Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection: Liberal Democrats, Trump’s “Immigration Ban”, and a “Convenient” God

February 12, 2017

god-dnc-3-li

Average Americans have all known for sometime that this is not our fathers’ Democrat Party. Conservatives have been driven out and “Moderates” are an endangered species.

Today’s Democrats embrace a Far Left Political Ideology, in which there is no room for a Supreme Being…until they need to reference Him for political leverage and justification.

Don’t believe me?

Remember what happened at the 2012 Democratic National Convention?

Delegates and members of the Democratic party booed after former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) discussed God and moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, had to ask for the Yea and Nay vote several times before declaring the motion passed.

C-SPAN cameras captured the dissatisfaction among members after the motion passed.

More information from the Associated Press:
Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The move came after criticism from Republicans.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said “we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama’s personal views on Jerusalem.

Now that we’ve established that, there seems to be a misconception among “the Smartest People in the Room”, American Liberals, about Christian American Conservatives.

American Liberals seem to believe that because we are strong in the Faith of Our Fathers, that we are somehow gullible or less intelligent than they are.

On December 18th of 2016, Philosophy Professor, Author , and Speaker Michael F. Austin, updated the following column titled “A Christian Case Against Donald Trump”, for the Premier Liberal Website, huffingtonpost.com

At a recent political rally, Donald Trump said “I am an evangelical. I’m a Christian. I’m a Presbyterian.” He then said, referring to Ted Cruz, that “not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness.”

No one can see into the heart of another person. What we can do, however, is evaluate their words and deeds. We should do so not to condemn, but rather to understand and move closer to the truth. No one who is a follower of Jesus can correctly claim that their words and deeds always match their professed beliefs. Mine do not. My concern is not whether Trump really is a Christian, though I admit I have serious doubts. Rather, my concern is whether his stated views and beliefs line up with Christian thought. And it is clear that many of them do not.

First, last summer Trump stated that he isn’t sure he has ever asked God for forgiveness, as he doesn’t “bring God into that picture.” He soon backtracked. Asking God for forgiveness is a central aspect of Christianity across the many traditions. This is not relevant to his political views, but it is curious that many Christians support Trump and believe his claims about his Christian faith.

Second, Trump has stated that the United States should take out the families of terrorists: “…you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” This policy would clearly contradict just war theory, which is a prominent Christian view related to declaring and conducting war. One of the tenets of just war theory is that it is immoral to intentionally kill innocent civilians. Given the nature of war, non-combatants will be injured and killed, but according to just war theory this should be avoided if at all possible. It should never be done intentionally. Trump’s proposal is not only immoral, it is also illegal and would be ineffective. If we attack innocent women and children, we only provide evidence for the terrorists who claim that they are fighting an immoral enemy.

Third, Trump has proposed that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. He’s also open to forming a database tracking all Muslims who live here. In addition, he will not rule out requiring some sort of special ID for Muslims. While this taps into the fears and irrational beliefs many hold about Islam, terrorism, and our safety, it is simply wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious faith (or lack thereof). We certainly need to have better screening procedures so that we can identify individuals who may be a threat, given their views and affiliations. But to ban all Muslim immigration because of terrorism that emerges from misguided interpretations of Islam is like banning all Christian immigration because of attacks on abortion clinics or violent racist ideology emerging from incorrect interpretations of Christianity.

Fourth, Trump has a problem with women. His comments about Carly Fiorina’s appearance and Megyn Kelly’s blood are well-known. His sexism is not new. I was recently reading the classic book On Writing Well, when I came across the following anecdote from a writer who interviewed Trump at a spa he developed in Florida: 

“Evidently, Trumps philosophy of wellness is rooted in a belief that prolonged exposure to exceptionally attractive young spa attendants will instill in the male clientele a will to live…Trump introduced me to ‘our resident physician, Dr. Ginger Lee Southall’—a recent chiropractic college graduate…I asked Trump where she had done her training. ‘I’m not sure,’ he said, ‘Baywatch Medical School? Does that sound right? I’ll tell you the truth. Once I saw Dr. Ginger’s photograph, I didn’t really need to look at her resume or anyone else’s. Are you asking me, ‘Did we hire her because she trained at Mount Sinai for fifteen years? The answer is no. And I’ll tell you why: because by the time she’s spent fifteen years at Mount Sinai, we don’t want to look at her’” (p. 221). 

The notion that women are equal to men because they are also created in the image of God is an important theological truth, even though many Christians and Christian institutions have not lived up to this. The dignity of women is not grounded in their appearance, but rather their humanity. That Trump has the support of so many women is baffling, to say the least.

Finally, Trump appears to be a narcissist. This might work for reality television or real estate deals, but it is not a desirable trait for the President of the United States. The most important moral principle, according to Jesus in the gospels, is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. The Christian understanding of love is that it involves sacrifice, self-denial, and preferring the good of others over one’s own. It does not appear that Donald Trump understands this.
For these and many other reasons, Christians should oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump.

As I was preparing to write my rebuttal to this piece, I realized that I do not have to.

Everything that this “philosopher” has accused President Trump of saying and being, has been rebuked time and again, not just by the President, but by those who know him…and more, importantly, THE FACTS.

About this whole “Muslim Immigration” Thingy…The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of “America’s Pastor”, Rev. Billy Graham and head of  Billy Graham Ministries and “Samaritan’s Purse”, a wonderful Worldwide Charity Organization, recently addressed the subject of how Christians should react to the ban…

“It’s not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come,” Graham said in an interview with the Huffington Post. 

“We want to love people, we want to be kind to people, we want to be considerate, but we have a country, and a country should have order and there are laws that relate to immigration and I think we should follow those laws,” he added. “Because of the dangers we see today in this world, we need to be very careful.”

Graham said despite the length of the process for vetting refugees, experience has shown it needs to be better.

After President Barack Hussein Obama took office, he made a point of stating several times that America was not just a Christian nation anymore.

And, while that remains true to a certain extent, it is also true that the overwhelming majority, 75% of Americans still proclaim themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ. And even beyond that, 92% of Americans still believe in God.

What is amazing to me, though, is how,  American Christianity is constantly attacked on all fronts:  militarily, culturally, and even within organized religion, itself.

From illegal immigration to abortion to homosexual “rights”, Americans who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ on these issues have been under fire by Liberals, who insist that they know more about what is in the Bible and what Christ says, or would say, about these topics, then those of us who actually read God’s Word.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1:22

When you enter into a Facebook “discussion” with these “new Pharisees”, and you counter their arguments on these topics with Scripture, Liberals are initially slow to respond.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, – 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV 

Most Liberals will start “Googling” these topics, looking for any Scriptures that will substantiate their position.

There’s been many a time they have come back at me with Old Testament Scripture. It is then that I explain to them about the sacrifice that Christ made for us sinners, freeing Christians from Jewish Law and taking the punishment for our sins , creating a New Covenant by covering Christians through the shedding of His blood.

At that point in the “discussion”, there is a long pause, as they are trying to figure out a comeback.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.- 1 Corinthians 2:14

This misconception, which I have been trying to explain, involves Liberals’ belief that American Christians will not fight back against them and the things they want to do in our society.

If there’s one thing during all of the years of anti-Christian bias, which we have experienced during the Obama administration, and now, after Christian Americans helped elect American Businessman and Entrepreneur Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, that the Liberals should have learned, is the fact that Christian American Conservatives will fight back.

It is funny though…that when we begin fighting back, the Liberals have a tendency to label us as uncaring, mean , divisive, and intolerant.

Liberals react that way because internally, they are having a kicking and screaming temper tantrum, because they cannot get their way…as the days since November 8th, 2016 have plainly showed.

For Liberal Democrats to now attempt to use the God of Abraham as a Spokesperson and Arbiter against the actions and policies of President Trump, after turning their back on God for years, is a display of hypocrisy that would had made even the ancient Pharisees blush.

In fact, their desperation reminds me of a passage found in the New Testament,

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ – Matthew 7:22-23

One must always be careful…because when you point a finger at someone, there are always four pointing back at you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Iran Celebrates 1979 Islamic Revolution Chanting “Death to America”…and Obama Trusted Them

February 11, 2017

 

IRAN-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-GAZA

“I don’t understand the president. He dealt from desperation, and he shouldn’t have been desperate.First of all, we’re giving them billions of dollars in this deal, which we shouldn’t have given them. We should have kept the money. Second of all, we have four prisoners over there. We should have said ‘Let the prisoners out. They shouldn’t be over there.'”

“You know the Iranians are going to cheat. They’re great negotiators and you know they’re going to cheat.” – Donald J. Trump, 7/14/15

When you’re right. You’re right.

Yahoo News reports that

ANKARA (Reuters) – Hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied on Friday to swear allegiance to the clerical establishment following U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that he had put the Islamic Republic “on notice”, state TV reported.

On the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the U.S.-backed shah, marchers including hundreds of military personnel and policemen headed towards Tehran’s Azadi (Freedom) Square.

They carried “Death to America” banners and effigies of Trump, while a military police band played traditional Iranian revolutionary songs.

State TV showed footage of people stepping on Trump’s picture in a central Tehran street. Marchers carried the Iranian flag and banners saying: “Thanks Mr. Trump for showing the real face of America.”

“America and Trump cannot do a damn thing. We are ready to sacrifice our lives for our leader”, a young Iranian man told state TV in a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Last week, Trump put Iran “on notice” in reaction to a Jan. 29 Iranian missile test and imposed fresh sanctions on individuals and entities. Iran said it will not halt its missile program.

Iranian leading religious and political figures, including Pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani had called on Iranians to join the rally on Friday to “show their unbreakable ties with the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Republic”.

In a speech marking the revolution’s anniversary, Rouhani urged Iran’s faction-ridden elite to seek unity amid increased tensions with the United States.

“Some inexperienced figures in the region and America are threatening Iran … They should know that the language of threats has never worked with Iran,” Rouhani told the crowd at Azadi Square.

“Our nation is vigilant and will make those threatening Iran regret it … They should learn to respect Iran and Iranians … We will strongly confront any war-mongering policies.”

The rallies were rife with anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli sentiment. Some carried pictures of Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and British Prime Minister Theresa May captioned “Death to the Devil Triangle”.

“This turnout of people is a strong response to false remarks by the new leaders of America,” Rouhani told state TV, which said millions had turned out at rallies across Iran.

U.S. flags were burned as is traditional although many Iranians on social media such as Twitter and Facebook used the hashtag #LoveBeyondFlags to urge an end to flag-burning during the anniversary.

They also thanked Americans for opposing Trump’s executive order banning entry to the United States to travellers from seven mainly Muslim countries, including Iran. Trump’s travel ban is being challenged in U.S. courts.

Some marchers carried banners that read : “Thanks to American people for supporting Muslims”.

Both U.S.-based social media sites are blocked in Iran by a wide-reaching government censor but they are still commonly used by millions of Iranians who use special software to get around the restrictions. Iranian officials, including Khamenei, have Twitter and Facebook accounts despite the ban.

Trump has criticized a nuclear deal reached between Iran, the United States and other major powers in 2015 aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear work. Most of the sanctions imposed on Iran were lifted last year under the deal.

Rouhani defended the deal, which his hardline rivals oppose as a concession to pressure from Washington, saying it protected the Islamic Republic’s rights to nuclear power, ending Iran’s political isolation and crippling economic sanctions.

The 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama certainly left our Sovereign Nation in a precarious position.

Obama purposely and surreptitiously handed a Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and  our staunch ally, Israel.

What made the Former President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement” to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel?

With no assurances or ways to keep them in check, Obama gave them everything they wanted: their money, nuclear capability, and acquiescence by the Government of the United States of America.

Just look at the way that Iran, the world’s largest State Sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism has behaved since Obama’s “Nuclear Agreement”.

Here’s a question for you:

What if a condition of the Iran Prisoner Swap Agreement and the closure of the “Iran Deal” was that we humble ourselves by allowing our Navy Personnel to be captured and used as propaganda?

Iran remains our mortal enemy, who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, 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.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal showed where their loyalties unequivocally lied, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal” that, from the start, was destined to not only blow up in their faces, but also “where alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears” and in the heart of the Holy Land, itself.

Obama’s concern was never with our allies nor the safety of the citizens and the military of the United States of America.

Obama, as he always has been, was concerned with himself and leaving a marvelous legacy as president.

Giving Iran the means to “kill the infidels” definitely cemented Obama’s Legacy as an incompetent buffoon…if there is anyone left to remember it.

Iran has always been, since the ouster of the Shah, a rogue nation. They are a threat to every nation who stands in the way of their crazed Political Ideology, disguised as a “religion”.

Are you old enough to remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of some 300 to 500 “students” who called themselves “Imam’s Disciples,” laid siege to the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, to capture and hold hostage 66 U.S. citizens and diplomats. Although women and African-Americans were released a short time later, 51 hostages remained imprisoned for 444 days with another individual released because of illness midway through the ordeal.

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

Boys and girls, this is the difference between Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Strong American President, and Petulant President Pantywaist, Barack Hussein Obama.

Thank God, we have a strong American President again.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama NOAA Scientist Withheld Data Showing Global Warming Slowdown Before 2015 Paris Climate Conference

February 8, 2017

solid-foundation-600-wlogo

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster” paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

“Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century,” Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

“In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference,” Smith said in a statement. “Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.”

Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.

A NOAA spokesman, in an email to The Washington Times, said NOAA “stands behind its world-class scientists” but also that it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”

Climate scientists have closed ranks around Karl. A study published last month in Science Advances, by Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.

In addition, climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has worked with the NOAA, said Bates wasn’t involved in the work that he’s criticizing. Bates disputed the assertion.

While Karl, and other scientists who believe man-made climate change poses a major threat had the ear of the Obama administration, President Trump has shown signs of skepticism. It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Plant will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the NOAA Scandal?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Soros Funded Trump’s Vichy Republican Primary Opponents: Why His Money Did Not Buy the Presidency…

February 7, 2017

donald-trump-hd-images

Remember how the GOP Elite where all diametrically opposed to Donald J. Trump running for President?

It appears that it was because he could not be bought.

…LIKE THEY WERE.

Breitbart News reports that

Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

Soros Fund Management, a former hedge fund that serves now as an investment management firm, was founded by progressive billionaire George Soros in 1969. It has risen to become one of the most profitable hedge funds in the industry. Employees of the firm are heavily involved in backing political candidates giving millions upon millions to groups that were supporting failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency.

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016.

In total, executives with the Soros-founded company pushed $36,800 into the coffers of these GOP candidates just this past cycle. That does not include Super PACs or campaign committees, which saw tens of thousands of dollars more. While these numbers for Republicans pale in comparison to the millions upon millions poured into Democratic groups, causes, and candidates, it is significant that Soros executives are making a play inside the GOP. Perhaps even more significant is the type of Republican they aim to prop up: pro-amnesty, pro-open borders on trade, and generally speaking anti-Trump. A pattern emerges when looking at the policies of the Republicans that these Soros Fund Management executives support financially.

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separate May 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time.

Bloomberg reported in late April 2016, just before these two separate donations to Ryan;

David Rogers and Joshua Donfeld, two portfolio managers at billionaire George Soros’s family office, are leaving the firm over disagreements with its new chief investment officer about the direction of global markets, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Rogers, a protege of Soros’s former chief investment strategist Stan Druckenmiller, managed a portfolio of about $3 billion at the $28 billion Soros Fund Management, said the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. Rogers, 38, made his name as a commodities trader, while Donfeld, 40, focuses on stock investing, said the people, adding that both men are expected to leave the family office next month.
Another two separate donations to Ryan came from Donfeld, both on May 2, 2016 and totaling $2,700 each. In total, that adds up to $10,800—between both Rogers and Donfeld, who were working for Soros Fund Management at the time—that they gave to Paul Ryan.

 
Ryan’s chief spokesman, Brendan Buck, has not responded to a Breitbart News’s inquiry about the donations from the Soros firm’s employees. But Ryan’s support for open borders when it comes to immigration and trade, and his backing of so-called “criminal justice reform” legislation, is in line with Soros’ worldview—and he regularly bashed Trump over the course of the 2016 election.

But he was hardly the only anti-Trump Republican who received cash from Soros Fund Management employees over the course of 2016. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a failed presidential candidate, received $3,500 from the firm’s employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics data. That includes a $1,500 donation from Soros Fund Management executive Scott Bessent. Bessent has since left the firm to work at a different hedge fund, but “oversaw George Soros’s $30 billion fortune for the last four years” according to an early January 2016 article in Bloomberg. The other two donations to Graham from the firm’s employees—both worth $1,000, with one on March 17, 2015, and the other on July 29, 2015—came from Alexander Cohen, an executive with Soros Fund Management.

Fellow failed presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raked in $2,700, while other failed GOP presidential candidates Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also received $2,700 apiece from employees of the Soros firm.

 
Rubio’s $2,700 donation came from the aforementioned Los Angeles-based Donfeld on Jan. 22, 2016, a few months before, as Bloomberg reported, he and Rogers left the firm. Kasich’s $2,700 donation came from Bessent on Oct. 24, 2015. Bush’s $2,700 donation came on July 24, 2015, from David Murphy of Soros Fund Management. Murphy, according to his LinkedIN page, is a current “portfolio manager” at the firm.

Kasich’s spokesman Chris Schrimpf did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Bush’s spokeswoman Kristy Campbell.

A spokesman for Rubio, Matt Wolking, vociferously defended the senator, calling this story in Breitbart News—without having read it because it wasn’t written until long after he responded to inquiries about this matter—a “fake” story since Rubio didn’t get donations directly from George Soros himself and since hedge funds as companies cannot make donations to federal candidates. Breitbart News never alleged that Rubio did get donations directly from George Soros himself, but was inquiring with Rubio’s staff if the senator had a comment on why he did take donations from an executive at George Soros’s hedge fund. That fact, that Rubio did take cash from a Soros Fund Management executive—and that that fund was founded by George Soros—is not something Wolking, on Rubio’s behalf, challenges. So what his team is doing is creating a straw man argument to falsely claim this story is “fake.”

 “This story is a fake,” Wolking told Breitbart News. “Senator Rubio has never received any contribution from George Soros. And he has never received any contribution from the Soros company because, among other things, companies can’t donate to federal candidates.”

But more importantly, a Rubio spokesman did admit that the FEC filing is correct—that Rubio took a $2,700 donation from Donfeld. The Rubio spokesman argues that Donfeld donated “almost exclusively” to GOP candidates over the years—which is mostly true, as Donfeld has given to people like Ryan, Rubio, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), and 2012 GOP Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel, among others. But Donfeld, whom the Rubio spokesman points out and as Breitbart News mentioned earlier in this piece, left the Soros firm after making this donation to Rubio, has donated to Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), and a failed Democratic congressional candidate in Arizona’s 9th congressional district in 2012, Andrei Cherny.

Anti-Trump Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a failed one-time GOP presidential nominee from 2008, got $2,500 from an executive at the Soros firm, while Boehner—who resigned amid a coup from conservatives—raked in $2,600 from an executive at the Soros firm.

McCain’s $2,500 this cycle came from Donfeld of Soros Fund Management on Sept. 23, 2015. In previous cycles, McCain has taken cash directly from George Soros himself—a $1,000 donation on June 2, 1999—and from others with the firm, including a $1,000 donation from Bessent on March 13, 2000, a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Michael Au on Dec. 27, 2007, a $1,000 donation from Duncan Hennes of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2000, and a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Joshua Berkowitz on Jan. 15, 2008. McCain’s spokeswoman, Julie Tarallo, has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Breitbart News.

Boehner’s $2,600 donation this cycle came from Bessent of Soros Fund Management on Feb. 12, 2015. The media relations department at Reynolds American, the tobacco company of which Boehner joined the board after resigning from Congress in 2015, has not responded to a request for comment on his behalf.

Now former Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), the 2016 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Nevada who lost his election after he withdrew his endorsement of Trump in the general election, also received $2,500 from an executive at Soros Fund Management, while Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)—a “Never Trump” congressman who voted for a third-party candidate because he refused to support the GOP nominee for president—received $1,000 from an executive at the Soros family firm.

Heck’s $2,500 donation on Sept. 29, 2016, came from Soros Fund Management’s Sender Cohen. According to the Israel on Campus Coalition, another organization for which Sender Cohen serves as director, he is a “Portfolio Manager, the Director of Research and member of the Management Committee at Soros Fund Management.” Heck’s spokesman from the campaign has not responded to a request for comment on Monday.

Curbelo’s $1,000 donation came on June 5, 2015, from Paul Sohn, a former executive with Soros Fund Management. Sohn had already left the firm earlier in the year, as it was reported on CNBC in January 2015 that Sohn had left Soros Fund Management after his involvement in a controversial investment. That is months before he reported on this June 2015 Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing for this Curbelo donation that his employer was Soros Fund Management. A Curbelo spokeswoman has not responded to a request for comment.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the House GOP conference chairwoman, got $1,000 from an official with Soros Fund Management. She is responsible for unleashing the independent and wildly unsuccessful general election candidate Evan McMullin—whom Trump has called “McMuffin” in jest after his failure—upon the world. McMullin, who turned out to fail fantastically on election day despite media fanfare about his candidacy, was previously a McMorris Rodgers staffer as chief policy director for nearly two years in the House GOP conference before his whimsical bid at the presidency that went nowhere and had essentially zero impact on the race. Rodgers’ $1,000 donation this cycle came from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2015. A spokesman for McMorris Rodgers has not responded to a request for comment on this matter.

The only few Republicans who received Soros Fund Management cash but did support Trump were Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA). Royce received $2,500 from the firm, Johnson and Grassley each received $1,000, and Donovan received $300. Johnson’s $1,000 donation came on April 15, 2016, from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management, as did Grassley’s, which came on Oct. 13, 2015. Donovan’s $300 donation came from Christopher Rich of Soros Fund Management on April 20, 2015. Royce’s $2,500 donation came from Sender Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 31, 2016. Spokespersons for Johnson, Grassley, Donovan and Royce have not responded to Breitbart News’s requests for comment.

The money of George Soros was not what got the Republicans back in The White House.

It was a Populist Movement.

Dictionary.com defines “populism” as

1. the political philosophy of the People’s party.
2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:populism in the arts.

That word first reappeared in the American Lexicon, when Sarah Palin almost dragged John McCain’s RINO Rear across the Finish Line, in the Presidential Election of 2008.

The support of average Americans propelled Donald J. Trump through the Republican Primaries, cutting through the Vichy Republican Candidates like a hot knife through butter.

However, after Trump won the Republican Primaries and accepted the Party’s Nomination as their President Candidate, I could still sense that something was not right.

4 months ago, I wrote the following…

Now, that same political party, including its Political Leader, House Speaker Paul Ryan, seen determined to prevent their own candidate from becoming the next President of the United States of America.

All of the so-called “Political Pundits”, both Professional and self-identified, (and usually Liberal) are joining in, in a firestorm of “wish-casting” in an effort to negate the overflow crowds that are welcoming Trump to each and every Campaign Stop.

Regarding those who continue to insist that they are on “our side” and are opposing Trump “for the good of the country”…

Holding one’s breath until they turn blue, or telling a Christian American Conservative that they are somehow condemned to Hell and are Unpatriotic, for supporting Donald J. Trump, is not going to change the reality of the situation.

Neither will staying at home and not voting this November.

That’s been tried before.

That is how we got stuck with Petulant President Pantywaist.

If the Republican Establishment keeps mooning average Americans and showcasing their Spines of Jello, instead of supporting their Part’s Nominee, average Americans are going to show them what they think of them by decimating the House and Senate Republicans in the Down-Ballot Vote.

However, I am beginning to believe that the Vichy Republicans, for all of their bluster, could care less.

They appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the Washingtonian Status Quo…including ignoring the wishes of the American Voters, who gave them their cushy jobs.

As it has  proven, without a doubt in the past, the Republican Establishment’s arrogance will be their undoing.

After all…

Actions (and Inactions) have consequences.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Does Donald J. Trump need to “tone it down”, in terms of his fight against those who would preserve the Washingtonian Status Quo?

Only if he wants to sound like a Professional Politician.

And, we Americans have had our fill of them.

Little did I know that all of those Vichy Republicans who stood in the way of their own Presidential Candidate were bought and paid for by the Former Nazi Collaborator , George Soros.

However, as it turned out, all of Soros’ money could not buy the Presidency on November 8th, 2016.

The Grassroots Movement, which began back then eventually, with the Vichy Republicans kicking and screaming in protest, but eventually acquiescing to the inevitable, led us to a seminal moment in American Politics:

The election of Citizen Statesman, Donald J. Trump, as the 45th President of the United States of America.

The American People spoke…loud and clear.

No wonder he is funding all of these Astroturf Protests against President Trump and paying professional protesters to whip up the crowd into a anarchistic frenzy.

Like all of those losers who are reading his websites, accepting his money, and blindly following his lead, George Soros is in the middle of a massive temper tantrum because he did not get his way and our country is not under his ownership.

Georgie Porgie, puddin’ and pie,

Move back to Hungary and have a good cry.

Americans elected a man who could not be bought by you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Lead Story in Today’s Washington Post Calls Iran “Stronger”, Warns US Against Attacking Them

February 6, 2017

iran-missile-test

Just when you think that the Main Stream Media has sung enough verses of “Gloom, despair, and agony on me”, they pile their Anti-American fertilizer higher and deeper.

The Washington Post ran the following as its Lead Story Today…

BEIRUT — President Trump’s tough talk on Iran is winning him friends in the Arab world, but it also carries a significant risk of conflict with a U.S. rival that is now more powerful than at any point since the creation of the Islamic republic nearly 40 years ago. With its warning last week that Iran is “on notice,” the Trump administration signaled a sharp departure from the policies of President Barack Obama, whose focus on pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran eclipsed historic U.S. concerns about Iranian expansionism and heralded a rare period of détente between Washington and Tehran.

Many in the region are now predicting a return to the tensions of the George W. Bush era, when U.S. and Iranian operatives fought a shadow war in Iraq, Sunni-Shiite tensions soared across the region and America’s ally Israel fought a brutal war with Iran’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Except that now the United States will be facing down a far stronger Iran, one that has taken advantage of the past six years of turmoil in the Arab world to steadily expand its reach and military capabilities.

“In order to confront Iran or push back more fiercely against it, you may find you’re in a conflict far more far-reaching and more destructive to the global economy than many of our allies or American public are willing to bear,” said Nicholas Heras of the Center for a New American Security.

Iran’s alleged quest to produce a nuclear weapon — which Tehran has always denied — has been curbed by the nuclear accord signed in 2015. But in the meantime it has developed missiles capable of hitting U.S. bases and allies across the Middle East and built a network of alliances that have turned it into the most powerful regional player.

Iran now stands at the apex of an arc of influence stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, from the borders of NATO to the borders of Israel and along the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons. They have been joined by thousands of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most prestigious military wing, who have acquired meaningful battlefield experience in the process.

For the first time in its history, the Institute for the Study of War noted in a report last week, Iran has developed the capacity to project conventional military force for hundreds of miles beyond its borders. “This capability, which very few states in the world have, will fundamentally alter the strategic calculus and balance of power within the Middle East,” the institute said.

America’s Sunni Arab allies, who blame the Obama administration’s hesitancy for Iran’s expanded powers, are relishing the prospect of a more confrontational U.S. approach. Any misgivings they may have had about Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric have been dwarfed by their enthusiasm for an American president they believe will push back against Iran.

“We are so happy and excited about President Trump,” said Abdullah al-Shamri, a former Saudi Arabian diplomat, speaking from the Saudi capital of Riyadh. “We expect him to deal with the Iranians as the threat that they are, producing missiles and interfering in other countries.”

Exactly what the Trump administration intends to do about a state of affairs that has already become deeply entrenched is unclear, however. So pervasive is Iran’s presence across the region that it is hard to see how any U.S. administration could easily roll it back without destabilizing allies, endangering Americans, undermining the war against the Islamic State and upsetting the new regional balance that emerged during the Obama administration’s retreat, analysts say.

 The Trump administration has given no indication that it intends to abrogate the nuclear accord. Rather, U.S. officials say, the goal is to contain activities that lie outside the scope of the accord, such as the ballistic missile program and what one official called the “destabilizing activities” of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies.

So far, U.S. action has been confined to retaliation for Iran’s test-launch of a ballistic missile last week and an attack by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on a Saudi Arabian navy ship in the Red Sea. The Treasury imposed sanctions Friday against people and companies alleged to be involved in the missile program and the Pentagon dispatched the destroyer USS Cole to the coast of Yemen, suggesting that Iran’s arming of the Houthis may be an early target.

Otherwise, the Trump administration has given little indication of what it has in mind, except to make clear that it intends to be different from Obama.

“Iran is playing with fire — they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” Trump wrote in a tweet Friday.

Iran has offered a relatively muted response to the challenge, with Iran’s foreign minister tweeting that Iran is “unmoved” by the threats emanating from Washington. “We’ll never initiate war,” he said.

Iran may well conclude that it is not in its interests to engage in confrontation with a new U.S. administration already earning a reputation for unpredictability, analysts say.

But those familiar with Iran’s behavior in the region have said that they do not believe it will readily surrender its gains. 

“Any pushing back, the Iranians won’t take it lying down,” predicted Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Shiite Iraqi parliamentarian who has, for many years, worked to bridge the divide between Iran and America in Iraq.

“Iraq, Iran and the United States are an extremely finely balanced equation, and Trump shouldn’t come and bash,” he said. “He should play this extremely delicately.”

It is in Iraq, where fighting the Islamic State has most conspicuously brought the United States into a tacit alliance with Iran, that a more hostile relationship between Tehran and Washington could prove most consequential.

Iranian-backed militias are deeply embedded in the overall Iraqi effort to wrest back territory from the militants, one that is also being aided by the United States. In the Mosul offensive, hundreds of U.S. advisers are working alongside Iraqi troops advancing from the east, among about 6,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq. Thousands of Iranian-backed militia fighters are meanwhile advancing on the city from the west, among a force of tens of thousands that answers mostly, though not exclusively, to Iran.

One of the Iranian-backed groups fighting around Mosul is Kitaeb Hezbollah, which also blew up American troops with roadside bombs and fired mortars into U.S. bases at the height of U.S.-Iranian tensions a decade ago. It will not hesitate to attack U.S. troops should the United States attempt to diminish Iran’s role in Iraq, said Jaffar al-Hussaini, Kitaeb Hezbollah’s spokesman.

“We look at America as our first enemy, the source of all evil on the Earth,” he said. “American interests in Iraq are within our sights and our fire range. If they act foolishly, their interests will be wiped out . . . and we can target their bases whenever we want.”

It is also hard to see how the United States could act to curtail the extensive influence acquired by Iran during the war in Syria. Iran and Russia together have fought to ensure the survival of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and they are now pursuing a peace settlement in alliance with Turkey that excludes a role for the United States. America has been left with few friends and little leverage, apart from the Kurds in the northeast of the country.

Russia controls the skies over Syria, and Turkey wields influence over the rebels, but Iran holds sway on the ground, through its extensive network of Shiite militias drawn from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have provided the manpower for front lines from the northern countryside of Aleppo, near the Turkish border, to the Golan Heights bordering Israel in the south.

Trump’s promises to curb Iranian influence are at odds with his stated desire to pursue closer cooperation with Russia in Syria and also to support Assad, because Iran is allied with both Assad and Russia, said Mustafa Alani, a director at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

“He will not be able to contain Iran if he is going to support Assad. He cannot have both at the same time,” he said. The solution, he said, is to topple Assad, because “Assad is the man who is underpinned by Iranian support. He was saved only by Iranian intervention.”

Alani sees no reason Trump should not easily be able to contain Iranian influence. 

“It is a myth that Iran is strong. The only reason Iran is strong is because of U.S. weakness,” he said. “Iran is very thinly stretched. It will not take a lot to contain Iran.”

But even those celebrating the shift in American policy don’t seem so sure. 

“Tehran today is challenged by a strict, driven, strong and decisive United States, which was not always the case with the lenient and hesitant Obama administration,” said a commentary Saturday in the Pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat newspaper. “The region now faces turbulent winds of change. It will not be easy.”

Thank you, Surrender Monkeys.

Are you old enough to remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of some 300 to 500 “students” who called themselves “Imam’s Disciples,” laid siege to the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, to capture and hold hostage 66 U.S. citizens and diplomats. Although women and African-Americans were released a short time later, 51 hostages remained imprisoned for 444 days with another individual released because of illness midway through the ordeal.

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

In stark, terrifying contrast, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, purposely and surreptitiously handed a Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and  our staunch ally, Israel, with his toothless “Nuclear Agreement”

Why did the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement” to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel?

He gave Iran everything they wanted: their money, nuclear capability, and acquiescence by the Government of the United States of America, literally, encouraging the world’s population of Islamic Terrorists to kidnap our own Naval Personnel, with the promise of a huge payday, while he remained president.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, there was a reason, besides his duties as Secretary of State, that John F. Kerry did the bulk of “negotiating” with the Mad Mullahs of the Rogue State of Iran during the second half of Obama’s Presidency…

They were “family”.

As noted on the website of Lt. Col. Allen B. West

…in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

…Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.

…Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration and has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening.

But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son.

Does this bother anyone at all?

Apparently Kerry only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

So, to answer the Washington Post Liberal writing staff who are wringing their hands and soiling their panties over the possibility of actually having to stand up to the Mad Mullahs of Iran:

You need to be better informed.

As I was watching Fox and Friends yesterday morning before church, Sean Hannity was telling everyone that it is rumored that the United States of America, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are going to launch a joint operation, using “Bunker Buster Bombs” on all of Iran’s Nuclear Sites, in a pre-emptive strike.

Just like Obama and Kerry gave in to Iran to get our sailors back and paid them millions of dollars in ransom, the staff of The Washington Post seem willing to offer their pointy heads to be chopped off, rather than stand up to the Rogue Radical Islamic Country of Iran.

Why are Liberals such Unpatriotic Naïve Wussies?

I guess it is just what Surrender Moneys do.

However,, don’t worry Americans,

There’s a New Sheriff in town.

…And, we are STILL THE Greatest Country on the face of God’s Green Earth…no matter what the “concerned” Liberals may write in their dying newspapers.

Until He Comes,

KJ

While Liberals Continue to Deny the Existence of Radical Islam, the Trump Administration May Declare the Muslim Brotherhood a “Terrorist Organization”

February 5, 2017

radical-ban-nrd-600

As regards the existence and motivation of the sociopathic, barbaric followers of Radical Islam, , time and time again, and now, especially after the Liberal Federal Judge in Seattle filed a Temporary Restraining Order against President Trump’s immigration “Vetting” Plan, Modern American Liberals are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Just wait until they read this…

Foxnews.com reports that

The Trump administration could soon declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, a move that would greatly restrict the controversial group’s global reach and would come despite its insistence that it has peaceful intentions.

Trump himself was often critical of President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has proposed a bill to call for declaring the Brotherhood a terror organization. In the past, it has been accused of supporting terrorist groups around the world, and several countries, including Muslim nations, have banned them.

If the U.S. declares the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, it would make it a criminal act for Americans to fund the group, ban banks from processing money for it, bar people with ties to the group from coming to the United States and make it easier to deport immigrants who have worked with the organization.

“It is time to call this enemy by its name and speak with clarity and moral authority,” Cruz said in a statement introducing the bill.

“It is time to call this enemy by its name and speak with clarity and moral authority.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

The Brotherhood’s critics include prominent Muslim leaders in the U.S. and around the world, with prominent sheikhs of both Shia and Sunni Muslim groups accusing it of engaging in terrorism.

“President Trump must go ahead with his listing of the Brotherhood,” Sheikh Mohammed el Hajj Hassan,  founder of the American-Muslim Alliance, told Fox News. “This group since its inception practiced killing crimes and terror attacks in the Arab world. In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and other countries their clerics call for violence.”

Lebanese Sunni Sheikh Hasan Moreib, in remarks to Fox News translated from Arabic, also praised an Egyptian crackdown against the Brotherhood because, “the people there realized the danger of the Muslim brotherhood,” and noted that the Brotherhood had gone down a “bloody path” that “offended the Islamic religion and community.”

But the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Mohammed Hikmat Walid, insisted that the Brotherhood is a peaceful organization and that Cruz’s bill is “unjust and not based on true facts.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood is an organization that preaches moderate Islam in peaceful means,” he said. “We stand firmly against extremism and terrorism and we share common values such as democracy, freedom and pluralism with the rest of the free world. Also, [the bill] will enhance extremism throughout the Islamic world.”

Whatever its current posture, the Muslim Brotherhood has been steeped in controversy – and linked to violence – for decades. It was formed in Egypt in the 1920s with the stated goal of establishing a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, or empire ruled under Sharia law. The Brotherhood’s motto reads in part: “the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish.”

Perhaps most notably, it was militants from a Muslim Brotherhood spin-off that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981, shortly after Sadat had sought peace with Israel.

The Palestinian terror group Hamas was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members and has been responsible for hundreds of terror acts in Israel that have claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians, including Americans.

Russia and the Syrian regime consider the Brotherhood a terror group. Cruz’s bill notes that Syria banned it “in 1980, following a wave of assassinations targeting government officials and the… massacre of 83 [Syrian] military cadets in Aleppo.”

Several U.S. allies – Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – have also declared the Brotherhood a terror group.

Egypt declared it a terror group in 2013 after the government blamed it for a bombing of a police headquarters that killed 16. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood denied involvement and condemned the attack.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia declared it a terror group in 2014 as part of a broader push to contain radical Islam.

Asked about those designations, Walid said he hoped those countries would reconsider the ban on his group.

“We think that the decision taken by those countries was hasty and unwise and we call upon them to reevaluate their decision. Every now and again, we hear unofficial leaks indicating that those countries are reconsidering this matter,” he said.

Despite the Brotherhood’s protestations, the Trump administration has signaled it is taking a hard line with the group.

In his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson mentioned the group in the same breath as Al Qaeda, referring to “agents of radical Islam like Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and certain elements within Iran.”

As far back as 2012, Trump condemned the Muslim Brotherhood, penning more than two dozen tweets critical of President Obama’s friendly foreign policy toward the group.

“This is a total disaster,” Trump wrote in 2012 when news broke that the Obama administration would send 20 F-16s fighter planes to Egypt after Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, became president. Morsi had already begun rapidly consolidating power by imprisoning critics and replacing judges, leading critics to fear he was steering the powerful Arab nation toward Islamization.  

Morsi was overthrown in a 2012 military coup and has been replaced by then-Army Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has imprisoned and executed Brotherhood leaders after they were found guilty, often in mass trials. Morsi himself was convicted of several crimes, including inciting violence and torturing protesters. His initial sentence of death was overturned, but he remains in prison awaiting a new trial.

Al-Sisi, a staunch critic of the Muslim Brotherhood  who later stood for election and won, spoke with Trump by phone on Jan. 23.

Asked about Cruz’s bill, the Brotherhood leader said, “we will choose lawful ways to resist this bill and we believe the American constitution and system will defeat this unfair bill.”

Several foreign policy experts interviewed by Fox News said labeling the whole Muslim Brotherhood “terrorist” would be a mistake.

“A lot of the chapters are reasonably moderate… You have to be very, very careful to make sure you don’t call everybody in sight a ‘terrorist,’” said Anthony Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and is chair emeritus at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

While people and groups linked to the Brotherhood have been involved in terrorist activity for decades, Doug Bandow, a Cato Institute senior fellow and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, pointed out that the Brotherhood has never been accused of attempting to attack the United States.

Much of the Brotherhood’s troubling activity has been focused in Egypt. Leading Muslim Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb, for instance, studied in the United States where he became disgusted with what he perceived as loose morals. In the 1950s and 60s, he espoused spreading Sharia Law to guide societies worldwide, including the United States. He was later executed in Egypt for allegedly plotting the assassination of the relatively secular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Walid and others bristle at the overall organization being defined by individual members like Qutb.

“Sayyid Qutb is not the official thinker of the movement,” Walid said. “We highly regard the human values of the American Society although we don’t agree on some of its moral practices. Our point of view regarding spreading Islam, it is only through peaceful means.”

But the two American Muslim leaders interviewed – despite being on opposite sides of the Sunni-Shia rift tearing the Islamic world apart – view it differently.

Lebanese Sunni sheikh Moreib said that the Brotherhood had adopted the views of Qutb, and that “this path is the mothership for all the radical groups that distort the real Islamic view.”

He did not comment on whether the U.S. should label it a terror group, calling that the “U.S. government’s decision.” But American Shiite Sheikh Mohammed el Hajj Hassan wrote a letter to Donald Trump calling for the group to be listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

“Terrorism is the enemy of the whole humanity, including Muslims; these Takfiri [apostate] terrorist organizations distort the real image of Islam and offen[d] Muslims – who want to live in peace and security with all segments of the society,” he wrote.

As I have reported several times over the several years, Hillary Clinton’s “Bestie” and Political Aide, Huma Abedin, has family who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, 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.”

In trying to figure out the hesitance of Modern American Liberals to identify the motivation of Radical Islamist Terrorists, my mind, unique space between my ears that it is, flashed back to this famous scene between the late great Rodney Dangerfield, and the late , great Sam Kinison, in the movie Back to School. Kinison is a history professor, and Dangerfield is the successful businessman father of an under-achieving freshman, who decides to go back to school, to be there for his son.

rodneysamKinison: You remember that thing we had about thirty years ago… called the Korean conflict?

Yeah. Where we failed to achieve victory.

How come we didn’t cross the 38th parallel…and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China…and take it apart brick by brick…and nuke them back into the f!@#in’ stone age forever?

How come? Tell me? Why? Say it! Say it!

Dangerfield: All right, I’ll say it.

‘Cause Truman was too much of a p!@sy wimp…to let MacArthur go in and blow out those commie b!@#ards!

Kinison: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think.  I’m gonna be watching you.

For anybody with more than 2 working brain cells, (and, I know that leaves out a lot of Liberals) once President Trump suggested that we should actually pay attention to whom we allow into our Sovereign Nation, and, in turn, identifying Radical Islam by name as wanting to kill us all, it was game over, in terms of having a rational discussion about this issue with Modern American Liberals.

So, why have Liberals, in the MSM, and elsewhere, been so afraid to call Muslim Terrorists, Muslim Terrorists?

Is it because of that heinous practice, known as Political Correctness?

Political Correctness is a practice originated by Modern American Liberals, in purposeful obtuseness and naiveté, which can and will cost American Lives.

Have you ever heard the old story of “The Scorpion and The Frog”? A Scorpion and a Frog were standing at the bank of a river. The Scorpion said to the Frog, “If you’ll give me a ride across the river, I promise not to sting you.” The Frog said, “ How do I know I can trust you? If you sting me while you are on my back, we will surely drown.” The Scorpion said, “I know that. I won’t sting you. I promise.” So, they start across the river, the Scorpion riding on the Frog’s back. They are in sight of the opposite bank and, all of a sudden, the Scorpion stings the Frog. The Frog says, “You fool!. You stung me. Now we are both going to drown!” The Scorpion said, “I know. I’m sorry. I couldn’t help myself. It’s just my nature.”

President Donald Trump is trying his dead-level best to keep American Citizens from being “stung” by “The Scorpion ” known as Radical Islam.

Modern American Liberals are acting as if they could care less.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

West Coast Judge Temporarily Suspends Trump Immigration EO. It’s Nothing to Lose Our Heads Over…or Is It?

February 4, 2017

cry-card-600-ci

“We have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.

“We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.” – Donald J. Trump, August 31, 2016

Foxnews.com reports that

A federal judge in Seattle brought the Trump administration’s executive order on immigration to a halt nationwide Friday, issuing a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court until further hearings can be held.“The Constitution prevailed today,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said after the ruling. “No one is above the law — not even the president.”

“This ruling shuts down the (president’s) executive order immediately — shuts it down — so people can travel like they did before,” Ferguson said.

The hearing came about after the Attorneys General of Washington and Minnesota filed a lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order restricting immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries. It also placed restrictions on refugees entering the country.

A reporter asked Ferguson if the ruling coming down on Friday afternoon could cause confusion.

“I’ll tell you where there’s been confusion – the President’s executive order,” Ferguson said. “That’s what’s caused confusion. I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to put it – it’s been Keystone Cops. It really is. That’s not just me speaking, that’s Republican members of Congress.”

U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart, a Seattle native who is an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the state of Washington proved that local economy and citizens have suffered irreparable harm and an injunction should be applied.

“What the judge ruled today is that the president’s executive order does not apply — does not apply,” Ferguson said after the hearing.

“I’m sure the president won’t like this decision, but it’s his obligation to honor the law and I’ll make sure he does,” Ferguson told reporters.

Robart is no stranger to high-profile cases – he is also the federal judge in charge of overseeing the reform of the Seattle Police Department.

Uh huh.

Well, please allow me, to ask, “Your Honor”…how in the name of the Benghazi Massacre is protecting our Sovereign Nation “un-Constitutional?

In September of 2015, Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart News, asked and answered the following question…

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

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

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

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

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

And, we are allowing this here, why, “Your Honor”?

Rush Limbaugh addressed this issue on his program on November 17, 2015…

When you hear Obama… Obama constantly refers to, “This is not who we are. This is not what America is.” He is using the same definitions that these leftist intellectuals are hyping, that this is an experiment. It’s an ongoing experiment. America’s an ongoing experiment. And the results are not in yet! We are still in the test phase, and we are being really tested now.

And we’re not America if we don’t let anybody in who wants to come in, whether they’re coming from the southern border, whether they are terrorists or whether they are just poor, whether they’re uneducated. It doesn’t matter. America means, “If you’re oppressed — if you’re starving, if you’re thirsty anywhere in the world — you can come here. That’s what America is. And any limits on that are not who we are. Any limits on that violate this great American experiment of freedom.”Now, that is one of the most half-baked explanations and definitions of America I’ve ever heard. It is totally absent any concern for American sovereignty. It is totally absent any concern of American national security. And the reason it is, is because, remember, undergirding this whole experiment thinking of theirs is that we are owed a lot of payback, folks. I’ve played the sound bites for you today. I played those sound bites to prove to you who these people are. I’m being truthful. This is who they are. This is what they think.

The sound bites I played today from two prominent libs prove it. We’re guilty. And so when there are refugees all over the world — Syrian refugees, it just happens to be. You know, Bernie Sanders says it’s because of climate change. It’s hot where these people live and they’re trying to escape to at least where there’s some ice to put in their water. They’re just boiling out there, and climate change is making them move north. And we must accept them. The fact that there are Syrian refugees because of the turmoil in the Middle East is of secondary importance, or maybe doesn’t even rank that high.

They’re just people in need. They’re suffering, they’re starving, and America welcomes all, whether we could afford it or not. Really this is a smokescreen for the fact that they don’t like the way America was founded. They don’t like that America is predominantly Judeo-Christian. They don’t like that America’s predominantly a Western civilization country. And that’s what they’re trying to tear down. And they’re tearing it down by allowing all of these people to emigrate and migrate and come as refugees, who have no interest in becoming Americans, who have no interest in assimilating.

And why would they?

We’re guilty as sin!

Why would they want to become what we are when we torture, we rape, we murder, we overthrow democratically elected Middle Eastern regimes. We have CIA black sites! We spy on our citizens. Why in the world would they want to come here and become part of that? That’s understandable they would want to come here and not become part of that. They want these refugees and these illegal immigrants to come here because that’s part of the plan to water down and dilute what America is all about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s who WE are.

These laws are supposed to be used to our citizens benefit…not our mutual destruction.

President Abraham Lincoln once said,

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

That is the situation that the in American Court System finds itself in.

Too many rulings have gone against common sense and the well-being of the United States of America.

 

Judging by the the clandestine dissemination of the “youths” from Central and South America, who arrived here, parentless under the Obama Administration to be shipped throughout our country, we “average Americans”, do not trust politically-appointed judges and bureaucrats, when they say that they will “vet” these Syrian “Refugees”

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

And, that is why the majority of Americans, as national polls have shown, continue to back President Donald Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which this West Coast Judge has temporarily blocked.

Hey, “Smartest People in the Room”…do you wonder why the majority of Americans back Trump’s plan to suspend immigration for the Middle East “Trouble Spots” where those who want to kill us and burn our Sovereign Nation to the ground come from…despite your assurances that these largely un-vetted Islamists are “safe”?

It’s a matter of SURVIVAL.

Until He Comes,

KJ

It Sure is Nice to Have an American President Again.

February 3, 2017

920x1240

If you grew up reading the Children’s Magazine “Highlights” in your Family Doctor’s Office like I did, you will remember the educational cartoons featuring “Goofus and Gallant”, which demonstrated the right and wrong ways of handling the situations that life throws at us.

The following is a “Goofus and Gallant” comparison for adults.

CBS News posted the following story on its website on October 12, 2012…

President Obama on Friday honored the four Americans killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, recalling their lives in deeply personal terms and declaring the United States will never pull back on its principles or “retreat from the world.” “Their sacrifice will never be forgotten,” Mr. Obama said as four flag-draped cases rested near him. He had come to witness the return of those slain in the assault on the American diplomatic mission, including the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens.

In the heat of a presidential election year, the scene was a gripping reminder of the danger facing Americans in diplomatic and military service every day, and of the turmoil in an incendiary region of the world that continues to test Mr. Obama’s leadership.

Always in the background, campaign politics gave way to a sense of sheer loss. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s voice broke as she spoke before the president.

“Today we honor four Americans who gave their lives for our country and our values,” Clinton said.

CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports Clinton’s attendance was a very personal mission for the secretary because she’s said she sent Stevens to Libya and knew it was a risky assignment. Clinton appeared to be fighting tears as she listened to the president.

“They knew the danger, and they accepted it,” Mr. Obama said. “They didn’t simply embrace the American ideal. They lived it.”

In addition to Stevens, the ceremony also honored three other Americans killed in Benghazi — Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran who worked as an information management specialist for the State Department; Glen A. Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who worked for a private security firm and was protecting the consulate in Benghazi; and Tyrone S. Woods, also a former Navy SEAL who had served protective duty in various U.S. posts.

Said Mr. Obama of all four men: “They embodied it: the courage, the hope and yes the idealism, that fundamental belief that we can leave this world a little bit better than before. That’s who they were, and that’s who we are. If we want to truly honor their memory, that’s who we must always be.”

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pause for a moment of silence in Andrews Air Force Base, Md., Sept. 14, 2012.

CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports eight busloads of people from the State Department traveled to the ceremony.

The transfer of remains came three days after an attack on the consulate, one of a series of assaults on U.S. outposts in Muslim countries that U.S. officials blame on an anti-Muslim video made in the United States.

On February 1, 2017, Foxnews.com posted this story…

Assuming the somber duties of commander in chief, President Donald Trump made an unannounced trip Wednesday to honor the returning remains of a U.S. Navy SEAL killed in a weekend raid in Yemen.Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, a 36-year-old from Peoria, Illinois, was the first known U.S. combat casualty since Trump took office less than two weeks ago. More than half a dozen militant suspects were also killed in the raid on an Al Qaeda compound and three other U.S. service members were wounded.

More than a dozen civilians were also killed in the operation, including the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric and U.S. citizen who was targeted and killed by a drone strike in 2011.

Trump’s trip to Delaware’s Dover Air Base was shrouded in secrecy. The president and his daughter, Ivanka, departed the White House in the presidential helicopter with their destination unannounced. A small group of journalists traveled with Trump on the condition that the visit was not reported until his arrival.

After returning to the White House, Trump commented on the trip at the swearing-in of Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

“I just returned from an amazing visit with a great, great family at Dover,” Trump said. “It is something very sad, very beautiful. Ryan, a great man.”

Marine One landed at Dover shortly before a C-17 believed to be carrying Owens’ remains touched down. The president met with Owens’ family during a two-hour visit to the base. The sailor’s family had requested that Trump’s visit and the return of Owens’ remains be private.

Former President Barack Obama lifted a ban on media coverage of the casualty returns, though families may still request privacy. A spokeswoman at Dover said about half of families choose to allow media coverage.

Owens joined the Navy in 1998 and was the recipient of two Bronze stars, a Joint Service Commendation and an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, among other honors. In a statement following his death, the Navy Special Command called Owens a “devoted father, a true professional and a wonderful husband.”

President Barack Hussein Obama was known for turning everything he did into a photo op honoring himself. From sending out pictures of himself sitting in Rosa Park’s Bus to turning the arrival of the coffins of the four Americans who were murdered by Radical Islamists that horrible night on the grounds of the U.S> Embassy Compound in Benghazi , Libya, Obama made sure that the television news cameras were present , somehow believe that the more Americans saw him “doing Presidential Things” the more that they would believe that he “had the chops” to lead our Sovereign Nation.

After all, it was all about him.

President Donald Trump, on the other hand, in his Inaugural Address told America that it was all about US. That this was OUR country and we were in this thing TOGETHER.

Those who believed that they could use Trump’s speech to get hammered by taking a drink every time that he said “I”, like they used to when Obama spoke, had the most sober day of their lives.

While on the outside , he remains the bombastic American Businessman  and Citizen Statesman that average Americans grew to love during the campaign, on the inside, he is a thoughtful compassionate leader who cares very deeply about the American people and those who are protecting us from our enemies, giving up their very lives in order to secure our American Freedom.

Unlike Obama, Trump does not view our Brightest and Best as Lab Rats to be used in Social Experimentation. He views them as our sons and daughter to be respected, honored, cherished, and solemnly and privately mourned when they give their lives for a flag when some think nothing of defiling.

Donald and Ivanka Trump took no cameras or entourage of reporters with them when they went to meet the returning coffin of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens…just the gratitude of a grateful and respectful Commander-in-Chief and the citizens of the country which he sacrificed his life for.

Indeed, it’s nice to have an AMERICAN President again.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Liberal Intolerance on Display as Students at UC Berkeley Riot Over Gay Conservative Speaking on Campus

February 2, 2017

ucberkeleyneonaziproteststevefield-18273320

Last night, the Liberal National Temper Tantrum over the election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America continued…and got violent.

The San Francisco Chronicle, a Liberal Newspaper (Aren’t they all now?) filled the following report…

A protest at UC Berkeley turned fiery and violent Wednesday night, shutting down a scheduled speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

The Breitbart News editor was set to deliver a speech inside a UC Berkeley campus building but hundreds of protesters began throwing fireworks and pulling down the metal barricades police set up to keep people from rushing into the building. Windows were smashed and fires were set outside the building as masked protesters stormed it, and at 6 p.m., one hour before his scheduled speech was to begin, police decided to evacuate Yiannopoulos for his own safety.

The Berkeley Police Department said people threw bricks, smoking objects, and fireworks at police officers. University police locked down all buildings and ordered a shelter in place, and later fired rubber pellets into the crowd of protesters who defied orders to leave the area. Police called in support from other law enforcement agencies and warned protesters that they might use tear gas.

“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” said Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republican member said as smoke bombs went off around him. Someone threw red paint on him. “It’s sad.”

Protesters argued that hate speech isn’t free speech, countering the university’s explanation — free speech — on why it had allowed the event to proceed even as students demanded that the university cancel it.

Yiannopoulos was invited to speak at the campus by the Berkeley College Republicans, a student group that was warned Tuesday by university officials that the event could result in the targeting of undocumented students. Yiannopoulos, an editor for the right-wing Breitbart News website, was expected to use the event in Berkeley to kick off a campaign against “sanctuary campuses” that have vowed to protect undocumented students as President Trump cracks down on illegal immigration.

Three lines of zip-tied metal fencing separated the crowd of protesters from campus police officers who had secured the building where Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak. He had arrived earlier, escorted by security and had been waiting inside the student union building when the protests erupted.

The protest turned violent around 6 p.m. when dozens of masked anarchists, dressed in black and wearing backpacks, emerged from the otherwise peaceful crowd.

As “Milo had got to go” chants broke out, they struck: in small groups, at first — knocking down the fences, cutting through to zip ties. Then, they came in droves, as the dozens of university police officers quickly retreated to an inner ring of fencing.

That, too, was breached, as protesters ran toward the student center, where Yiannopoulos was, waiting for the event to begin. Police, donning riot gear, headed all the way inside.

Seizing the opportunity, the masks men and women then breached the inner ring of fencing, picking up pieces of it and hurling them into the glass of the building itself.

Glass shattered, but no one went inside, where police formed a riot formation.

As protesters yelled obscenities at police, others toppled a generator and light pole police had set up, spray painting “Milo” with an x through it. Later on, they lit it on fire, gas spilling with abandon as the growing flames licked a nearby tree on the side of the building.

From their backpacks, they hurled dozens of fireworks — some screaming past others in the crowd — as Berkeley’s usually peaceful protesters vented their frustration. The more peaceful had carried signs, “We reject a fascist America,” and derided Yiannopoulos as a mouthpiece for President Trump.

One of the black-dressed anarchists said he was shot at.

“The cops shot me with pepper balls,” said the 26-year-old man who called himself Zombie. “It hurt”

Carrying a thick black shield and wearing a milk-soaked kerchief over his face, Zombie said he is one of “hundreds” of black bloc activists who were behind the breach of metal barriers.

“We’re anarchists,” he said as fellow protesters unfurled a banner reading “This is war,”

Zombie said no one set the police lights on fire. “It got knocked over — and lit itself on fire. I saw it.”

None of the many black bloc activists — all wearing kerchiefs soaked in milk to protect against potential tear gas — would admit to taking part in the rushing of the student union building.

Police soon declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to leave but hundreds of protesters stayed, filling the entire upper and lower plaza. After a couple warnings delivered via loudspeaker from the second floor of the building, where the police were high enough to escape most fireworks, they fired rubber pellets onto the crowd. A group of determined protesters formed a shield-like formation under their signs.

The quintessential protest song, “F— Donald Trump,” came on over loudspeakers that someone dragged through the crowd unscathed.

“Turn on the dance music,” one masked woman yelled.

At around 6:30 p.m., Yiannopoulos posted a message on Facebook, saying he was safe; “I have been evacuated from the UC Berkeley campus after violent left-wing protestors tore down barricades, lit fires, threw rocks and Roman candles at the windows and breached the ground floor of the building. My team and I are safe. But the event has been cancelled. I’ll let you know more when the facts become clear. One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

Campus police had been intent on avoiding a repeat of the chaos at UC Davis on Jan. 13, when protesters overwhelmed their barricades and shut down Yiannopoulos’ speech.

“It’s not a question of free speech,” a protester said via megaphone, riling up the hundreds of protesters in attendance. “It’s about real human beings.”

The “real human beings” refrain rippled through the liberal crowd, through students and their parents, socialists and anarchists, who asserted that Trump’s early policies, ones Yiannopoulos supports, have or will harm their friends and their families. That includes the ban on travel into the U.S. from citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, as well as the president’s promise to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Berkeley junior Fatima Ibrahim, 20, who clutched a “resist fear” sign with a red fist, said she’d talked to the Berkeley College Republicans, the organization that brought Yiannopoulos to campus, Tuesday. She asked them a simple question: “Why?”

Some of them, her classmates, are “level-headed,” people, she said, and she wanted to understand why they’d invite someone whose views so many found so abhorrent.

She didn’t get clear enough answers — she said the group conceded it didn’t agree with all of Yiannopoulos’ viewpoints — and she decided she’d have to protest along with those who felt the same way.

The timing, especially, so fresh into Trump’s early days in office, especially stung, she said.

“As a black Muslim woman, all three of those identities have been targeted throughout (Trump’s) campaign,” Ibrahim said. “To have someone like (Yiannopoulos) come into my campus and affirm those people’s beliefs, it’s very, very hurtful.”

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of 2016, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display on the Campus of the University of California at Berkeley, in their desperation to prevent Milo Yiannopolis, a Gay Conservative from speaking, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

So, anyway, here we are, after a couple of generations of removing the love of “God and Country” from our public Schools while handing out “Participation Ribbons”with a bunch of undereducated spoiled brats telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through our election of Donald J. Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

Last night’s riot was an exercise in irony by a bunch of idiots, who have been taught to believe that our country owes them something, simply because they consider themselves to be the smartest person in any room into which they enter.

I have heard this kind of garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus and all the rest of the “Anti-Trumpers”, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for the last few years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like their Liberal Parents and Professors, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as paid and unpaid protestors attempt to ruin Trump’s Presidency through staged “spontaneous” demonstrations, purposefully designed to stifle Free Speech and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” and irresponsible lifestyles bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party.

If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, promising a continuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s own “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including those of us here in the Heartland who are responsible for the elect of President Donald J.Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It gives the protestors, who are still throwing a National Temper Tantrum over Trump’s election that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by trying to shout down Conservative Speakers, or by rioting, like last night, for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

It also allows ungrateful NFL Players, making millions of dollars to disrespect our Sovereign Nation and those who died for our flag to refuse to stand during our National Anthem.

And they’re useless, too.

Our Constitution, in fact, allowed Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.

However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label the Self-entitlement-driven Condescending Political Ideology of all of these “Special Snowflakes” for what it actually is:

“INTOLERANCE”.

And, guess what, Kiddies?

When you woke up this morning after throwing your tantrum and destroying property  on the Campus of UC Berkeley while playing “Anarchist For a Day”, Donald J. Trump was still the President of the United States of America.

Kleenex?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

More WINNING! President Trump Nominates a Great Heir Apparent to Justice Antonin Scalia

February 1, 2017

v0

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Justice, appointed by an AMERICAN PRESIDENT by the name of Ronald Reagan, was a man’s man, a Christian and a Constitutionalist, who believed in American Exceptionalism and Traditional American Values.

His Legal Writings were brilliant in scope and interpretation.

By contrast, Former President Barack Hussein Obama was the first Editor of the Harvard Law Review, who never contributed to that publication.

Obama’s childish snubbing of Justice Scalia’s Funeral tells you everything that you need to know about him.

History will remember Justice Scalia as a Giant Among Men.

Last night, the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, announced his choice to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Justice Scalia.

Before that announcement, as word got out as to the identity of Scalia’s proposed successor, NationalReview.com posted the following article…

President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court will be Neil Gorsuch, a well-respected conservative whose legal philosophy is remarkably similar to that of Antonin Scalia, the justice he will replace if the Senate confirms him. He is, like Scalia, a textualist and an originalist: someone who interprets legal provisions as their words were originally understood.

Gorsuch is a Colorado native and the son of a Republican politician, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, who was a state legislator and then director of the Environmental Protection Agency for President Reagan. He attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School, after which he clerked for D.C. Circuit Court judge David Sentelle. He then clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993–94. The next year he studied for a doctorate of philosophy at Oxford University under the legal philosopher John Finnis.

After spending ten years at a law firm in Washington, D.C., Gorsuch went to work for the Justice Department in 2005–06. President George W. Bush nominated him to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico. His confirmation was quick and uncontroversial.

That Judge Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy is similar to Justice Scalia’s is evident from a tribute the former gave after the latter’s death. In that tribute, Gorsuch summarized and endorsed Scalia’s method of legal interpretation:

“Judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be — not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best. As Justice Scalia put it, “if you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.””

A lawyer who clerked for both Justice Scalia and Judge Gorsuch sees parallels between the two men. Gorsuch is “a law-has-right-answers kind of guy, an originalist and a textualist,” he says. “He believes that the enterprise of law is real and worth doing and not just politics by other means.”

A low-profile 2012 case, U.S. v. Games-Perez, illustrates how Gorsuch has applied these views. At issue was a federal law that authorizes prison terms for anyone who “knowingly violates” a ban on the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. A precedent in the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant who knew that he had a firearm could be sentenced under that provision even if he did not know that he was a convicted felon. (In the case Gorsuch was deciding, Miguel Games-Perez had previously taken a plea deal that the presiding judge had misdescribed as an alternative to being “convicted of a felony.”)

Gorsuch participated in a panel of three of the circuit’s judges that affirmed the prison sentence. Gorsuch concurred in the result because he felt bound by precedent. At the same time, he made a powerful argument that the circuit’s precedent could not square with the text of the law. And when the case later came before the circuit, he urged it to reconsider that precedent.

The case brought together several strands of Gorsuch’s thinking. It demonstrated his willingness, shared with Scalia, to overturn a criminal conviction when a proper reading of the law required it. He paid close attention to the text and grammar of the law while expressing skepticism about letting legislative history guide his decision. “Hidden intentions never trump expressed ones,” he wrote, adding an aside about “the difficulties of trying to say anything definitive about the intent of 535 legislators and the executive.” (Scalia was a foe of the judicial consideration of legislative intent for similar reasons.) And it showed, as well, his understanding that a judge must follow his duty even when it leads somewhere he dislikes. “He cared a lot about what the precedents are,” says the former clerk. “He was not interested in bending them or the usual tricks judges can use for getting around them if they don’t like them.”

Also like Scalia, Judge Gorsuch is skeptical of the “dormant commerce clause”: the longstanding legal doctrine that the Constitution’s grant of power over interstate commerce to Congress implies limits on the states’ power over it even when Congress has not spelled out those limits. And he shares Scalia’s preference for clear legal rules over vague “standards” that judges can manipulate to reach desired conclusions.

The former clerk sees similarities between Gorsuch and Scalia that go beyond legal issues. “[Gorsuch] took a lot of care with writing,” he says. “He has a pretty well-earned reputation as one of the best writers on the federal bench. He always cared a lot about an opinion having his voice.” The same was famously true of Scalia. But the voices are different: “Justice Scalia had a sharp pen for dissents. [Judge Gorsuch] is just temperamentally not inclined to do that.”

Sounds like a great pick, huh?

Well, the Demos are sharpening their steely knifes right now to try to keep the President’s Nominee from occupying a seat at the highest court in the land.

Why? Because the Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama’s proposed Nominee to fill Scalia’s position, Merrick Garland.

Garland was anti-Second Amendment, of course (look who nominated him).

The Senate Republicans were well within their rights to not hold hearings for Obama’s Nominee. Why should they have tipped the balance of power on the Supreme Court to the Left End of the Political Spectrum, just so an outgoing President could place another Liberal on the highest court in the land?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McDonnell can be slow at times, but he’s not stupid.

Well, at least he wasn’t in that instance.

Filling the shoes of Antonin Scalia will be a daunting task. As I wrote at the beginning of this post, Judge Scalia was a man’s man, a Christian and a Constitutionalist, who believed in American Exceptionalism and Traditional American Values.

If Judge Gorsuch’s judicial/political beliefs are indeed similar to Scalia’s President Trump has indeed nominated a WINNER.

You know, not to contradict the President…but, I do not believe that I am going to get tired of all this WINNING.

How about you?

Until He Comes,

KJ