praise of Warren, telling supporters, “You just saw why she is so terrific, so formidable. Because she tells it like it is.”

“I have to say, I do just love how she gets under Donald Trump’s skin,” Clinton added.

Uh huh.

Trump posted on Facebook yesterday that

Crooked Hillary is wheeling out one of the least productive senators in the U.S. Senate, goofy Elizabeth Warren, who lied on heritage.

That doesn’t sound like she got under his skin to me.

In fact, both Clinton and Warren sound clueless to me, like all of their Liberal sycophants.

Rush Limbaugh explained the absurdity of Warren’s attack on Trump on husband radio program yesterday…

Donald Trump hasn’t taken anybody else’s money to get where he is. Elizabeth Warren does and has. Hillary Clinton does and has. There isn’t a single member of the Obama administration in the cabinet that’s ever held a private sector job, folks.

They’re all academicians, theorists, think tankers. None of them have ever held a job. None of them have ever owned a business. None of them have ever had a payroll. They are the money-grubbers. They’re the leeches. They are the true architects of greed. There is no greater institution of greed than the United States government and the Democrat Party which runs it, sadly with some Republicans tagging right along. Donald Trump hasn’t gotten what he has by taking it from anybody else.

But Hillary can’t say that, and Bill Clinton can’t say that, and Elizabeth Warren can’t say that.

But they’re out there saying, “He didn’t build that! He crush everybody. He crushed everybody into the dirt.” It’s just absurd. Donald Trump is full-fledged Capitalist 101, as are many successful people, and look how they are derided. Look how they are ground into the dust and ripped to shreds as “guys who always want more.” I think the Clintons always want more, right? As far as the Clintons are concerned, enough is never enough. They’re constantly seeking more. They’re constantly usurping more. Ditto, Elizabeth Warren. Ditto, every one of these leftist leading and living off the money of other people and then seeking to be seen as compassionate in the process.

Liberals like Clinton and Warren have to be the biggest hypocrites that I have ever seen.

As Rush said, they’re jumping on Trump because he’s a billionaire, and yet they are both worth millions of dollars.

As far as them being compassionate, caring individuals who only have the best interest of you and me at heart, that dog don’t hunt.

Every study that is available on the Internet shows that conservatives outgive Liberals by as much as 4 to 1.

Hilary, like Obama before her, is passionate in her speeches to her adoring fans about “sharing the wealth”.

And, Senator Elizabeth Warren is as big a socialist as Bernie Sanders.

Oh, they love to share the wealth… as long as it isn’t their own.

They are both very skilled at sharing our, the American Taxpayers’, wealth.

Who is more reprehensible… someone who has never held a legitimate job in the private sector , but has become wealthy while living on the taxes and donations of others, or someone who has built an Business Empire through hard work and dedication which employs thousands of hard-working Americans?

Those are your choices for President of the United States of America.

So… Who are you going to vote for?

The answer to my last question is a no-brainer…just like Hillary and Warren themselves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama: America’s Greatest Gun Salesman

June 27, 2016

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Washington Examiner reports that

Gun sales are on a pace to break last year’s record of more than 23 million, a boon to the U.S. industry and gun stores thanks to election-year worries about gun control and recent terror attacks, according to government figures and experts.

Under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI. Last year, the FBI conducted more than 23 million background checks, which are generally used to figure sales of new and used weapons.

Domestically, manufacturers have reported producing about 21,000 guns a day, or more than 46 million in Obama’s first six years in office.

And should Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to best Republican Donald Trump in the polls, sales could hit new highs, according to industry experts.

Joining men in buying guns have been women, youths and now members of the LGBT community, especially after the terrorist slaying of 49 at an Orlando, Fla., gay nightclub this month.

Justin Anderson, marketing director for Hyatt Guns in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s biggest gun shops, said Obama has been great for sales.

“The recent surge in gun buying is based on two variables: fear of government intrusion on Second Amendment rights, and, more importantly, people interested in personal protection,” Anderson told Secrets.

“Our sales have doubled across the board, not just in AR-style rifles, but also in small frame handguns and home defense shotguns. We saw this just after the San Bernardino shooting, as well. More and more people are coming to realize that their personal safety is at risk and their government cannot protect them,” he said, adding:

“This is likely the beginning of a long rise in gun sales leading up the election. Should Hillary Clinton take a significant lead, it will only boost these sales.”

No Doubt.

That is what Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans.

Average Americans will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.

What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?

Let’s have a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, found in the section known as the “Bill of Rights”.

Why did our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, include this Amendment?

Dr. Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, wrote the following in an article posted at Heritage.org

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia, consisting of ordinary civilians who supply their own weapons and receive a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

…Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny. This conundrum could not be solved, and the [Constitutional] Convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Convention presumed that a militia would exist, but it gave Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gave the new federal government almost unfettered authority over the army and navy.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was. James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In The Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

Implicit in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. The disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only over the narrower question of how effective an armed population could be in protecting liberty.

My purpose in reviewing history is quite simple:

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake, if President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe.

And, as recent events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Modern American Liberals, including the President, do not.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The #NeverTrump Mass Temper Tantrum Continues: George Will Announces Departure From GOP. Well…Bye!

June 25, 2016

image

By now, I’m sure that you have seen or heard Donald J. Trump’s New Campaign Slogan, “I’m With You”, meaning that he stands with us average Americans, not the Political Elite of our nation.

And, that has made “The Smartest People in the Room” positively apoplectic.

PJMedia.com reports that

Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Will, who writes for the Washington Post, acknowledged it is a “little too late” for the Republican Party to find a replacement for Trump but had a message for Republican voters.

“Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.

Will said he changed his voter registration this month from Republican to “unaffiliated” in the state of Maryland.

“This is not my party,” Will said during his speech at the event.

He mentioned House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) endorsement of Trump as one of the factors that led him to leave the party.

Will, a Fox News contributor, said a “President Trump” with “no opposition” from a Republican-led Congress would be worse than a Hillary Clinton presidency with a Republican-led Congress.

Will did not say if he would vote for the Libertarian Party nominee, former Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.), telling the crowd he does not know whether or not the Libertarian ticket is going to help or hurt Clinton.

Back in August of 2015, the following information was found on legalinsurrection.com

(From a George Will Op ed) Conservatives who flinch from forthrightly marginalizing Trump mistakenly fear alienating a substantial Republican cohort. But the assumption that today’s Trumpites are Republicans is unsubstantiated and implausible. Many are no doubt lightly attached to the political process, preferring entertainment to affiliation. They relish their candidate’s vituperation and share his aversion to facts. From what GOP faction might Trumpites come? The establishment? Social conservatives? Unlikely.

They certainly are not tea partyers, those earnest, issue-oriented, book-club organizing activists who are passionate about policy. Trump’s aversion to reality was displayed during the Cleveland debate when Chris Wallace asked him for “evidence” to support his claim that Mexico’s government is sending rapists and drug dealers to the United States. Trump, as usual, offered apoplexy as an argument.

(Will concludes his piece calling for “excommunicating” Trump and his supporters from the GOP:)

So, conservatives today should deal with Trump with the firmness Buckley dealt with the John Birch Society in 1962. The society was an extension of a loony businessman who said Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” In a 5,000-word National Review “excoriation” (Buckley’s word), he excommunicated the society from the conservative movement.

It is no secret that the Republican Elite (of which George Will is a charter member) and the Democratic Party, whose Presumptive Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, is going to face Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election, despise Donald J. Trump.

Hillary Clinton and George Will, on the surface, appear to have nothing in common.

However, when you step back and actually listen to them, they are kindred spirits in the way in which they approach Political Communication.

Both of them seem to think that average Americans, you know, those of us who actually work for a living, can not think for ourselves and are more gullible than the boy in the movie, “The Christmas Story”, who stuck his tongue to a freezing flagpole on a Triple Dog Dare.

Unfortunately, for these two “Smartest People in the Room”, the reality is, they are not as smart as they both believe themselves to be.

Average Americans have a long fuse… which leads to a barrel of gunpowder.

George Will is correct. This is not “his” Republican Party anymore.

The “peasants” are revolting.

The reason that Donald J Trump handily beat all of the Republican Primary Candidates for the Presidential Nomination of their party, is the fact that average Americans have reached the end of our collective fuse.

We have had our fill of professional politicians, such as the one who currently occupies the White House, who always promise the moon, and consistently deliver blue cheese, instead.

We are tired of watching our country go down the old porcelain receptacle, for the sake of Political Expediency and Political Correctness.

Average Americans are waking up and beginning to take a stand, in what I hope will be a grassroots effort to reclaim America from those who claim to be leaders, but who actually care more about themselves, than they do for the future of America and the future of our children and grandchildren.

I will truly enjoy watching Hillary’s presidential bid go down in flames. It could not happen to a nicer person.

Where that woman spits, grass never grows again.

I will also enjoying watching Donald J. Trump verbally diet her, piece by rancid piece.

Trump has always been a “people person”.

That is the reason that, when he was still a contributor to Fox News, he would speak to everyone in the building, from the maintenance crew, on up the ladder.

As Sam Walton, the Founder of Walmart, knew, you don’t inspire people by acting imperious and above it all.

“Mr. Sam”, until his health would no longer allow him to do so, would travel to Walmart Stores in his old pickup truck, with a tie and a baseball cap on, visiting the employees, in order to find out how his stores were doing.

He knew that the only was to be successful and to stay in touch with the public, was to be out among them, and speak to them honestly and directly, as one would speak to a friend.

The Political Establishment, of both parties, lost that concept, a long time ago.

Bypassing the borders to communication, historically determined by both political parties and the Main Stream Media, is a concept which I first witnessed being employed by a Presidential Candidate in the 1980 Presidential Election, named Ronald Wilson Reagan.

While I am not comparing the two, I am noting that this strategy has proved and is proving effective, in the case of both Presidential Candidates.

As the polls show, and will continue to show, Trump is striking a resonant chord in the hearts of Average Americans, living here in the part of America, which the snobbish Political Elites refer to as “Flyover Country”, but which we refer to as “America’s Heartland”, or, quite simply, “HOME”.

We average Americans have taken a great deal of pleasure in watching him put the Elites’ of both parties knickers in a twist.

What the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave needs right now, is forthrightness and blunt honesty.

Political Expediency and Political Correctness be dam… well, you know.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Donald J. Trump, Aziz Ansari, and the Immigration Act of 1924 (A KJ Saturday Morning Op Ed)

June 25, 2016

untitled (76)As I was trying to figure out what to write about this morning, I started my daily web search of my usual resources. Finding nothing that picqued my interest, I decided to wander over to CBSNews.com and found a bunch of articles that consisted of nothing but Liberal Talking Points.

I was shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

This one, however, stood out.

After the Orlando mass shooting nearly two weeks ago, actor and comedian Aziz Ansari warned his mother not to go near mosques, to “do all your prayer at home,” he wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

Ansari, the son of Muslim immigrants, fears for the safety of his family and his Muslim friends, and it is listening to presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump that’s exacerbating his fears.

“Today, with the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and others like him spewing hate speech, prejudice is reaching new levels,” Ansari wrote. “It’s visceral, and scary, and it affects how people live, work and pray.”

It’s not “Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or the kid who left the boy band One Direction” who comes to mind when Americans think of Muslims, Ansari laments. “It’s of a scary terrorist character from ‘Homeland’ or some monster from the news.”

He talked about the feeling Muslims — or anyone who looks Muslim — have after a horrible attack like the one in San Bernardino or Orlando.

“There is a strange feeling that you must almost prove yourself worthy of feeling sad and scared like everyone else,” he wrote.

Ansari takes issue with Trump’s claim that “people in the American Muslim community ‘know who the bad ones are,’ implying that millions of innocent people are somehow complicit in awful attacks. Not only is this wrongheaded; but it also does nothing to address the real problems posed by terrorist attacks,” Ansari’s op-ed reads. “By Mr. Trump’s logic, after the huge financial crisis of 2007-08, the best way to protect the American economy would have been to ban white males.”

The accusation Trump makes about the Muslims in New Jersey cheering in the streets after the 9/11 attacks seems to hit Ansari especially hard. At the time, he was a student at N.Y.U., living close by the World Trade Center, and the memory of the attacks is vivid.

“The haunting sound of the second plane hitting the towers is forever ingrained in my head,” Ansari wrote. “My building was close enough that it shook upon impact…”

“My family, unable to reach me on my cellphone, was terrified about my safety as they watched the towers collapse,” he continued. “There was absolutely no cheering. Only sadness, horror and fear.

“Mr. Trump, in response to the attack in Orlando, began a tweet with these words: ‘Appreciate the congrats.’ It appears that day he was the one who was celebrating after an attack.”

Trump’s actual response on Twitter was:

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Hardly celebratory.

Suspending immigration is not a new concept.

It’s been done before…for over 40 years.

The following information is courtesy of u-s-history.com

During the Harding administration, a stop-gap immigration measure was passed by Congress in 1921 for the purpose of slowing the flood of immigrants entering the United States.

A more thorough law was signed by President Coolidge in May 1924. It provided for the following:

The quota for immigrants entering the U.S. was set at two percent of the total of any given nation`s residents in the U.S. as reported in the 1890 census;
after July 1, 1927, the two percent rule was to be replaced by an overall cap of 150,000 immigrants annually and quotas determined by “national origins” as revealed in the 1920 census.

College students, professors and ministers were exempted from the quotas. Initially immigration from the other Americas was allowed, but measures were quickly developed to deny legal entry to Mexican laborers.

The clear aim of this law was to restrict the entry of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, while welcoming relatively large numbers of newcomers from Britain, Ireland, and Northern Europe.

The 1921 law had used the 1910 census to determine the base for the quotas; by changing to the 1890 census when fewer Italians or Bulgarians lived in the U.S., more of the “dangerous` and “different” elements were kept out. This legislation reflected discriminatory sentiments that had surfaced earlier during the Red Scare of 1919-20.

Total
Entering U.S.
Country of Origin
Great
Britain
Eastern
Europe*
Italy
1920
430,001
38,471
3,913
95,145
1921
805,228
51,142
32,793
222,260
1922
309,556
25,153
12,244
40,319
1923
522,919
45,759
16,082
46,674
1924
706,896
59,490
13,173
56,246
1925
294,314
27,172
1,566
6,203
1926
304,488
25,528
1,596
8,253
*Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States,

Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. 56.

A provision in the 1924 law barred entry to those ineligible for citizenship — effectively ending the immigration of all Asians into the United States and undermining the earlier “Gentlemen`s Agreement” with Japan. Efforts by Secretary of State Hughes to change this provision were not successful and actually inflamed the passions of the anti-Japanese press, which was especially strong on the West Coast.

Heated protests were issued by the Japanese government and a citizen committed seppuku outside the American embassy in Tokyo. May 26, the effective date of the legislation, was declared a day of national humiliation in Japan, adding another in a growing list of grievances against the U.S.

(The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing these quotas.)

In 1965, the Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured America`s immigration policy since the 1920`s, replacing it with a preference system that emphasized immigrants` skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the United States.

Additionally, in April of 1980, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Jimmy Carter cancelled all visas issued to Iranians for entry into the United States and warned that they would be revalidated only for “compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest requires.”

If you were watching Saturday morning cartoons in 1977, during President Carter’s time in the White House, on ABC, you would have seen a Schoolhouse Rock musical cartoon titled The Great American Melting Pot.  It extolled the unique greatness of  our American heritage.
For a while now, that heritage has been under attack.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.
This act allowed all of these immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.
An Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.
The reason that Obama and his Administration are so “concerned” with Donald J. Trump’s proposal is that is full of common sense, utilized in defense of our sovereignty.
Trump’s proposal would successfully thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of Muslims, and potential Democrat Voters, into our country, while limiting the reality of Radical Islamists entering our country with the intent to kill our citizens and to cause terror.
Like all Liberals, Mr. Ansari  included, Obama and his Administration remain oblivious of their own hypocrisy.
What this pearl-clutching Liberal’s op ed, posted by the Liberal Propaganda Website known as CBSNews.com conveys, is a fact that I have been pointing out since I began writing my daily blog in April of 2010:

If “Moderate” Muslims, such as Mr. Ansari, want to help America in the fight against the Islamic Terrorists’ War against our country and its citizens, they must stand up and speak out against the Terrorists. Don’t complain because the Terrorists are correctly identified as Radical Islamists.

Mr. Ansari, those weren’t Southern Baptists from Mississippi who flew those airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. They were Muslims from Saudi Arabia.

If you are so afraid of being deported by Donald Trump, you need to change out of your Liberal pair of red onesie pajamas, put on your American blue jeans, put down your mocha latte with the lemon twist, stand up on your hind legs, and stand by the nation which is providing you a living, instead of continuously singing the Linda Rodstadt version of the song “Poor, Poor Pitiful Me”.

Instead of being a hyphenated American…be an American.

Period.

Until He Comes,
KJ

 

 

Brexit and the 2016 Presidential Election: Reclaiming Sovereignty

June 24, 2016

Logo_brexit_new_size2Britain has been on the right side of history regarding Europe since the French Revolution in 1789. There is a deeply ingrained sense in British culture that, when it comes to Europe, we are right to be close, but also right to be sufficiently distant so as not to be sucked into all the nonsense. – thecommentor.com (British Website), May 16, 2016

Breitbart.com reports that

British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.

Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.

Obama’s advice may have pushed some voters to “leave.” In April, he warned British voters they would be at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S. if they left the EU. Some, like Andrew Roberts, took offense, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.

Hillary Clinton also backed a “remain” vote in April, with a senior policy adviser issuing a statement on her behalf:

Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.

Trump, who happens to be in Scotland to open a golf resort, promised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

Per Fox News, Trump also said,

The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy.

Once again, American businessman and entrepreneur Donald J. Trump turned out to be smarter than professional politicians. Imagine that.

Yesterday’s vote by the citizens of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is being hailed as a referendum on British sovereignty , just as the upcoming presidential election in November will be a referendum on American sovereignty.

Just as  the majority of Americans are concerned about our weakened global position, thanks to the poor stewardship of Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, the good people who dwell on the other side of the White Cliffs of Dover were tired of their continued sovereignty being threatened by out-of-control globalism.

According to BBC News,

Boris Johnson has insisted the UK is not “turning its back” on Europe after its decision to vote to leave the EU.
The decision would not make the UK any less tolerant nor outward looking and would not reduce opportunities for young people, the ex-London mayor said.

The UK, he added, had a “glorious opportunity” to take control and “take the wind out of the sails” of those “playing politics” with immigration.
Mr Johnson has been installed as the bookies’ favourite to succeed the PM.

The former Conservative mayor of London has been installed as favourite to take over as Conservative leader after Mr Cameron announced he would step down by October, but he declined to comment on the issue.

The similarity between America’s concerns over Muslim Immigration and those of Great Britian over the same issue are striking.

If you do your own research, as I have, you will find out that our friends across the pond have a lot of the same concerns that we do, as pertains to the massive influx of Syrian “Refugees” and Muslims from Southeast Asia, that have come in and tried to establish Sharia law.

The citizens of the United Kingdoms’ desire to decide their own future and not leave it in the hands of Professional Politicians and Bureaucrats from other countries and their enablers from their own nation provided the impetus for yesterday’s historic vote to leave the European Union.

The European Union started out as a helpful and necessary entity when it was formed to deal with strengthening Europe after the devastation of World War II.

However, just as we have witnessed in our own Sovereign Nation, Liberal Politicians can take something which was designed to “do good” and, in their “Progressive” way, turn it into a Frankenstein’s Monster, who creates its own path of destruction , taking away the citizens of that Sovereign Country’s right to self-determination.

Yesterday, the citizens of Great Britain took back that right.

In November, God willing, Americans will do the same.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

“Sit-In For Gun Control”: House Democrats Throw a Temper Tantrum

June 23, 2016

13516569_10209863721412925_3388329507464984337_n

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government.” – Ronald Wilson Reagan

The New York Times reports that

A Democratic protest demanding votes on gun-control legislation led to pandemonium in the House chamber that did not end until early Thursday, when Speaker Paul D. Ryan and his fellow Republicans reclaimed control long enough to force through a major spending bill. They then abruptly adjourned and left the Capitol.

Furious Democrats remained on the House floor, where they huddled around their leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who praised their stand as a “discussion heard around the world.”

Ms. Pelosi expressed bewilderment at the Republican position. “What could they be thinking?” she asked. “Whatever it is, they don’t want to tell anybody about it. That’s why they left in the dead of night.”

The standoff, which began with a Democratic sit-in on the House floor just before noon on Wednesday, did not end until about 3 a.m. Thursday when Mr. Ryan — barreling over Democrats’ objections — took the rare and provocative step of calling a vote on a major appropriations bill in the wee hours and without any debate. He then adjourned the House, with no legislative votes scheduled until July 5.

The House approved the bill, which includes $1.1 billion in emergency financing to fight the mosquito-borne Zika virus — and more than $80 billion in other government spending — by a vote of 239 to 171 shortly after 3 a.m.

Republicans dashed from the chamber into the sticky heat gripping Washington and were met by protesters who jeered, with some shouting, “Do your job!”

Earlier, as Democrats fought for control of the floor, they pressed against the speaker’s dais, waving signs with the names of gun victims and chanting “No bill! No break!” as Mr. Ryan repeatedly banged his gavel in an attempt to restore order.

When Mr. Ryan left the speaker’s chair, Democrats shouted: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”

There were scenes of chaos across the floor as Republicans tried to resume regular business. At one point, Democrats began singing “We Shall Overcome” — altering the lyrics to say “We shall pass a bill some day” — as Republicans shouted in outrage.

And when Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska, tried to confront the chanting Democrats, he was restrained by aides and colleagues.

The unusual events were set off with the sit-in before noon when Democrats insisted on taking votes on gun measures before Congress began its weeklong recess for the Fourth of July.

“We will not leave the floor of this House until this Congress takes action!” Representative Kathy D. Castor, Democrat of Florida, declared.

Democrats — who do not have enough strength in either the House or Senate to pass legislation on their own — have resorted to spectacle to highlight their anger over Congress not taking action to tighten the nation’s gun-control law.

Why are the House Democrats doing this?

Are they having some sort of LSD flashback to their Collegiate days, during which they barricaded the college Dean’s office and smoked dope?

Perhaps, they believe that if they sit long enough John Lennon and George Harrison will rise from their graves and the Beatles will show up and lead them in a rousing chorus of “All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance.”

More than likely, they believe that the spineless Republican Elite will cave in to their demands simply because they are throwing an adult temper tantrum.

As I have been reading on Facebook Political Pages, these Congressional Democrats , including their presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and those who have donned brown shirts and who are in lockstep with them, erroneously believe that Americans want their 2nd Amendment rights taken away from them or somehow modified, as a feel-good measure that will do nothing to prevent Radical Islamists from slaughtering us.

The Americans whom I see carrying their pistols strapped to their hip in Walmart down here in Mississippi, where Open Carry is legal, would fervently disagree with them.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not just apply to the Bodyguards of Modern American Liberals.

If some of those Americans in Orlando at that night club in which Omar Mateen murdered 49 of them and wounded 53 others, had been carrying, his planned slaughter would have been stopped very quickly.

Perhaps, even before it began.

This unseemly adult temper tantrum that the house Democrats are throwing is not one of sympathy for the American people. They could care less what we think.

These are the same people that smile like Chessshire Cats when they think about the yanking of over a million American babies a year out of their mothers wombs.

No, boys and girls, this is all about illusion and control.

Democrats know that Donald J. Trump is about to win the presidency in November in a political landslide.

This demonstration is an illusion created to attempt to convince the American people that the majority of us are for restricting our 2nd Amendment rights for the express purpose of eventually taking away our guns and our means to defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, for these overage immature hippies in the House of Representatives, they are fooling no one.

The overwhelming majority Americans have no wish to be defenseless.

Those of us who have learned from history remember the words of Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

We, like our Founding Fathers, have no wish to be “controlled”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Kerry Says “Zero Evidence” That Syrian “Refugees” Pose a Threat to America. Really, Herman Munster? Really? Europe Disagrees.

June 22, 2016

KerryLurch-1Just when you thought that this Administration could not be more purposefully obtuse…

CNSNews.com reports that

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday evening there was “zero evidence” that refugee applicants who go through the rigorous screening involved in the U.S. refugee admission program pose a greater security threat than members of any other group.Speaking at the interfaith iftar (Ramadan fast-breaking meal) in Sterling, Va. coinciding with World Refugee Day, Kerry also warned that what he called “bigoted and hateful rhetoric” about Muslims helps those “who propagate the lie that America is at war with Islam.”

“There is absolutely no evidence, my friends, zero evidence, that refugees who make it through this arduous process, pose any greater threat to our society than the members of any other group,” he said. “And it is important for people to know that.”

Alluding to calls by some Republican politicians to bar Muslim refugee applicants, Kerry said blocking any group on the basis of religion, race or nationality went against Americans ideals.

“Preventing any group from entering the United States solely because of their race, or because of their nationality, or because of a religious affiliation is directly contrary to the very ideals on which our country is based,” he said.

“We believe in individual rights, not collective guilt. And we believe in judging people based on what they do, not the circumstances of their birth or their choice of sacred texts,” Kerry added.

“We need to remember,” he continued, “that bigoted and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims plays right into the hands of the terrorist recruiters who propagate the lie – it plays into the hands of people who propagate the lie that America is at war with Islam, when in fact there is no country on earth where Muslims enjoy more freedom than in the United States of America.”

After Kerry’s remarks at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) center, a member the community and the U.S. Army National Guard, Ali Khwaja, offered the Islamic call to prayer before the day’s fast was broken.

“We need to remember,” he continued, “that bigoted and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims plays right into the hands of the terrorist recruiters who propagate the lie – it plays into the hands of people who propagate the lie that America is at war with Islam, when in fact there is no country on earth where Muslims enjoy more freedom than in the United States of America.”

In his comments Kerry did not address the issue, raised by some Republicans and the subject of proposed legislation, of prioritizing in refugee admissions minorities that have been specifically targeted by Islamic extremists in the Syria and Iraq conflicts – and which Kerry himself has determined are the victims of genocide.

As of Monday, the federal government had admitted 4,464 Syrian refugees so far this fiscal year, of whom just 17 (0.3 percent) are Christians, 10 (0.2 percent) are Yazidis, and one each are defined in  State Department Refugee Processing Center data as “no religion” and “other religion.”

The vast majority of the 4,464 – 4,385, or 98.2 percent – are Sunni Muslims. Another 17 are Shi’ite Muslims and 33 are other Muslims.

With regard to Kerry’s comments about the relative threat posed by refugees, State Department spokesman John Kirby said last November that of 785,000 refugees from all countries admitted to the U.S. since 9/11, “only about a dozen have been arrested or removed from the United States due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the United States.”

None of them were Syrian, he added.

A State Department factsheet last December said that Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. since the beginning of FY2011 had been able to do so “only after the most extensive level of security screening of any category of traveler to the United States. None have been arrested or removed on terrorism charges.”

ABC News reported late last year that two Iraqi refugees resettled in Kentucky were later found to have al-Qaeda links.

In January, two Iraqi-born Palestinian refugees in the U.S. were indicted on terror-related charges.  

Omar Faraj Saeed al-Hardan of Houston, Texas, was charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIS, procuring citizenship or naturalization unlawfully, and making false statements. He was admitted into the U.S. as a refugee in 2009.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, of Sacramento, Calif., was accused of traveling to Syria to fight alongside terrorist groups, and was also charged with lying to the government about his travels. He arrived in the U.S. as a refugee in 2012.

These “Syrian Refugees” have already caused mass chaos in Europe, pushing the European Union to the brink of implosion.

Just who are they…really?

When the “Refugees” began their invasion of Europe, Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart News, asked and answered that important question…

Who Are These Refugees? That competition to accept refugees would be fine if we knew that the refugees plan on assimilating into Western notions of civilized society, and if we knew that they were indeed victims of radical Muslim atrocities. Unfortunately, we know neither. It is deeply suspicious that major Muslim countries that do not border Syria refuse to take in large numbers of refugees, except for Algeria and Egypt.

Turkey has taken in nearly two million refugees, according to the United Nations, and keeps the vast majority in refugee camps — a typical practice in a region that has kept Arab refugees from the 1948 war of Israeli independence in Arab-run camps for seven decades. Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees as well, but all border the chaotic, collapsing Syria, and thus have limited choice in the matter. Iran has taken in no refugees. Neither have Pakistan, Indonesia, or any of the other dozens of member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain all refused to take any refugees, and explicitly cited the risk of terrorists among the refugees, according to The Guardian (UK).

These fears are not without merit, as even Obama administration officials have acknowledged: back in February, director of the National Counterterrorism Center Nicholas Rasmussen called Syrian refugees “clearly a population of concern.” FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach explained, “Databases don’t [have] the information on those individuals, and that’s the concern. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that terrorist infiltration was “a possibility. I mean, you can’t, you can’t dismiss that out of hand.” He then added, “Obviously, if you look at those images though, it’s pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families.”

Actually, images show a disproportionate number of young males in crowds of refugees. And those images reflect statistical reality: according to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Mediterranean Sea refugees are overwhelmingly male: just 13 percent are women, and just 15 percent are children. The other 72 percent are men. Compare that population to the refugees in the Middle East from the same conflicts: 49.5 percent male, and 50.5 percent female, with 38.5 percent under the age of 12. Those are wildly different populations.

It was also reported that these “refugees” left a trail of waste, human and otherwise, in their wake.

In other words, these guys believe that hygiene is a girl that they used to “date” back home.

Classy, huh?

It appears that we have a lot to look forward to.

As I have asked before: Why are the other Middle Eastern Countries not taking them in?

What do they know that we and the Europeans don’t?

I can answer those questions in “three little words” ( to quote Crazy Uncle Joe Biden): “hijrah” and “taqujiyya”.

“Hijrah” refers to the undertaking of a pilgrimage to spread Islam to the World, such as undertaken by Mohammed between Mecca and Medina in 62 A.D., which is referred to as “The Start of the Muslim Era”.

“Taquiyya” is the Muslim Practice of purposeful lying to us “Infidels” in order to further the cause of Islam.

And, another thing in regards to the so-called Syrian “Refugees”, the overwhelming majority of which are military-looking ultra-fit men with cell phones…

I am sick of how Liberals, like Obama, all of the sudden have such an interest in the Bible and what Christ has to say in a feeble attempt at trying to use the faith of three quarters of Americans to prove their political point.

Hey Liberals, when you’re yanking a baby’s head out from their mothers womb with a pair of tongs, do you give a rat’s butt about the God of Abraham and the tenets of Christianity, then?

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. – Matthew 7:20

America is a Nation of Laws, a Constitutional Republic forged from the sacrifices of men and women who loved Liberty and American Freedom more than life itself.

That’s who WE are.

President Abraham Lincoln once said,

If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.

That is the situation that you, your boss, and his entire Administration find yourselves in today, Secretary Kerry.

Judging by the past actions of you and your boss, including the clandestine dissemination of the “youths” from Central and South America, who arrived here, parentless, last year, throughout our country, we “average Americans”, do not trust you and your people, when you say that you will “vet” these Syrian “Refugees”.

Especially, since the overwhelming majority of them are well-fit young men with cell phones, who look like soldiers.

And, that is why we and our states’ Governors’ continue to oppose your plans to disseminate these Syrian “Refugees” among us.

And now, you wonder why the majority of Americans oppose your boss’ plans to bring in more “Refugees” at every turn, despite your assurances that these largely un-vetted Islamists are “safe”?

It’s a matter of SURVIVAL.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Orlando Massacre: Feds Change “Allah” to “God” in Transcript of Omar Mateen’s 911 Call…Deliberately

June 21, 2016

Bigot-Alert-LI-600Evil is a real thing. Morality is not relative and ethics are not situational. Mental illness is a real thing, also, but too often it is used as an excuse to avoid confronting the harsh reality of evil. – kingsjester, 6/21/16

Breitbart.com reports that

Monday’s release of the text of Orlando terrorist shooter Omar Mateen’s 9-1-1 call is not the first time the Obama administration purportedly scrubbed “Allah” from a transcript.

To this day, the official White House transcript of a Rose Garden ceremony with the father of released soldier Bowe Bergdahl transcribes every word besides Robert Bergdahl’s Arabic declaration of “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim.”  That means “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.”

The White House website provides a video of the ceremony, at which the controversial prisoner swap for Berghdahl in exchange for five Taliban members who were being held at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay was announced.

In the video, Robert Bergdahl can clearly be heard making the declaration to Allah.

Yet, here is the relevant portion of the official transcript, as provided by the White House:

I’d like to say to Bowe right now, who is having trouble speaking English — (speaks in Pashto) — I’m your father, Bowe.

The “Pashto” is actually Arabic.

Afterwards, the Daily Mail cited a report that the Taliban were “thrilled” at the declaration to Allah.

The newspaper reported:

The Arabic phrase bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim appears prominently in the Koran and means ‘In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful’.

Sara Carter, senior Washington correspondent for conservative news network TheBlaze, said her Taliban sources were ‘thrilled’ at the phrase being used.

At the time, former CIA officer Clare Lopez explained of the Arabic declaration, “These are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except one (the chapter of the sword – the 9th).”

“By uttering these words on the grounds of the WH, Bergdahl (the father) sanctified the WH and claimed it for Islam,” Lopez charged.

Brigitte Gabriel of Act for America told Fox News that the expression declares the greatness of Allah, and she called it a “war cry of Allah.”

Zuhdi Jasser, an advocate for moderate Islam, told Fox News that he uses the phrase daily in his prayers and that the expression is not necessarily radical.

On Monday, the FBI finally released what it said was a full transcript of Mateen’s 50-second call with a 911 operator while he was perpetrating the deadly attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. After first releasing a redacted transcript that deleted references to the Islamic State, the FBI released the full transcript, which included an English translation changing the word “Allah” to “God.”

So, why is this noteworthy…and wrong?

Every time a Radical Islamist commits a mass murder in the name of Allah, whether overseas or on American Soil, I continue to hear and read from Modern American Liberals, “The Smartest People in the Room”, that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam.

Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between Mister Rogers and Ted Bundy (look them up, children).

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to kill the Infidels in the Name of Allah the Merciful”.

And, the thing is, The Quran tells them to do it.

What does the Islamic Book of Faith, the Koran (Quran) say about “killing in the Name of the Prophet (Mohammed)”?

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
While I have met some very nice American Muslims, I have also been inside a mosque where I was looked at as if they wanted to take a scimitar to my neck.

Gosh. I have no idea how Americans could have ever associated Islam with Radical Islamic Terrorism.

After all, those were Southern Baptists who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, weren’t they?

If Moderate Muslims are not behind their radical brethren’s eternal jihad against us infidels, they need to get their mugs in front of the cable news networks’ TV cameras and say so…like Dr. Jasser does on Fox News.

Unfortunately, the good doctor is an aberration.

All one usually sees representing “Moderate Muslims” on the news programs, are the abrasive members of CAIR, blaming America for all the world’s troubles.

Finally, as exemplified by Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Department of , and Professional and self-Proclaimed Political Pundits all over the World Wide Web, including the Social Media, why are American Liberals so naively defending these barbarians and desperately trying to equate a Political Ideology disguised as a religion to Christianity, the faith of 75% of America’s Population?

Are they so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge Lon this fact, they incessantly trot out the false equivalency that I just referenced.

For Liberals to deny that monsters like the Mass Murderer Omar Mateen were devout Muslims, and to refuse to identify Islamic Terrorism, and to provide cover for it, whether to false equivalencies, or proclaiming the Terrorist to be “mentally ill”, when Islamic Terrorism rears its ugly head, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

The only way to successfully fight EVIL…is to identify it as such.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Censorship in the Name of the Prophet: References to Islamic Terrorism to be Expunged by DOJ From Orlando Massacre Transcript

June 20, 2016

Deflecting-600-CINow let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaida’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. – President Barack Hussein Obama, September 10, 2014, transcript courtesy of Washingtonpost.com

Realclearpolitics.com reports that

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that on Monday, the FBI will release edited transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando nightclub shooter to the police during his rampage.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”

The Washington Post reported last week that the gunman made multiple phone calls while holding hostages: “The gunman who opened fire inside a nightclub here said he carried out the attack because he wanted ‘Americans to stop bombing his country,’ according to a witness who survived the rampage.”

Salon reported that: “Everybody who was in the bathroom who survived could hear him talking to 911, saying the reason why he’s doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country.”

The Washington Post also noted that during his 911 call from the club, the gunman referenced the Boston Marathon bombers and claimed “that he carried out the shooting to prevent bombings, [echoing] a message the younger Boston attacker had scrawled in a note before he was taken into custody by police.”

FBI Director James Comey said at a press conference that the shooter’s past comments about Islamist groups were “inflammatory and contradictory.”

“We see no clear evidence that he was directed externally,” the president added. “It does appear that at the last minute, he announced allegiance to ISIL. But there is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL, and at this stage there’s no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot.” ISIL is another name for ISIS, or the Islamic State.

Loretta Lynch says the FBI will release: “A printed transcript [that] will begin to capture the back and forth between him and the negotiators.”

“We’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible,” she said.

Transcript:
LORETTA LYNCH: What we’re announcing tomorrow is that the FBI is releasing a partial transcript of the killer’s calls with law enforcement, from inside the club. These are the calls with the Orlando PD negotiating team, who he was, where he was… that will be coming out tomorrow and I’ll be headed to Orlando on Tuesday.

CHUCK TODD: Including the hostage negotiation part of this?

LYNCH: Yes, it will be primarily a partial transcript of his calls with the hostage negotiators.

CHUCK TODD: You say partial, what’s being left out?

LYNCH: What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.

CHUCK TODD: We’re not going to hear him talk about those things?

LYNCH: We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance and that. It will not be audio, it will be a printed transcript. But it will begin to capture the back and forth between him and the negotiators, we’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible. As you know, because the killer is dead, we have a bit more leeway there and we will be producing that information tomorrow.

On September 25, 2012, United States President Barack Hussein Obama, appeared before the United Nations General Assembly, to address the circumstances of the massacre of four Americans on the grounds of the US Embassy Compound at Benghazi, Libya by Radical Islamists.

Here are the words he spoke, before representatives of the entire world:

…At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Ever since the massacre in Orlando, which happened a week ago last Saturday , Modern American Liberals, including the Obama Administration, have been experiencing a cognitive dissidence between the actual facts of the massacre which killed 49 Gay Americans and wounded 53 others.

On one hand, they have been outspoken advocates for the cause of “Gay Rights”, and, on the other hand, they have been relentless in their ill-fated attempts to somehow equivocate or compare Radical Islam with American Christianity, a false equivalency that the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected.

Obama and attorney general Lynch’s excuse for the censorship of the facts in this horrible Massacre is their insistence that Afghani-American Omar Mateen was nothing but a madman, and the followers of the Prophet Muhammad had nothing to do with the horrible events of last Saturday night.

The problem with that, it’s the fact that the Killer’s father is a radical Muslim, himself, as reported by CBS News.

The Orlando gay club gunman’s father has well-known anti-American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban. A new message posted by the father on Facebook early Monday morning also makes it clear he could have passed anti-homosexual views onto his son.

With this fact being public knowledge, that makes the Obama Administration’s censorship of Omar Mateen’s ties to Radical Islam, spurious at best.

And, aiding and abetting the enemy at worst.

Obamas immediate response to the massacre was to blame Americans’ guns, instead of the Radical Islamist who pulled the trigger.

In football, that is called a misdirection play.

Among con men, Obama’s initial response would be called “a set-up”.

And, the censorship of Mateen’s references to “Radical Islam” is Obama’s “Big Score”.

The problem is whether he is playing “football” or “larceny” the game Obama and his Administration is playing, will continue to cost Americans their lives.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Fathers Day 2016: My Wish For Fathers Day

June 19, 2016

 

fathersdayD-Day, also called the Battle of Normandy, was fought on June 6, 1944, between the Allied nations and German forces occupying Western Europe. To this day, 70 years later, it  still remains the largest seaborne invasion in history. Almost three million troops crossed the English Channel from England to Normandy to be used as human cannon fodder in an invasion of occupied France.

Among the young men who stepped off those boats, in a hail of gunfire, was a fellow named Edward, whom everyone called Ned, from the small town of Helena, Arkansas.  Already in his young life, Ned had been forced to drop out of school in the sixth grade, in order to work at the local movie theatre to help support his mother, brother, and sister, faced with the ravages of the Great Depression.

He later went on to help build the US Highway 49 Helena Bridge across the Mississippi River.

He was a gentle man who loved to laugh and sing, having recorded several 78 rpm records in the do-it-yourself booths of the day. And now, he found himself, a Master Sergeant in an Army Engineering Unit, stepping off a boat into the unknown, watching his comrades being mercilessly gunned down around him.

Ned, along with the rest of his unit who survived the initial assault, would go on to assist in the cleaning out of the Concentration Camps, bearing witness to man’s inhumanity to man.

The horrors he saw had a profound effect on Ned.  One which he would keep to himself for the remainder of his life.  While his children knew that he served with an Engineering Unit in World War II, they did not know the full extent of his service, until they found his medal, honoring his participation in the Invasion of Normandy, going through his belongings, after he passed away on December 29, 1997.

He was my Daddy.

Today, all across the world, Fathers will be honored by their children, natural, adopted, foster, and those that they took in as one of their own.

Did you ever wonder how this Global Remembrance got started?

There are two stories which are attributed as being the origin of Father’s Day.

According to the first tale, it all began in 1910, when Sonora Smart-Dodd of Spokane, Washington, tried to figure out a way in which to honor her dad, a remarkable man, who had single-handedly raised six children. Sonora, naturally, loved her dad with all her heart, and wanted everyone to recognize him for what he had done for her entire family. She made the decision to declare day of tribute, a Father’s Day, if you will, on her father’s birthday – June 19.

The next year, Sonora contacted the local churches in an attempt to get them to throw their support behind the celebration, but they simply laughed her off. After that setback, it took a while before Sonora’s proposal once again started gaining attention.

A bill in support of a national remembrance of Father’s Day was introduced in 1913. The bill was approved by US President Woodrow Wilson three years later. The bill received further support from President Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

This brought about the formation of a National Father’s Day Committee in New York within the next two years. However, our Federal Government, not exactly being strong in the pursuit alacrity, took another 30 years before a Joint Resolution of Congress officially recognized Father’s Day. Then, implementation of the bill was postponed another 16 years until President Richard Nixon declared third Sunday of June as Father’s Day in 1972.

The second story of the origin of Father’s Day involves Dr. Robert Webb of West Virginia. According to this version, the first Father’s Day service was conducted by Webb at the Central Church of Fairmont in 1908.

Around my house, we always thought that Hallmark and Walmart invented it.

Like you other fathers out there, I was asked what I want for my Father’s Day Gift, today.

The one present I want…I can’t have.

I wish that I had one more day with my Daddy.

My Daddy was the most important man in my life, and remains so to this day.

He taught me how to love others, through his actions, every day of his life. He was a wonderful Christian man, who led me to Christ.

He was also the bravest man I have ever known, landing at Normandy Beach on D-Day.

My Daddy worked hard all of his life. He worked for Sears for 20 years. He taught me what hard work was, and yet, he always had time for me.

I wish that I had one more day to walk through Court Square Park in Memphis, Tennessee feeding the pigeons and the squirrels with my Daddy.

I wish that I had another opportunity to sit on the living room floor at Christmas and play Rock ’em Sock ’em Robots with him.

I wish that I had another chance to stand over to the side on Thanksgiving Afternoon and watch him, as he played Penny-ante Poker, “cutting up” with my mother and my aunts and uncles.

I wish that I could hear him singing “The Old Rugged Cross” in the kitchen again, with his beautiful tenor voice.

I wish that I could watch him again, sitting at the breakfast table simultaneously looking through his old Cokesbury Hymnbook and his Book on Hymnology, researching those great old hymns and making notes, so that he could tell his 150 member Sunday School Class about the hymn, which he was going to lead them in singing that Sunday Morning.

I wish that I could watch my Daddy playing with my little daughter again, sticking out the lower plate of his dentures, as she tried to grab it.

I wish that I could see them again out in the driveway, sitting in his 1978 Chevrolet Caprice Classic, with her in the driver’s seat, as they waited for the school bus to pick her up for pre-school.

I wish that I could spend another Christmas Morning with him, to watch the fun, as he gave my sister her yearly “gag gift”, just to watch her jump and squeal as the “snake” or “mouse” jumped out of the box.

I wish that I could sit and watch Saturday Morning Memphis Wrestling and then, another Johnny Weissmuller “Tarzan” movie with him on a Saturday afternoon…or, maybe a Three Stooges Short, just to hear him laugh.

It’s funny, y’know.

I look in the mirror at 57 years old…and, I see him.

I look back over the years at the things that I did with the children that God brought into my life to care for, and then, I see the things that I’m doing now with my 8-year-old grandson, and I see my Daddy in myself.

Right now, in America, it is harder than ever to be a Dad.  Any male, who is not impotent, can sire a child…as is being proven daily across our country.

However, it takes a man to be a Daddy, a Papa, a Pop, a Pops, somebody’s Old Man, or, simply, a Father.

I’ve had the privilege of having a hand in raising three step-sons, one nephew, and one very special daughter.  I would not give back one moment of those experiences for anything that this world can offer.

I was not a perfect role model.  I made mistakes…a lot of them.  But, looking back, I know, in my heart, that I’ve made a difference in their lives. And, I thank the One Who Made Me for that opportunity.

I pray that I was able to pass along at least some of my Daddy’s Legacy of Christian Love to those I have had a hand in raising.

Dads…it costs nothing to pay attention….and give love.

Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it. – Proverbs 22:6

Daddy, I wish you were here so I could tell you how much I love you and miss you.

I hope you’re proud of me.

Every good thing that I am, came from the life lessons which I learned from you, and the Love and Amazing Grace of my Heavenly Father.

Today, while you’re up in Heaven, I hope you hug Mother and tell her,

That’s “Baby Brother”!

I love you very much, Daddy.

Happy Fathers Day.

Love,

“Brother”

Until He Comes,

KJ

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,747 other followers