Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

A View From a Christian American Conservative Son of the South: The Politicians Don’t Need Us…Until It’s Time to Vote

February 13, 2016

Banning-Flags-600-LIAs a Son of the South, I am continuously amazed at some folks’ attitudes toward our beloved Dixie and all of us Followers of the Son of God, contained therein.

With all eyes focused on the South Carolina Primar Election, McClatchyDC.com has posted the following article…

ROBERTA, Ga.- Inside the Sunshine Coin Laundry near the Piggly Wiggly supermarket, Lagretta Ellington removed her family’s clothes from one of the large dryers and began to neatly fold them on a nearby table.

The air was moist and smelled of detergent. The floor was concrete. Her views of the presidential race were anything but. She was unsettled, and distrustful. The candidates just seemed like entertainers.
“I’m going to pray on it,” the 48-year-old Ellington said. “Hopefully, God will lead me in the right direction.”

In the South, now the pivotal battlefield of the 2016 presidential campaign, faith and politics walk the aisle together. And while Christians have always dominated American politics – Bernie Sanders this week became the first non-Christian ever to win a presidential primary in U.S. history – conservative Christians feel under siege.

Marriage is being redefined, and they’re being forced to go along. A new health care law mandates free contraception, even if it violates their core beliefs. Even the greeting “Merry Christmas” feels under assault.

Their anxiety and anger help explain the rise of Republican outsider candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief”) and even billionaire Donald Trump (“If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me”), perhaps the unlikeliest of vessels for such support.

And their clout is at its peak right now.

In South Carolina, white evangelicals account for 51 percent of the likely Republican vote in the coming GOP primary. Six more Southern states, including Georgia, will vote on “Super Tuesday” March 1. Nearly 600 of the delegates chosen the first week of March will come from states where white evangelical Christians are a majority of the electorate, according to Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a political newsletter from Larry J. Sabato and the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

And whether they pray at small chapels or sprawling megachurches, Christian conservatives across the South are driven by worries that their values are being threatened.

“Biblical values we would not be willing to compromise,” explained Dennis Lacy, lead pastor of North Highland Assembly of God in Columbus, Georgia.

“Do we not have any moral compass anymore?” said Dr. Randy Brinson, an evangelical Christian and physician in Montgomery, Alabama, who founded a group, Redeem the Vote, encouraging young people of faith to register and participate.

“Are we to say to people who have a more liberal viewpoint, ‘Does everything go?’ If there are no boundaries to things of moral behavior as Christians believe, if we throw out everything . . . there’s no more faith.”

June Bond, 61, a children’s advocate in Spartanburg, South Carolina, said many evangelical Christians “feel extremely pressured.” But she also tries to imagine what it must be like on the other side of the cultural divide.

“It’s one thing to listen to what our leaders say to us, but we also need to look at the other side and say, ‘What if . . . ?’ ” she said. “The South sometimes looks at things just kind of like, ‘This is what I was told.’ ”

Many say their objections to same-sex marriage are misunderstood.

It’s not “rooted in hostility and animus toward other people,” but because Christian conservatives believe marriage involves one man and one woman, said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM
David Cooke Jr., the Georgia district attorney for Bibb, Crawford and Peach counties, doesn’t buy the “under siege” mentality of his more conservative brethren. He’s an evangelical Christian, and a Democrat, which he said was not as rare as you might think.

“When you limit the gospel to gays and abortion, there’s not a whole lot of talk about taking care of the stranger and the orphan,” Cooke said, seated in his courthouse office in downtown Macon. “I think it shows that for so many folks it’s not really about the message of the faith. It’s about cultural Christianity.”

Religion has always been part of the South’s DNA, a legacy of its rural past.

It was the lifeblood of many communities, a cornerstone of the culture. In “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” author John Berendt’s widely popular book about a Savannah, Georgia, murder, he wrote, “If you go to Atlanta, the first question people ask you is, ‘What’s your business?’ In Macon they ask, ‘Where do you go to church?’ ”

It would never occur to someone that you didn’t, added Cooke, who met his wife at a Macon church.

When you limit the gospel to gays and abortion, there’s not a whole lot of talk about taking care of the stranger and the orphan. David Cooke Jr., an evangelical Democrat and Macon, Georgia, district attorney

Even today, the states of the old Confederacy – along with Utah and Oklahoma ‑ make up the most religious states in the country, according to a 2013 Gallup survey.

“Now change is on the doorstep, and many are worried about what it’s doing to their communities,” said Marc Farinella, a Democratic strategist who oversaw President Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign in North Carolina. “There is a sense that their way of life is under attack.”

Christian conservatives feel it deeply, and resent it.

“We live in a society that has a lot of respect for diverse opinion and views, but it seems like anytime Christians express theirs, they can be lampooned,” said Lacy, the Columbus pastor. “We’re kind of open game. You can criticize any Christian and not get into trouble. But you try to criticize any other sect or group, that’s politically incorrect.”

Pastor Lacy is absolutely correct. In fact, as a Former Radio News Director in College, I can detect a condescending tone in this whole article.

In every single presidential election, since I first voted for Future President Ronald Reagan in November of 1980, the voters of the South have proven to be the linchpin upon which all presidential candidates’ victory depended upon.

If you were able, as a Democrat or a Republican, to get the voters of the South to cast their ballots for you, you became the President of the United States of America.

The South, to this day, remains essential to winning the White House.

The Liberals in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, alike, or the Vichy Republicans, as I call them, are all too aware of this political fact.

However, those who believe that the South, in the Year of Our Lord 2016, is still backwards, or somehow inferior to their point of view, or political ideology, jump at every opportunity to negate a period of our history in which American blood on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was shed in combat.

For example, since we are on the subject of South Carolina…

Why did these Professional Politicians, Democrat and Republican,  shiftd the focus of the nation away from the mental illness of the sociopath who gunned down 9 innocent Christians at a Wednesday Night Church Service in Charleston, South Carolina, shifting our  country’s attention, instead, to the perceived offensive nature of the Battle Flag of the Army of Virginia?

Simple: Political Expediency.

By marginalizing the South through this effort, American Liberals, from President Barack Hussein Obama on down the line, were hoping to diminish and possibly negate the leverage that Southern States have in molding the Political Landscape of America.

Even after 7 plus years under a Far Left President, America is still a Center-Right Nation, in which Christians comprise 75$ of the population.

Through their efforts to make an inanimate object responsible for the death of the Pastor and 8 members of Emanuel AME Church, these politicians and their minions were hoping to swing the Political Pendulum toward their side of the Political Aisle.

They thought that, if somehow, they could place the Southern States in a “bad light” and at a Political Disadvantage, that perhaps our voice in the political affairs of this nation, would not carry as much weight.

Plus, between you and me and the water cooler, Liberals in the Northern and Western States remain ticked off that both American and International Businesses are still relocating to the South, where the climate is friendlier, the Unions have not made the cost of doing business unprofitable, and, where Old-Fashioned American Work Ethic still exists.

Just sayin’.

But, I digress…

Unfortunately for all of the Establishment-Preferred Presidential Hopefuls, being a Christian Conservative, including being one of us dreaded “Evangelicals”, means that while we all worship Christ as our Savior, we also each possess our own FREE WILL.

Unlike Modern Liberals, including Socialism-embracing Millennials, we are not a part of a Hive-Mind. We think for ourselves, voting for the candidate whom we believe will be the best leader for our nation and who will be able to be more effective in cleaning up the unholy mess that Barack Hussein Obama has created, during his time in office.

As a Christian American Conservative, living in Northwest Mississippi, I have watched, like those featured in the article, as our viewpoints here in “Flyover Country”, have been scorned and ridiculed.

And now, the Professional Politicians (i.e., the “usual suspects”) want us to give them permission to continue their mistreatment of us.

Guess what?

It ain’t happenin’ this time, Skippy.

Check out the poll numbers.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Clinton/Sanders “Love-In” Debate: “All We Are Saying Is Give Socialism a Chance”

February 12, 2016

Berni-Treasure-600-nrdLast night, two living fossils from a bygone era, representing a failed Political Ideology, staged a Love-in with each other…championing the Political Ideology which destroyed the Soviet Union, and which has brought the teen-weeny country of Denmark to the verge of Economic Ruin.

Foxnews.com reports that

While Hillary Clinton launched her harshest debate attacks yet on Bernie Sanders Thursday in a clear attempt to distinguish their differences to voters, the Democratic candidates spent almost as much time uniting in their criticism of America’s criminal justice system, the financial sector and more.

The debate fell at a time when Sanders is trying to build his momentum after his big New Hampshire win, while Clinton is trying to regain hers.

As Sanders pointedly reminded her, “You’re not in the White House yet.”

But the candidates at times offered a similar message. This was evident as they vociferously called for an overhaul of local police departments that they suggested are unfair to black people.

“We need fundamental police reform,” Sanders said, adding he’s “sick and tired” of seeing unarmed black people shot by police. He likened heavily equipped police departments to “occupying armies.”

Clinton, meanwhile, echoed those themes, joining Sanders in calling for sentencing reform while saying the country’s “systemic racism” goes deeper and must be addressed – in education, housing and the job market.

“We are seeing the dark side of the remaining systemic racism that we need to root out,” she said.

The comments were part of each candidate’s revived appeal to minority voters, a key voting bloc as the Democratic presidential primary heads to South Carolina.

But even as they stressed those issues, differences were laid bare at the PBS-hosted debate in Milwaukee. And Sanders came prepared to counter Clinton’s attacks, showing a feistier side than he did at their last showdown.

When Clinton used her closing remarks to suggest Sanders was taking shots at President Obama, Sanders called it a “low blow” and countered: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

He even underscored his critique of Clinton’s foreign policy by pointing to a book where Clinton said she was mentored by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

“I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend,” Sanders said, calling him “one of the most destructive” American diplomats.

Clinton fired back that “we have yet to know” who Sanders listens to on foreign policy.

“Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger,” Sanders said.

The two also clashed sharply over Sanders’ high-cost, big-government plans.

“We are not England. We are not France,” Clinton said.

Clinton accused Sanders of pushing programs that would grow the federal government by 40 percent. She suggested his health care promises “cannot be kept “and will be far more costly than he admits.

“We should level with the American people,” she said.

She also said Sanders’ plans would upend ObamaCare – though Sanders said he would not “dismantle” it.

“That is absolutely inaccurate,” he said, when she claimed his plans would leave many people worse off. 

“In my view, health care is a right of all people … and I will fight for that,” Sanders said, adding it would take “courage.”

Clinton also criticized Sanders for voting against a 2007 immigration reform bill backed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Sanders explained that the bill had a guest-worker program that progressive groups opposed.

“I think Ted Kennedy had a very clear idea of what needed to be done,” Clinton said.

Yet the candidates agreed in their joint criticism of the Obama administration’s recent deportation raids.

Sanders, meanwhile, once again hammered Clinton for her Wall Street ties, suggesting the financial sector’s big donations are meant to buy influence.

“Let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren’t dumb,” Sanders said. “Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it.”

They sparred on the issue as Sanders touted the fact he’s “the only candidate up here” who has no super PAC supporting him. A super PAC backing Clinton, he said, recently raised $15 million from Wall Street.

Clinton countered by noting that Obama took Wall Street donations too, but “when it mattered, he stood up and took on Wall Street.”

“Let’s not in any way imply here that either President Obama or myself would in any way not take on any vested interest,” she said, calling for more regulation of the financial sector.

The showdown comes as Clinton tries to reset the race, which heads next to Nevada and South Carolina. Her narrow victory in Iowa and resounding defeat in New Hampshire have raised fresh questions about her candidacy, which at one point was seen as a sure thing for the Democratic nomination.

Publicly, the Clinton campaign is voicing confidence. The campaign has been refocusing on the battle to lock down minority voter support, asserting that with their help, the former secretary of state can easily make gains against Sanders. But Sanders is at the same time making a bid to expand his own support beyond rural, white voters — who largely decide Iowa and New Hampshire.

While the Clinton campaign is banking on minority voters as it heads into South Carolina and other delegate-rich states down the primary calendar, Tuesday’s contest exposed serious problems for her. She lost in New Hampshire across almost every demographic, including women.

Overall, she lost to Sanders by more than 20 points.

During the past several years, there has been an undeniable escalation of the Rhetoric of Racial Animus and Class Warfare, the origin of which can be traced, with very little effort, to the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, the “one”, who was supposed to unite us as a nation and make the oceans “rise and fall” and the Democrat Party, which has been taken over by a bunch of Godless Far Left Extremists.

Did you know that 76% percent of Americans were living from paycheck to paycheck?

When I first read that, I thought to myself, how can that be possible? We live in the richest country on God’s green Earth. We have been the leader of the free world and the country most admired by the world’s population for quite some time now.

How did all this come about?

I believe it is a mixture of events, both internally and externally, that has caused the economic plight that we now find ourselves in.

Starting all the way back with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and all of the government programs which he began with the express purpose of bringing us out of the Great Depression, Americans have grown more and more dependent on a nanny state government.

This blind trust was cemented by JFK’s hopeful optimism and national push for Americans to commit to serving their country.

By the time President Johnson came into office, after the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the majority of Americans totally believed that our government always had our best interest at heart.

President Johnson came into office and immediately started his push for the Great Society. These programs were designed to make Americans even more dependent on the Federal Government for their very survival.

As the Vietnam War grew more and more and unpopular, Americans’ trust in the government became more and more compromised.  Protests against the Federal Government became more and more common and it became cool to be a rebel or “hippie”.

Time passed, and while rebellious Americans calmed down, Americans’ dependence upon government programs became generational, as multiple family members from one generation to the next, relied on Uncle Sugar for their daily existence.

Meanwhile, the rebels of the 1960’s got older and began to work within the system, taking jobs within the private and public sectors.

Eventually, they moved into positions of power, becoming heads of corporations and local and national politicians.

It is not really necessary to tell you what the political ideology of these rebels was, is it?

As the last century ended and the new one began, these hippies and their offspring, solidly in place in the halls of power, began to pass more more legislation designed to keep generations of Americans enslaved to Uncle Sugar.

Ironic, huh?

And, then it happened.

From the state of Illinois, came the messiah that both the hippies in power and the dependent class they made careers out of enslaving had been waiting for, Barack Hussein Obama.

With both a liberal controlled Congress and a Far Left president, a pathway was cleared for an all-out assault against capitalism.

Immediately upon his ascension to power,  Obama set out, with the help of his minions, to pass an massive Stimulus Bill , which was designed to reward their supporters, while buying and paying for some new ones.

Meanwhile, corporations continued their trend of leaving the country, begun with the rise of the Liberal Congress, due to high taxes and the anti-capitalist policies of the ruling class.

Even after a strong showing by Conservatives in 2010, the ruling class made sure that their new messiah would remain on the throne for a second term, by manipulating the shallow minded Republican Establishment into nominating an ambivalent legacy as their Presidential Candidate.

Preying on the government dependency of 47 percent of Americans, the Liberal Democrats secured a second term For Barack Hussein Obama.

And, that brings us to our current situation.

We are a nation badly in need of another Gipper to help us reach the goal line.

On January 20, 1981, newly-elected President Ronald Wilson Reagan said these words to a weary nation…

These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions.

We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick — professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans.

Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this “new beginning,” and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world.

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government — not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

President Reagan understood that

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.

And, for Americans to prosper, capitalism must not be stifled by over-taxation and an unfriendly Federal Government.

When the private section prospers, the power of the Government to control our daily lives diminishes.

So…why are 76 percent of American living paycheck to paycheck?

Because our national politicians have to protect their phony-boloney jobs…and, it is easier to control us this way.

In this present situation, what we are seeing is the result of anti-establishment rhetoric, spewed forth by those who are now actually “the Establishment”, taking hold, and spreading Class Envy and Racial Animus in such a way as to inspire violent retaliation for perceived “grievances”, by a fictional “White Establishment”, which is actually no longer in power, and the Police, who are seen as the emissaries of “The Man”.

It’s reminiscent of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Look it up, y’all.

In conclusion, I believe that the popularity of entrepreneur and showman Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz are a result of an American Citizenry who are fed up with watching our “House” being divided against itself by adherents to the failed Political Ideology of Marxism, for the sake of Political Expediency.

In Marxist Theory, Socialism is the step before Communism.

President Reagan once asked

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

The majority of Americans, living out here in the Heartland…understand.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s DOJ Suing City of Ferguson on Behalf of the Rioters. Welcome to Bizarro World.

February 11, 2016

untitled (28)The longer the reign of King Barack the First drags on, the more I become convinced that we are living in an old Superman Comic Book, stuck in Bizarro World.

USA Today reports that

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is suing the city of Ferguson in an attempt to forcibly overhaul the city’s troubled police and court operations, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday.

The decision comes hours after city leaders sought to revise a long- negotiated settlement, citing prohibitive costs of executing such a deal.

“There is no cost for constitutional policing,” Lynch said late Wednesday.

“Painstaking negotiations lasted more than 26 weeks as we sought to remedy literally years of systematic deficiencies,” she said of the government’s action, which followed a public announcement last month of a tentative agreement that the attorney general described as “both fair and cost-effective . . . Last night, the City Council rejected the consent decree approved by their own negotiators; their decision leaves us no further choice.”

Lynch said the residents of Ferguson have been waiting “decades for justice,” having endured civil rights breaches that established a pattern and practice of racially biased policing .

“I think the city of Ferguson had a real opportunity to step forward here,” a visibly disappointed attorney general said. “Instead, they have chosen to step in the past.”

Earlier Wednesday,  Ferguson Mayor James Knowles signaled that the city was ready to take on the Justice Department in federal court. He defended Ferguson’s unanimous decision to revise the agreement by removing language from the agreement, which local leaders asserted, mandated big raises for police officers.

Local leaders also sought to free the city from its obligations under the agreement should Ferguson seek to shutter the police department altogether and enlist another agency to provide public safety services.

“The ball is in their court,” Knowles said at a hastily called news conference in Ferguson. “We’re sitting and waiting to talk. If they want to threaten legal action, then that’s what they’re threatening.”

The threat became reality within hours of the mayor’s appearance when the Justice lawsuit was filed in a Missouri federal court, alleging local law enforcement conduct routinely violated the Constitution.

“The residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for their city to adopt an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe,” Lynch said. “They have waited nearly a year for their police department to accept rules that would ensure their constitutional rights and that thousands of other police departments follow every day.”

“I don’t know if I’d characterize it as an absolute agreement in principle,” Knowles said. “Also an agreement in principle doesn’t allow you to assign a numerical value of every piece of the agreement.”

The push to amend the deal comes after Knowles and council members raised concerns it could cost nearly $10 million over the next three years to implement.

The city of 21,000 has a budget of about $14 million and is facing about $2.8 million in debt after the August 2014 police shooting death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, sparked weeks of sustained and often violent protests. Much of the debt accrued from police overtime during the unrest following Brown’s death and lost tax revenue from businesses destroyed or badly damaged in rioting.

A St. Louis County grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, the officer involved in the incident, and the Justice Department said it would not pursue federal civil rights charges against him. But the incident and subsequent protests led Justice to launch a wide-ranging investigation, concluding nearly a year ago that the city’s police and municipal court unfairly targeted African-American residents, who make up about 70% of the population.

Ferguson’s troubles and similar problems in cities across the country prompted a national discussion on police tactics and the appointment of a special White House panel, which in part urged the adoption of new strategies to rebuild a broken trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

In Ferguson, city leaders hosted a series of emotionally-charged hearings this month on whether it should ratify the tentative Justice settlement. Some residents urged the City Council to reject the deal and take their chances in court. Others favored the agreement as a way for the city to regain the trust of a wary African-American community.

Wesley Bell, a Ferguson council member, said members of the council felt it was important present their concerns about the costs of implementing the deal. He said the amendments to the agreement were not meant to be a “take it or leave it” offer.

“We hope the Justice Department is willing to sit down and talk to us and continue negotiations,” Bell said. “If this case goes to court, it will not be because of the city of Ferguson.”

Proponents of Justice agreement noted that fighting a legal battle would be costly and could prove more expensive in the long-term than settling now. Knowles disputed that notion Wednesday, saying the city’s analysis shows “the agreement, as it currently stands, will cost more to implement than it would be to fight a lawsuit.”

“Substantially more,” Knowles added.

Meanwhile, in my Hometown of Memphis, TN, 4 Black Americans died yesterday, killed by other Black Americans.

And, this past month, in the Windy City of Chicago, which has some of the strictest Gun Control Laws in the nation, newsmax.com reports that

Chicago’s homicide rate jumped to a 15-year high in January after authorities recorded 51 murders in the first month of the year.

The homicide increase was a sharp rise from the 29 murders reported in January 2015, and 20 in 2013, according to USA Today. Overall, there were 241 shooting incidents in  January, an increase from 119 such incidents last year.

The “unacceptable increase in violence was driven primarily by gang conflicts and retaliatory violence,” said Chicago’s interim police superintendent, John Escalante, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. 

Well, I realize that I’m just an ig’nant old cracka’, living down here in the Bible Belt, but, it occurs to me that if the Ferguson, New York City., and Baltimore Rioters, murders, and other assorted lawbreakers  (paid and unpaid…thank you, George Soros) had jobs, they would not have been “so mistreated ” at the hands of those mean ol’ Police Officers (White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic).

So, perhaps the President of the United States should focus his attention to giving “his people” (who are actually supposed to be all of us) educational training and the cultural impetus to exercise personal responsibility, in order to gain employment, be men and women, support their families, and thrive as Americans.

A few years ago, I worked at our county’s State Employment Center Office.

While at the Employment Office, I was able to observe Americans, both Black and White, down on their luck, struggling to find work and survive in this economy. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of “unemployed ” who came to this particular office were Black.

I saw Black American Families whose existence living on the Government Dole, had become generational.

It is these people whom Obama and the Democrats have hypnotized into believing that Uncle Sugar loves them, and is their only solution to surviving a stifling existence.

They are so, so wrong.

The strength and vitality of America does not come from the benevolence of a Nanny-state Federal Government.

As the greatest American President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan said:

The nine words you never want to hear are: I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.

Being enslaved to the Government Dole steals one’s ambition. It takes away any impetus or desire to create a better life for yourself and your family, to challenge yourself to pick yourself up by your bootstraps and pursue the American Dream. It makes you reliant on a politically motivated spider’s web full of government bureaucrats who view you and your family as job security.

I watched American citizens trapped in this web of government bureaucracy, so numbed of any initiative that they once had, that they seemed offended that they actually had to prove that they inquired about three jobs that week in order to keep their “benefits”. Others seemed puzzled that they had to search through the state data base and pick out a job that they wanted to talk to an interviewer about receiving a referral to, and weren’t just simply handed a job when they walked through the door.

Instead of moving forward, by exercising the self-reliance that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached so well, these people I saw, were content on being “taken care of” by Uncle Sugar, as if being held down by their own poor, miserable circumstance, was a good thing.

Dr. King, I am sorry to tell you that racism and injustice is still going on in America. Unfortunately, it will not end any time soon, There are two many race-baiters profiting off of it.

Including, the President of the United States.

The part of your magnificent speech about “the content of their character” has been purposefully ignored by the professional race-baiters and assorted politicians (but, I repeat myself) for the entire 7 years that the “Firt Post-Racial President” has been in office.

Dr. King, your call for self-reliance took a back seat to the self-serving agenda of Professional Race-Baiters, such as “Community Organizers” and Politicians, a long time ago.

And, those who sacrifice themselves, while serving and protecting us on the streets of America everyday, make convenient scapegoats, for the Political Failure of the Great Society.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary After New Hampshire: From “The Inevitable Candidate” to Just Another “Face in the Crowd”?

February 10, 2016

Berni-Treasure-600-nrdLast  night, in the New Hampshire Democrat Primary Election, Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost, in epic fashion, to the old Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

In fact, the only age group who voted for her, were well-off folks, who were 65 years old and older.

What happened to “The Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate”?

Dick Morris, Former Advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote the following op ed for thehill.com

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It’s a disaster.

Now she’s called in the B Team — the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock — to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo’s frantic attacks on Sanders.

The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

Sanders has a coherent, consistent and concise message: Incomes are stagnant because the economy is rigged by the top one-tenth of 1 percent that controls politics through massive campaign contributions.

Clinton has no competing message, just the charge that Sanders’s supporters are “sexist and vulgar.” Brock adds that one of Sanders’s ads was racist because it had too many white people in it.

Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa — and failing to recover them in New Hampshire — they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that’s where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a “special place in hell” women who don’t back female candidates like Clinton.

Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.

He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!

Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady’s enthusiasm for discussing the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in America. Now that they’ve been outed as being back on her team, it’s easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it’s all the GOP’s fault.

Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton’s affections.

Brock first came into the Clinton camp as a convert from conservatism. Before he did so, he outed Paula Jones, triggering Bill Clinton to lie to a grand jury, resulting in close to $1 million in payments to Jones and thousands to the court in fines, as well as disbarment and impeachment scandals. Now he serves to destroy Hillary Clinton’s career as well by counseling a scorched-earth policy that savages Sanders and alienates the very young people who must provide Clinton her political base in the general election.

Neither the B Twins nor Bill Clinton’s rage can save the bewildered former secretary of State, who cannot understand why a funny thing is happening on her way to her coronation. Voters looked at her and ran screaming.

My, how the “Inevitable Democrat Presidential Candidate” has fallen.

I was immediately struck by how similar the rapidly-devolving candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton was to the classic movie “A Face in the Crowd”:

afaceinthecrowdAndy Griffith makes a spectacular film debut in this searing drama as Lonesome Rhodes, a philosophical country-western singer discovered in a tanktown jail by radio talent scout Patricia Neal and her assistant Walter Matthau. They decide that Rhodes is worthy of a radio spot, but the unforeseen result is that the gangly, aw-shucks entertainer becomes an overnight sensation not simply on radio but, thereafter, on television. As he ascends to stardom, Rhodes attracts fans, sponsors and endorsements by the carload, and soon he is the most powerful and influential entertainer on the airwaves. Beloved by his audience, Rhodes reveals himself to his intimates as a scheming, power-hungry manipulator, with Machiavellian political aspirations. He uses everyone around him, coldly discarding anyone who might impede his climb to the top (one such victim is sexy baton-twirler Lee Remick, likewise making her film debut). Just when it seems that there’s no stopping Rhodes’ megalomania, his mentor and ex-lover Neal exposes this Idol of Millions as the rat that he is. She arranges to switch on the audio during the closing credits of Rhodes’ TV program, allowing the whole nation to hear the grinning, waving Rhodes characterize them as “suckers” and “stupid idiots.” Instantly, Rhodes’ popularity rating plummets to zero. As he drunkenly wanders around his penthouse apartment, still not fully comprehending what has happened to him, Rhodes is deserted by the very associates who, hours earlier, were willing to ask “how high?” when he yelled “jump”. Written by Budd Schulberg, Face in the Crowd was not a success, possibly because it hit so close to home with idol-worshipping TV fans. Its reputation has grown in the intervening years, not only because of its value as a film but because of the novelty of seeing the traditionally easygoing Andy Griffith as so vicious and manipulative a character as Lonesome Rhodes.

Just like Lonesome Rhodes, Hillary’s is a completely manufactured persona. Also like Rhodes, she was meant to represent something unique.

While Rhodes represented the common man, down on his luck, who pulled himself up by his bootstraps to achieve success, Clinton, in turn, is supposed to represent the return of the affable Bill “Bubba” Clinton’s reign as President…a fictional Kennedy-style “Camelot”, where Fairy Tales came true, and the Progressive Clintons ruled with impunity.

And, just as Rhodes was exposed for the vacuous, megalomaniac that he was, so has Hillary been revealed for who she is, through Benghazi and the popular movie about that horrible night, her corrupt influence-peddling involving the Clinton Foundation, and, the FBI Investigation into her use of private servers to handle Top Secret E-mails, while she was Secretary of State.

About that influence-peddling…

Hillary continues to refuse to release the contents of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. There’s a reason for that.

In an attempt to appeal to the young and dumb Bernie Voters, Hillary has been trying to portray herself as an anti-capitalist.

However, Rush Limbaugh, during his nationally-syndicated radio program on February 8th, made  the following observation

How did the Clintons end up having a fortune of $150 million when they had Clinton’s salary of 400 grand as president and Hillary, whatever she had as a Rose Law Firm lawyer, they didn’t have any money compared to this.  I’m not saying they were dirt poor, but how they ended up having $150 million, for doing speeches, are you kidding me?  Nobody gets paid that much to do speeches, because nobody has that much to say to make it that worth it.  There’s something else going on here.  That’s why Mrs. Clinton won’t reveal the transcripts of these speeches.  Something in them would give away the game. 

Either these speeches are filled with nothing but slathering, slavish, complimentary garbage about how great the banks are, how great Goldman Sachs is, and if that’s in there, there’s no way Mrs. Clinton wants her average voters to see that.  As far as Democrat voters are concerned, Hillary and Bernie hate the banks, and if there are transcripts of speeches with Hillary out there praising the banks, talking how wonderful the banks are, saving the world, it would be a big problem.  So there’s no way you’re ever gonna see those transcripts.  But, I mean, $120 million doing speeches.  This is so phony you can just see right through it.

In conclusion, there was a reason that the only voter bloc that Hillary carried last night was the old and the wealthy.

They are the only Democrat Voters who can relate to her.

Now, don’t get me wrong…Bernie is nothing but a Professional Politician, peddling empty promises, also.

However, just like the “47%” voted “Baracky Claus” into a second term as President, so are the “Young and Dumb” voting for “Mr. Free Stuff” in the Democrat Primary Elections.

Perhaps Hillary should promise the young Democrat Ladies free dates with Bubba?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

A Baby, A Bag of Doritos, and NARAL: Sometimes Truth is Found Where You Least Expect It

February 9, 2016

doritos-super-bowl-2016-ultrasound-large-5Every year, on Superbowl Sunday, around one billion Americans tune in to enjoy the pageantry surrounding the game, the athleticism displayed within the game itself, and, of course the commercials, which cost their sponsors millions of dollars to produce and to place within the annual event.

After watching the Big Game, I’m here to tell you that some of those companies should have saved their money, instead.

However, some of the commercials were touching, funny, and memorable.

One of those commercials even started “the Most Tolerant People in the Room” whining.

Foxnews.com reports that

A pro-choice group kicked off a corn chip controversy Sunday night when it mocked a Doritos commercial as being “anti-choice” for using the “tactic of humanizing fetuses.”

Some viewers laughed, while others were a little put off by the “Ultrasound” ad, which showed a fictitious fetus kicking around  in the womb as its oblivious and expectant father munched on Doritos. But few took the advertisement as seriously as NARAL Pro-Choice America, which tweeted “#NotBuyingIt – that @Doritos ad using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight. #SB50.”

The tweet – part of a barrage criticizing various aspects of Super Bowl commercials seen as sexist or anti-choice – received 348 retweets and 325 favorites.

Many in the pro-life community took issue with NARAL’s framing of the commercial.

“If NARAL is scandalized by the notion that a human fetus is human, then they are scandalized by science,” Ashley McGuire, a senior fellow with The Catholic Association, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

“Even if it’s a funny commercial to sell corn chips, it’s a political tact to them.”

– Chris Gast

“We know children in the womb have distinct and human DNA. We also know that they exhibit all sorts of human behaviors in the womb such as yawning, thumb-sucking, and even dancing thanks to tremendous advances in ultrasound technology.

“But groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood rely on a denial of these scientific realities better suited to the Dark Ages to maintain their rabid insistence that those unborn babies are undeserving of basic human rights.”

In the ad, the mom, a doctor and the father watch as the fetus moves to and fro in its mom’s tummy in an attempt to get closer to a chip wielded by the father.

When the exasperated mom flings the chip across the room, the baby follows – exiting the ultrasound frame and, apparently, the womb. The last bit is only intimated, as the camera pans to the horrified faces of the mom, dad and doctor as the Doritos logo flashes on the screen.

“I thought the ad was funny. It was a big hit at the Super Bowl party I was at, and I was surprised how NARAL reacted,” said Chris Gast, the director of communications for Right to Life Michigan.

“Having an ultrasound is a very common experience for parents around the country, and I don’t understand why NARAL finds a common everyday experience like having a baby to be a strong political statement.

The simple and unavoidable fact of the matter is that, Pro-Abortionists are opposed to the taking of sonograms of the woman’s womb, before she has a abortion. They’re afraid that the “seed-carrier” will realize that IS a HUMAN BEING inside her, and will decide not to kill that baby.

Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an ardent pro-abortion supporter, either on Facebook or face-to-face? You won’t hear these “Champions of Tolerance” call those innocent lives, babies, human beings, a life, a soul, a gift from God, or anything remotely resembling something that they should feel remorse about killing.

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” writes:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “humanquality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

As NARAL’s reaction to the Superbowl Commercial showed, the Liberal mind is fascinating.  

Sick and twisted…but, fascinating.

On the one hand, if you corner the majority of Pro-Abortion Liberals, including the President, they will say that children are to be cherished and protected. I agree.

At, the same time, they claim to stand by a woman’s right to kill her baby. I can hear the Liberals screeching right now.

That’s not a baby. It’s a fetus! It’s not the same thing! You chauvinist pig!

(Fetus is Latin for BABY)

If cherishing God’s gift of life makes me a “Chauvinist Pig”, you’re darned skippy I am! Yay, Pigs! Sooey! 

The blatant hypocrisy shown by Obama, his loyal minions in Congress, and the MSM, the Liberal pundits on TV and Radio, and ignorant “seminar” callers and posters on Conservative websites, in defense of  “their rights “not to be punished with a baby” and their silence regarding the American Auschwitz known as the Gosnell Case, is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s…and positively chilling.

A while back, MSNBC Host, and Resident Communist, Melissa Harris-Perry proclaimed, 

…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

Evidently, for Obama and the rest of the Liberals, that only applies when the child is no longer a “punishment”.

If Christian Americans do not speak out against this American Genocide…WHO WILL?

I have always said that, in what seems to be a majority of the cases, abortion is a selfish act. It ends the life of an innocent human being, before they have even had the chance to live it.

Life is not, and never will be, a bicycle ride in the park.

Life is a series of challenges, which every person has to meet head on, and make the choice between right and wrong for themselves.

We have been given Free Will by Our Creator because WE ARE LOVED.

In fact, He loves us so much, that he gave us that still small voice, which resides in each one of us, which is referred to, in secular terms, as the conscience, and, is known to Christians as the Holy Spirit.

It is this still, small voice that helps us make the important decisions which we face in this life, in order to overcome the challenges which we are faced with.

It’s also undoubtedly why the overwhelming majority of Americans are so upset about the ghoulish resurrection of the practices of, and imitation of, the Third Reich by Planned Parenthood, through their monstrous marketing of the body parts of aborted babies.

Regardless of what you see in the Main Stream Media, the majority of Americans still know the difference between right and wrong.

THAT AIN’T A PUPPY IN THERE.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Syrian Muslim “Refugees” Accepted, Syrian Christians Not…While Obama Decides If Their Mass Murder is “Genocide” Or Not

February 8, 2016

th (57)While Americans were enjoying the pomp and pageantry of Superbowl 50 last night, Christians, halfway around the world, continued to fight against a mass genocide, while the President of the United States of America, continues to turn a deaf ear to their pleas for help.

CNSNews.com reports that

The number of Syrian refugees being resettled in the United States continues to climb slowly, but of the 576 admitted since last November’s Paris terrorist attack, only two (0.3 percent) are Christians.The two Christians are an Orthodox man and a Greek Orthodox man, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.

Meanwhile, 560 Sunni Muslims (97.2 percent), three Shi’ite Muslims, and 10 others identified simply as “Moslem” have been admitted over the same period. One last Syrian male refugee is identified as “other religion.”

Of the Sunnis admitted, 289 (51.6 percent) are male, 271 (48.4 percent) are female. Two of the Shi’ites are male, one if female, and of the 10 “Moslems,” seven are male and three are female.

When the Syrian civil war began almost five years ago Christians accounted for approximately 10 percent of the Syrian population. The European Parliament estimates that more than 700,000 Christians have fled their homeland since then.

The Nov. 13 attack in the French capital, which cost 130 lives, stoked fresh fears that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group is using refugee admission programs as a way to access Western countries.

The small number of Christians among those admitted since the ISIS attack mirrors the proportion admitted into the U.S. since the beginning of fiscal year 2016, on Oct. 1 – seven Christians (0.8 percent) out of a total of 867 refugees. The seven are three Catholics (two males, one female), two Orthodox males, one Greek Orthodox male, and one described simply as “Christian.”

The rest of the 867 admitted so far in FY 2016 comprise 846 Sunnis (97.5 percent) – of whom 443 (52.4 percent) are males and 403 (47.6 percent) are females – as well as the three Shi’ites (0.3 percent), 10 “Moslems” (1.1 percent), and one (0.1 percent) described as having “no religion.”The Obama administration plans to admit 10,000 Syrian

refugees during FY 2016.Since the civil war in Syria began — with anti-government protests and a violent crackdown in March 2011 – the U.S. has admitted a total of 2,740 Syrian refugees. Of that number, 55 (2.0 percent) are Christians and 2,565 (93.6 percent) are Sunni Muslims.

The rest are 70 “Moslems,” 16 Shi’ites, eight Jehovah’s Witnesses, six Zoroastrians, two Baha’i, one Yazidi, seven “other religion,” seven “no religion” and three atheists.

Of the total 2,740 Syrian refugees admitted since March 2011, 743 (27.1 percent) are men aged between 14 and 50.

If you were the President of the United States of America, which would be more important to you: saving innocent lives or the definition of a word?

TheBlaze.com reports that

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that Obama administration attorneys are researching whether the violence the Islamic State is committing against Christians meets the legal definition of genocide.

A reporter, citing the atrocities and murders in Iraq and Syria, asked Earnest, “Why won’t the Obama administration call this genocide, Christian genocide?” 

Earnest responded that the term genocide has “legal ramifications.”

“There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario,” Earnest said. “What is clear and what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24 hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria, including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out about it.”

On Wednesday, Obama denounced attacks on people of faith while speaking at the Islamic Society of Baltimore and repeated the sentiment Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Many have insisted the large-scale murder of Christians by the Islamic State is clearly genocide.

The reluctance by the Obama administration is most likely based on obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, said.

“If they don’t think there is enough evidence of genocide against Christians and Yazidis, I’m not sure what they’re waiting for,” Weber told TheBlaze. “This is based on a political fear. There is moral and legal weight behind calling it genocide. Under the treaty, parties must prevent and punish genocide. This is the reason for the Clinton administration’s reluctance to act in Rwanda.”

Citing the treaty, Weber said the Islamic State’s slaughter and torture of Christians meet the treaty’s criteria for genocide, which include any of the following:

● Killing members of the group

● Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

● Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

● Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

● Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

At the White House press briefing, the reporter followed, “The distinction of genocide provides people persecuted with the ability to come to the United States seeking refuge. When will this happen?”

Earnest said the terminology doesn’t change the administration’s serious response in combatting the Islamic State.

“This is an open question and one that continues to be considered by administration lawyers,” Earnest said. “I can tell you that the president was quite blunt in talking about the responsibility that all people of faith have in standing up for individuals who are targeted for their faith, particularly religious minorities and particularly the people who are marginalized because of their minority status based on the religion they practice.”

Earnest noted that the Islamic State has also targeted Yazidis and Shia Muslims.

“This administration has worked hard to try to protect religious minorities who are being victimized by ISIL. There is no doubt that Christians are among those who have been and are being targeted,” Earnest said. “As it relates to the specific use of this word — the decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one, it has significant consequences and it matters for a whole variety of reasons both legal and moral. But it doesn’t change our response. The fact is that this administration has been aggressive even though that term has not been applied in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence.”

As a recent Gallup Poll affirmed, Christianity, the Faith of our Fathers, remains the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans, consisting of over 75% of our population.

In July of 2009, in a stadium located at the University of the Egypt in Cairo, President Barack Hussein Obama, in a speech to the “Muslim World”, apologized to tens of thousands of adherents  to Islam and spoke to them in glowing terms of their “rich cultural heritage” and their “contributions to the growth of United States of America”.

Yeah, our first president, Mohammed Washington, that’s the ticket.

Now, before I begin my analysis, I want you to understand that I am NOT saying that every Muslim in the world is taking part in a jihad against United States of America.

However, those were not Southern Baptists, who massacred the citizens of Paris, France or San Bernadino, California.

Additionally, the mass murderers known as ISIS, are not Evangelical Christians, no matter how hard desperate Liberals might try to compare us to Radical Muslims.

“Now are you going to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior or am I going to have to behead you?” said no Evangelical Christian American, ever.

No, boys and girls, ISIS is a bunch of Muslim Barbarians…period.

For President Barack Hussein Obama to attempt to prosecute the War Against ISIS by remote control, with apparently no military strategy in place at all, is one the silliest things I’ve ever seen in my life.

As has been noted by several military analysts, eventually, Obama is going to have to put a “substantial number” of troops on the ground. That is, additional troops to the troops which he already has on the ground in the role of  “military advisors”.

Obama’s bombing runs have done minimal damage, at best.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot bomb buildings and expect to kill your enemy, when the enemy is a guerrilla force, which  does not stay in any building for any period of time. Just like their Nomadic Barbaric Ancestors, these guerrillas keep moving, regrouping, and attacking.

Obama had hoped that his “Coalition of the Unwilling”, the Middle Eastern Muslim Nations , who reluctantly agreed to support Obama against ISIS, would be willing to be his “boots on the ground” and would lay down their lives for him.

I am still trying to figure out how Obama could have possibly thought that those who think of us as the Great Satan, would lay down their lives for us.

Of course, Obama also thinks that if  Iran promises not to build a nuke, they won’t build it.

Here’s a Million Drachma Question for ya: 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: “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.

This situation, that France is dealing with, and that we will be facing, with a possible Invasion Force, disguised as “Syrian Refugees”, can be traced back to Obama’s premature evacuation of Iraq.

It is no secret that Barack Hussein Obama is a vain and petulant man. It is also no secret that he was a Far Left Radical in his collegiate days and his early political career, only moving to the middle of the political spectrum while he was campaigning for the presidency.

That being said, my Daddy always told me that when you do something, don’t do it halfway. Give it your best effort or don’t do it at all, or else you will come up short. That is what is happening with this war against the Islamic radicals in Iraq.

Obama has never liked the Military Industrial Complex. After all, he is disciple of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Additionally, Obama spent his youth going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, where he was surrounded by children of wealthy Muslims, whose parents were part of the establishment in Jakarta.

Because of his political ideology and the time he spent among Jakarta’s Upper Crust, Obama is very naive, or at least, he seems to be, about those Muslims who aren’t as cultured as he and his friends were. In fact, he seems to be quite ignorant about the Muslim practice of taquiyya, in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels in order to achieve their mission.

Could Obama’s “Coalition of the Unwilling”, consisting of Middle Eastern Muslims, be practicing taquiyya? Could it be that arming the Syrian “Rebels” was a very stupid thing to do? Could these “Syrian Refugees” actually be a Radical Muslim Invasion Force? Could it be that it is time for Obama to quit this halfway waging of War and to go ahead and send in ground troops and take care of business ourselves?

The answer to all of the above questions is…YES.

So, to answer my earlier question…Why is United States President Barack Hussein Obama refusing to grant asylum to persecuted Christians and Yazidis?

As demonstrated in his trip to that Baltimore Mosque last week, which has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood,

Obama is loathe to admit the atrocities perpetrated in the name of Allah.

And yet, he blasts Christian Americans at every opportunity, concerning our reluctance to accept these unvetted “Muslim Refugees”.

The acceptance of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians would shed further light on those atrocities.

And, Obama simply will not allow that.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama, Islam, and Christianity: “No Man Can Serve Two Masters” – Matthew 6:24

February 7, 2016

American Christianity 2Earlier this week, I reported on the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the mosque where President Barack Hussein Obama visted, this past Wednesday.

I informed you that the mosque had a past Imam, who is an active member of the Godfather of all Muslim Terrorist Groups, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seemingly oblivious to that fact, Obama, as is his wont, praised his audience at the mosque, like he did in July of 2009, in his “Speech to the Muslim World”, given at the University of Cairo, in Egypt.

Here is an excerpt of his speech, found at whitehouse.gov…

For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.  The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you.  And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.  Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”  (Applause.)  For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar.  (Laughter.)The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are as diverse as humanity itself.  They are Arabs and Africans.  They’re from Latin America to Southeast Asia; Brazilians, Nigerians, Bangladeshis, Indonesians.  They are white and brown and black.  There’s a large African American Muslim community.  That diversity is represented here today.  A 14-year-old boy in Texas who’s Muslim spoke for many when he wrote to me and said, “We just want to live in peace.”

Here’s another fact:  Islam has always been part of America. Starting in colonial times, many of the slaves brought here from Africa were Muslim.  And even in their bondage, some kept their faith alive.  A few even won their freedom and became known to many Americans.  And when enshrining the freedom of religion in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, our Founders meant what they said when they said it applied to all religions.

Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans.  And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.”  (Applause.)

Yes, it does. However, Jefferson had no illusions about what we now refer to as Radical Islam.

Jefferson’s introduction to “the Mahometans” came in 1786, when he and John Adams participated in negotiations with Tripoli’s ambassador to London, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.

The Barbary Pirates, who hailed from North Africa’s Islamic states, had been attacking merchant ships, and even small towns, all across the Mediterranean.  Any “infidel,” or non-Muslim, unfortunate enough to be caught in one of these raids would be carried off to a life of slavery.  Female captives were especially prized.

In their report to the American Congress, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote that when they asked the Ambassador how he justified these attacks he cited the Koran.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.

And. by the way, yes, Jefferson did own a Koran. He read it, so that he could further understand the Barbary Pirates’ motivations and strategy, in order to defeat them in war.

Last Thursday, during his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program, Rush Limbaugh asked a very profound question…

Folks, I have a question.  Barack Obama, he goes into this radical mosque in Baltimore yesterday, he talks about how Islam has always been part of the fabric of America, and I stopped. I said, “Really?” I didn’t know that.  I didn’t know that Islam had always been such a major, major part of America.  But, anyway, he’s constantly talking it up, is he not?  President Obama is routinely defending it, talking it up, promoting it. He talks about how awesome Islam is all the time, one of the most beautiful sounds he’s ever heard is the morning call to prayer in an Islamic country.  He says it’s the most peaceful, most giving religion out there, that the mosque called a prayer one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.  And, at the same time, he’s out there, and look what he says about Christians.  He says he is one. Look, he talks about ’em as bitter clingers and they hold on to their guns when they’re nervous.

And when they feel abandoned, they go out there and they cling to their religion, and they do all these other things that make the establishment nervous. My question is, given all this, why did he choose to become a Christian?  I’ve always wondered that.  He’s such a defender and promoter of Islam, and, on the other hand, he and his party are constantly denigrating Christians.  I don’t care what the issue is, whether it’s guns, whether it’s gay marriage, any cultural or social issue, or the bitter clinger comments.  I’ve always wondered about this. No, I’m not saying anything.  I’m just asking a question. 

How did he end up choosing Reverend Wright’s church, given his public statements on all this?  

How, indeed?

Reverend Wright is a former American Black Muslim, himself, so perhaps he and Obama found some common ground.

So, how can Obama still be calling for Americans to believe a false equivalency between Christian Americans and the followers of Mohammed?

The differences are startling…and absolute.

jesus-chart-1

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgment 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”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

In the case of the Radical Islamist Couple in San Bernadino, it let them to murder their neighbors and co-workers.

In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

For President Obama to continue to deny the connection between Radical Islamic Terrorism and the Political Ideology, masquerading as a religion, that is Islam, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Thehill.com reported recently, that

The majority of Americans say the country is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, according to a new poll taken in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist attacks in France.

A survey by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports published Friday found that 60 percent of likely voters believe the country is at war, compared with 24 percent who say the U.S. is not at war.

“President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats refuse to say America is at war with ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for fear of insulting all Muslims, but voters beg to disagree,” the polling agency said.

Majorities from both major parties said the U.S. is engaged in a conflict with radical Islam: 56 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans, as well as 54 percent of independents.


Ninety-two percent of respondents also said they regard radical Islamic terrorism as a “serious” threat to national security, including 73 percent who said the threat is a “very serious” one, which is up from 50 percent inOctober of last year.



American attitudes toward the Islamic faith as a whole also appear to have shifted.

Although a plurality of Americans, 46 percent, still said terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) do not represent the true Muslim faith, that number is down from 58 percent in February. Thirty-five percent said ISIS does represent the Muslim faith.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attack last week in which at least 130 people were killed and hundreds were injured.

 The Rasmussen poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters Nov. 17–18. The margin of error for the poll is 3 percentage points.

Obama is engaging in a very dangerous naivete.

Christian Americans do not deserve Obama’s scorn and Radical Islamists certainly do not deserve his oblivious excuses.

Our country’s very survival is at stake.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

A KJ Op Ed: Vetting The Republican Candidates – Going After the Wrong “Enemy”

February 6, 2016

ctax=Campaigns^Expose^Viewers^Placement%2035743%20-%20Viewer (2) Sward-StoneFor those of us Conservatives, who are considering which candidate to vote for in the 2016 presidential Election, our cup runneth over.

We literally have a smorgasbord of candidates, who are still campaigning, less than 10 months from the big day.

And, therein lies the problem.

While candidates seem to be more interested in attacking each other, than the Democrats, potential Republican Voters are following suit, and attacking each other, all over the World Wide Web.

To quote the Master of Malapropisms, the late, great Yogi Berra,

It’s deja vu, all over again.

During the Presidential Elections of 2008 and 2012, while we were busy “vetting” the Republican Candidates, in search of their “bonafides”, Liberal Democrats were solidly behind their Great Black Hope”, the “Clean and Articulate” (Biden’s words, not mine) Barack Hussein Obama, which resulted in an unvetted, untested, incompetent, petulant, anti-American metrosexual assuming the role of “Leader of the Free World”.

Why have we and why are we “eating our own”?

  • Unlike the present-day version of the Democrat Party, which has moved to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum, Republicans, both Conservative and “Moderate”, still think for themselves. We all have our own opinion on the criteria necessary for a successful American President. Democrats, like the Proletariat of the old Soviet Union, possess a “Hive-Mind” mentality, voting en masse for whoever is deemed “good for the Party”.
  • There is a Generational Gap, in regards to morality and ethical behavior, which is a determining factor as to each Republican’s own definition of “Conservatism”, which is a determining factor as to whom their candidate of choice will be. For example, in my case, as a 57-year old Reagan Conservative, I judge Presidential Primary Candidates, and those who vote for them, by the following criteria, as defined by Matt Barber

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty. 

  • Another problem, which Republican voters are facing, is the fact that there are no Perfect Candidates. Ronald Reagan is not running for President. Each of the Top Tier Candidates all have their own  good points. Unfortunately, they all have their weak points, as well, just like we voters do. Voters support those candidates whose stance of the important issues most closely resembles their own, a fact which helps to explain why Trump and Cruz are leading the pack.
  • Our defensiveness toward the Republican Candidates comes from the fact that the Republican Establishment has, in several instances, abandoned and betrayed those who placed them in office: average American Voters, living out here in the heartland (or, as those up in the Halls of Power refer to it as, “Flyover Country”). The reaction of Republican Voters in this Primary Season, is, above all else, a repudiation of betrayal of the Republican-held House and Senate. While compromise is, indeed, a part of Washington Politics, capitulation to the opposition party is not. Because of the actions of the Republican Establishment, average Americans have become hyper-vigilant to discrepancies in what a candidate says in the present, and, their actions in the past.

And that, gentle reader, is why we, as Conservatives and potential voters for the Republican Candidate, are allowing the Main Stream Media to lead us around by the nose, “vetting” our candidates, by cause more consternation and infighting, than a bunch of texting teenage girls on Prom Night.

Because of our concerns that whoever winds up as the Republican Candidate for the Office of President of the United States of America represent US, the average American Voter, we are literally, presently, at war with one another, mirroring the infighting going on between the candidates, using the platforms given to us via Political Websites and Facebook Pages.

While vetting the candidates through the use of the New Media is a good thing, it must not be used to tear down each other and destroy our opportunity to undo the damage that years of “Progressive” Political Control in DC has done to our country.

Our mission, now, as Americans, is to decide our own destiny. 

We must not let the Political Elite, on BOTH sides of the aisle, nor the Main Stream Media, pick our candidate for us.

Ronald Reagan once said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

A charge to keep WE have.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Clinton/Sanders Debate: Two Old Northeast Progressives “Swapping Stories”

February 5, 2016

Hil-Bern-600nrdIn case you didn’t know, didn’t care, or you just didn’t want to watch a couple of old white “Progressives” from the Northeast lie like rugs on National Television, there was an actual Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate held in Prime Time on Thursday, and not in the dead of night on the Weekend.

Politico.com reports that

The niceties are finished.

After a string of debates where Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders discussed (and occasionally disagreed about) the fine points of progressive policy, the two finally had a full-fledged throwdown Thursday night.

Clinton accused Sanders of going negative on the campaign trail, telling the Vermont Senator at the Democratic debate that his campaign was smearing her name.

“I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent week,” Clinton said after Sanders talked about getting money out of politics.

Sanders has boasted about not receiving money from Wall street, and has pointed out in recent weeks that Clinton has received large sums in exchange for speaking.

“Sen. Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I’ve tried to keep my disagreements over issues, but time and time again, by innuendo and by insinuation there is this attack that he is putting forth,” Clinton said.

“Which really comes down to anyone who ever took donations or speaking fees from interest groups has to be bought, and I absolutely reject that Senator. I really don’t think those attacks by insinuation are worthy of you,” Clinton continued

Then she leveled the challenge: “If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Hold on a second. We’ll get back to this “Challenge”

Now about the lies…

Foxnews.com reports that

WASHINGTON –  Hillary Clinton cast the financial industry as an adversary in her presidential campaign — despite the money that industry has poured into her White House effort. Bernie Sanders once again mischaracterized the share of the wealth taken by the very richest Americans.

A look at some of the claims in their latest Democratic presidential debate:

CLINTON on Wall Street: “They are trying to beat me in this primary.”

THE FACTS: Wall Street is not the anti-Clinton monolith she implied. People in the securities and investment industry gave more than $17 million last year to super political action committees supporting her presidential run and nearly $3 million directly to her campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a campaign-finance watchdog. Wall Street is the top industry donating to her effort, ahead of the legal profession, non-profit institutions and others.

Clinton is taking heat from Sanders over her Wall Street ties, which go back decades.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Clinton has brought in more money from the financial sector during her four federal campaigns — for Senate and president — than her husband, Bill Clinton, did in his quarter-century political career. In all, more than $44 million was raised for her campaigns. This includes more than $1 out of every $10 of the money contributed for her 2016 campaign.

Clinton has often talked about how much she has raised from teachers, as opposed to big corporate interests. But the $2.93 million given directly to her campaign last year by people in the securities and investment industry surpassed the $2.88 million given by people in education, OpenSecrets found.

SANDERS: “Almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.”

THE FACTS: This has been a common mantra by Sanders but it relies on outdated numbers. In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses.

That’s a hefty share, but far short of “almost all.” In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain reflected an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years. Average wages also showed signs of picking up last year as the unemployment rate fell, suggesting the bottom 99 percent may have also seen gains in 2015.

CLINTON: “I am against American combat troops being in Syria and Iraq. I support special forces. I support trainers. I support the air campaign.”

THE FACTS: Clinton makes a dubious distinction. Although it can be debated whether certain types of military personnel fit the definition of “combat” troops, there is little doubt that special operations forces like those now operating both in Syria and Iraq do.

In the fall, a special operations soldier was killed in a firefight in Iraq during a joint U.S.-Kurdish commando raid on an Islamic State prison.

The Pentagon recently sent up to 200 special operations troops to Iraq to carry out a range of risky missions, including raids against Islamic State targets.

Pilots of fighter aircraft, bombers and other warplanes that have flown over Iraq and Syria, dropping bombs and missiles on Islamic State targets on a daily basis, certainly are engaged in combat.
Clinton said she supports Obama’s reluctance to take the lead in ground combat in Iraq and Syria. But many military members are now engaged in combat.

SANDERS: “You have three out of the four largest banks in America today, bigger than they were, significantly bigger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail.”

THE FACTS: Sanders is right that JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are larger than they were in mid-2008, before they received bailout money. But those gains largely reflect mergers and acquisitions that occurred, frequently at the government’s behest, during the financial crisis. JPMorgan bulked up by purchasing Bear Stearns, in a deal facilitated by the Federal Reserve. Bank of America ballooned when it acquired Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo roughly doubled in size when it bought a floundering Wachovia Bank.

But the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul bill, passed in 2010, has forced banks to hold more capital as a cushion against risk and to make future bailouts less likely. That requirement and others has caused several banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Citi, to shed assets to avoid growing larger and triggering further oversight.

CLINTON on Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal: “I said that I was holding out that hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.”

THE FACTS: As Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton was far more enthusiastic about the Pacific trade deal taking shape than she became once she was running for president and trying to appeal to the liberal wing of her party. As secretary she had given speeches around the world in support of the deal under negotiation, saying in Australia in 2012 that it “sets the gold standard in trade agreements,” a cheerleading sentiment she echoed elsewhere.

She’s stated since that the final agreement didn’t address her concerns. But the final version actually had been modified to drop certain provisions that liberal activist groups had opposed.

CLINTON: “I am not going to make promises I can’t keep. I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost.”

THE FACTS: Clinton was taking aim at Sanders’ universal health care coverage plan that he calls “Medicare for all,” and a new independent analysis suggests that she was correct about his understating the cost.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the tax increases in Sanders’ plan would only cover about 75 percent of the estimated spending under the plan, creating at least a $3 trillion hole over 10 years.

The analysis was based on Sanders’ estimate of how much his plan would spend. If that turns out to be low, then the financing gap would grow.

The group represents deficit foes from both political parties. Leon Panetta, a CIA director and a defense secretary under President Barack Obama, is a co-chairman of its board.

Remember Former Secretary of State Clinton’s challenge from last night, regarding donations that she has received?

“If you have something to say, say it. But I have never changed a view or a vote because of a donation I’ve received.”

Challenge accepted.

Back in April of 2015, NYMag.com reported that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

With the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians and an Iranian Connection regarding some of the money given to the Clinton Foundation, this is not just a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of the Clintons crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of treason.

Clinton does not belong in the White House. She belongs in jail.

And, Sanders need to move to the tiny country of Denmark and like the rest of his life in that failed “Socialist Paradise”

Or, he needs to be fitted with a short white jacket with long sleeves that tie behind the back.

Just sayin’.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama at Mosque With MB Ties: “We can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.”

February 4, 2016

AFBrancoThe-Sword-9122014Gentle Reader, you had better wrap your head with duct tape first, before reading today’s blog.

As Fairy Tales, down here in Dixie begin, instead of with “Once Upon a Time”,

“Y’all ain’t gonna believe this sh**!”

CNSNews.com reported that

President Barack Obama said today in a speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore that one fact that has not been “communicated on a regular basis through our media” is that “for more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.”

“Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated,” Obama said. “And for Christians like myself I am assuming that sounds familiar.”

Here is an excerpt from the president’s speech:

“This is a moment when as Americans we have to truly listen to each other and learn from each other. And I believe it has to begin with a common understanding of some basic facts. 
“And I express these facts, although they would be obvious to many of the people in this place, because unfortunately it’s not facts that are communicated on a regular basis through our media.
“So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from “salaam”–peace. The standard greeting is “salaam alaikum”–peace be upon you. And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated. 
“And for Christians like myself I am assuming that sounds familiar.”

Additionally, in a second story, CNS News reported that

In a speech at a mosque in Baltimore, Md., on Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the best way to fight terrorism is to show that the U.S. does not “suppress Islam” and to deny legitimacy to terrorist organizations like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) also known as ISIL.

“The best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam. We celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim-Americans. That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate,” Obama said.

“We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda, and we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values,” he added.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, Obama’s visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore is the first time the president has visited a mosque inside the United States.

Meanwhile, there is controversy surrounding the mosque itself, which reportedly has ties to the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, which was started by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group banned in many countries as an extremist organization.

During Wednesday’s visit to the mosque, Obama challenged the idea that he should use the term “Islamic terrorists” when referring to ISIL.

“I often hear it said that we need moral clarify in this fight, and the suggestion is somehow that if I would simply say these are all Islamic terrorists then we would actually have solved the problem by now apparently. Well I agree we actually do need moral clarity,” he said.

Let’s have some moral clarity. Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They’re not defending Islam. They’re not defending Muslims. The vast majority of the people they kill are innocent Muslim men, women, and children,” Obama said.

Then the president dispelled the notion that the U.S. is at war with Islam, saying this can’t be true, because Islam is part of the “fabric” of America.

“And by the way, the notion that America’s at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion, because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character,” Obama said.

“So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam. We celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim-Americans. That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate,” he said. “We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda, and we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.”

Obama also said the U.S. must not use “engagement with Muslim-American communities” as “a cover for surveillance.”

“Engagement with Muslim-American communities must never be a cover for surveillance. We can’t give in to profiling entire groups of people. There’s no one single profile of terrorists,” he said.

“We can’t securitize our entire relationship with Muslim-Americans. We can’t deal with you solely through the prism of law enforcement. We’ve got to build trust and mutual respect. That’s how to keep our communities strong and our communities united,” Obama said.

Well, Mr. President, ISIS members certainly are not Southern Baptists.

And, about those “giving legitimacy to terrorist groups” and the whole “moral clarity” points you were attempting to make.

Last week, Chuck Ross, in an article found on dailycaller.com, reported that

The Baltimore mosque President Obama has chosen as the first U.S.-based mosque to visit during his presidency has deep ties to extremist elements, including to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The White House announced on Saturday that Obama will visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore (ISB) on Wednesday. He has visited several mosques overseas as president but has resisted visiting one in the homeland. The purpose of the trip, according to the White House, is to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”

But ISB is a curious choice for Obama’s first domestic visit.

The mosque is a member of a network of mosques controlled by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim civil rights group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror case. Several executives with that organization were convicted of sending money to aid the terrorist group Hamas.

An imam who served at ISB for a total of 15 years has also been a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood network and has worked for an Islamic relief group that was designated as a terrorist organization by the Treasury Department in 2004.

Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh, who served two stints as ISB’s imam, from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan in the 1970s. He also co-founded the Muslim American Society, a Falls Church, Va.-based group that is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

While in Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as a regional director for the Islamic American Relief Agency. That group’s parent organization is the Islamic African Relief Agency, which the Treasury Department says provided funds to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

After leaving Baltimore, el-Sheikh served as imam at the infamous Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church. That mosque has a lengthy roster of known terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. Its imam during much of the 1990s was Mohammed al-Hanooti. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six people.

Dar al-Hijrah came under the control of Anwar al-Awlaki in 2001. He’s the American al-Qaeda recruiter who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011. Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Nov. 2009, is said to have attended the Virginia mosque when al-Awlaki served there. The pair also reportedly exchanged emails. Two of the 9/11 hijackers also attended Dar al-Hijrah during al-Awlaki’s tenure.

El-Sheikh took over at Dar al-Hijrah in Aug. 2003, a little over a year after al-Awlaki left. While there he defended Palestianian suicide bombings against Israel.

“If certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that, then it becomes acceptable as an exceptional rule, but should not be taken as a principle,” he said in 2004, according to a Washington Post article at the time.

As The Post reported Saturday, ISB’s website states that it seeks “to be the anchor of a growing Muslim community with diverse backgrounds, democratically governed, relating to one another with inclusiveness and tolerance, and interacting with neighbors in an Islamic exemplary manner.”

But that desire for tolerance — which President Obama frequently touts as well — does not appear to be a virtue shared by ISB’s resident scholar, Yaseen Shaikh.

A 2013 Youtube video shows Shaikh, who previously served as imam at a mosque in Plano, Tex., speaking out forcefully against homosexuality in Islam.

During an hour long diatribe, Shaikh called homosexuality a psychological disorder that has no place in Islam or society. He also lamented that gay rights groups have “hijacked” political discourse.

“This whole subject of homosexuality in the public sphere…is no longer a religious issue, unfortunately, as much as we want to use the religious card and try to defeat this, now it’s become a politicized issue,” Shaikh says in the video.

“Politicians are highly influenced by people who back them, and we find that these politicians who are calling for gay rights and marriage and supporting gay rights are lobbied and campaigned by gay activists, by gay groups. And they are throwing money at it left and right to gain some acceptance in society, to be considered normal people, to be treated normally.”

Obama is one such politician who has supported gay rights.

“We have to counter the efforts that are taking place elsewhere,” Sheikh says in the video, advising that “if our children are taught that [homosexuality is] okay, we have to teach them it’s not okay.”

Okay. So, let me try to wrap my head around this, Mr. President.

You have spent the past year chastising American Christians for not wanting to “take in” a bunch of military-looing Syrian Muslim Barbarians, who are pillaging and raping their way across Europe, by saying that our reluctance to endanger our friends, families, and Sovereign Nation is “not who we are”.

Then, yesterday, you visited a mosque, in a city, intentionally torn apart by racial strife, which has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Godfather of Muslim Terrorist Organizations.

What are you trying to do here, Scooter?

Prove your naivety…or your dhimmitude?

I have been a member of 4 Christian Churches over my 57 years…and none of the pastors had ties to Terrorist Organizations, like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Exactly, who are these guys?

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Consistent with the foregoing credo, MB since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad, against non-Muslim “infidels.” As al-Banna himself wrote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” Added al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

…Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. Article II of the Hamas charter explicitly identifies Hamas as “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” In January 2006 Hamas defeated the rival Fatah party to win the Palestinian legislative elections, thereby becoming the first branch of MB to control an official government.

Outside of the Middle East, MB exercises a strong influence in Muslim communities throughout Europe. Among the more prominent Brotherhood organizations in the region are: the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).

…In early February 2011, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.” That objective was entirely consistent with former MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef’s 2007 assertion that his organization had never recognized Israel and never would: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine.”

And, these are the people that President Barack Hussein Obama insists that we support.

Why is the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, standing with an enemy of freedom? An enemy who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, whom, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

It is well known, that a young Obama, after his mother wed a quite well-off fellow from Indonesia, attended a Madrassa, or Muslim School, in Jakarta.

I believe that the time he spent among “the religion of peace” in his youth, and the 20 years he spent under the “Reformed Muslim” (Liberation Theology) teachings of “ex”-American Muslim, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, molded and cemented his attitude toward Muslims.

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

Lari Regan, in an article for americanthinker.com, published in April of 2013, wrote that…

Obama did not create the Islamist ideology that has fed the fervor of modern-day terrorism. But from his Cairo speech through his speech Monday night just after the Boston bombings, in which he refused to call the attacks terrorism (he conceded the point the following day), he has made it clear that he does not believe that terrorism is a continuing threat to the lives and safety of Americans. His refusal to use the terms “War on Terror” and “Islamic fundamentalism” are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil or that evil simply does not exist. But what the country needs is a president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is — the totalitarian, fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have waged holy war on the West. And Obama has yet to give us any indication that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and capable of, protecting us from them.

Indeed.

Even after over 6 and 1/2 now, in his last year in office (Praise the Lord), Obama, if he has a clue as to how barbaric and devious radical Muslims are, sure doesn’t let on.

Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood have visited OUR White House numerous times now, during the Obama Presidency. Obama truly believes that he can broker peace in the Mid-East by standing by and supporting the Grandfather of all Islamic Terrorist Groups.

Naivete or a Fellow Traveler (dhimmi) ? You be the judge.

His love for, and embracing of, these murderous barbarians could very well be the death of us all.

It sure as shootin’ hasn’t done the good folks living in the Land of the Pharaohs and the Holy Land of Israel any good, whatsoever.

AND, IT IS, MOST DEFINITELY, NOT “WHO WE ARE”

Until He Comes,

KJ


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,713 other followers