Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

ESPN Decides to Continue to Preach Liberal Politics to Viewers Who Tune in for Sports Entertainment

April 5, 2017

 

caitlyn-jenner-on-espn

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

The following article appeared yesterday in the Blog section of ESPN.com

ESPN has issued new political and election guidelines for its employees that, while allowing for political discussion on the network’s platforms, recommend connecting those comments to sports whenever possible. The new policies also provide separate guidelines for ESPN staffers working on news and those engaging in commentary.

The timing of the release of the election guidelines is a bit unusual — such guidelines are rarely released right after a presidential election; they’re usually updated near the beginning of a presidential campaign. But we are living in unique political times, which ESPN apparently recognized, which explains the revised guidelines for discussion of political and social issues.

“Given the intense interest in the most recent presidential election and the fact subsequent political and social discussions often intersected with the sports world, we found it to be an appropriate time to review our guidelines,” said Patrick Stiegman, ESPN’s vice president of global digital content and the chairman of the company’s internal Editorial Board, which drafted the new guidelines.

Stiegman said no single issue or incident led to the change, but Craig Bengtson, ESPN’s vice president and managing editor of newsgathering and reporting, said the nation’s tense political climate did play a role.

“We have the convergence of a politically charged environment and all these new technologies coming together at once,” he said. “Based on that, we wanted the policy to reflect the reality of the world today. There are people talking about politics in ways we have not seen before, and we’re not immune from that.”

Stiegman said the new election guidelines are no longer just targeted at presidential elections. “We simply extended our approach to covering presidential elections every four years to major elections, in general, believing all the same principles should apply,” Stiegman said.

So what’s different in the new policies? Let’s start with the Political and Social Issues guidelines. Its first line lays out ESPN’s challenge quite accurately:

“At ESPN, our reputation and credibility with viewers, readers and listeners are paramount. Related to political and social issues, our audiences should be confident our original reporting of news is not influenced by political pressures or personal agendas.”
As I wrote in November, not all ESPN consumers — or employees, for that matter — feel the company has lived up to this ideal. Stiegman said that the buzz around the topic of ESPN and politics — also written about by The New York Times, Awful Announcing, the Orlando Sentinel and many conservative sites criticizing ESPN’s perceived leftward tilt — didn’t play a significant role in the revision of the guidelines.

The two most notable changes from the Political Advocacy policy are the delineation of guidelines between news and commentary, and allowing for increased political discussion on ESPN platforms, as warranted and connected to sports. This isn’t a surprising development, it’s just new.

“We wanted to err on the side of transparency and trust with our reporting,” Stiegman said, “but also give our columnists and commentators the freedom to discuss topics relevant to those sports fans who visit our platforms, even if the issues are political or social in nature.”

Here are other notable points in the Political and Social Issues policy, with my thoughts:

“Original news reports should not include statements of support, opposition or partisanship related to any social issue, political position, candidate or office holder.”

This one seems straightforward and achievable, at least within ESPN’s platforms. The one place on ESPN in which you don’t see straight opinion is on the hard news side of the operation.

“Writers, reporters, producers and editors directly involved in ‘hard’ news reporting, investigative or enterprise assignments and related coverage should refrain in any public-facing forum from taking positions on political or social issues, candidates or office holders.”

The three key words here are “public-facing forum.” That expands this policy beyond ESPN’s borders and brings the Wild West of social media into play. In fact, later in the memo, it is said directly that the policy applies to “ESPN, Twitter, Facebook and other media.”

This is where the potential for problems exists. ESPN news reporters tweeting political opinions from their own social accounts would technically violate this policy. Again, hard news reporters are less likely to use social media for this purpose than commentators, but how effective this policy is will depend on how hard executives choose to look at social media. Let’s be honest: It’s not too hard to find ESPN employees tweeting political opinions. Yes, much of that activity does fall within the new guidelines, which also note that those who do publicly express political views could be reassigned when covering stories. But the propriety of other posts is a tad murkier.

“Outside of ‘hard’ news reporting, commentary related to political or social issues, candidates or office holders is appropriate on ESPN platforms consistent with these guidelines.”

This is meaningful because, unlike the company’s previous policy, it states that commentary on political and social issues is OK. The previous policy not only didn’t say that but also conveyed a tone that suggested that dipping into political waters carried more danger than reward. Put another way, the new policy has gone from “It’s dangerous out there, so probably best to stay home” to “It’s dangerous out there, so here are some tools to best keep you safe.”

“It’s a more positive, proactive stance,” Bengtson said. “If there’s a good reason to be discussing [politics], here’s how we can best help you do that to best help our audience.”

“The topic should be related to a current issue impacting sports. This condition may vary for content appearing on platforms with broader editorial missions — such as The Undefeated, FiveThirtyEight and espnW. Other exceptions must be approved in advance by senior editorial management.”

The statement that topics should relate to sports is also new, though Stiegman left some wiggle room on that point. “We want to emphasize a direct connection to sports, understanding that’s the lens through which most fans view ESPN,” he said. “We also understand there may occasionally be exceptions that reference important, broader political topics. We just want to ensure those are thoughtful discussions, and meet the other criteria in the guidelines.”

Said Bengtson: “I don’t think people are turning us on to hear us talk about social and political issues. When we can make a connection with sports, we should do so and do it smartly.”

“The presentation should be thoughtful and respectful. We should offer balance or recognize opposing views, as warranted. We should avoid personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric.”

What is a “personal attack” and what’s considered “inflammatory”? As with many journalistic policy questions, those are subjective. And in policies like these, that can lead to caution.

“There is always a layer of subjectivity in such areas,” Stiegman said. “Editors and producers will work with those offering opinions on these topics to ensure the dialogue and debate is thoughtful, respectful and as fair as possible.”

The changes to the Elections guidelines are far less significant (see previous policy here), but there were a few changes of note.

“All interviews, features, enterprise efforts or produced pieces involving candidates must first be approved by senior management. This is to ensure a coordinated and fair effort, and includes considerations as to location, interviewer, timing and format.”

The interesting note here is what was removed from the previous version of the policy, which said, “All interviews, features, enterprise efforts or produced pieces with a sports angle, including attempts at humor (emphasis mine) involving candidates must first be approved by senior management team.”

While this may seem to be in conflict with the guideline in the Political and Social Issues policy, I suspect the real reason it was deleted was to make sure employees understand that it applies to all political topics, not just those relating to sports.

It’ll be interesting to see whether this new policy has an impact. These changes appear to be designed to remind employees of ESPN’s invaluable and lucrative connection to sports while also acknowledging — rightfully, in my opinion — that sports, culture and politics overlap in ways that cannot be ignored. But, in the end, the effectiveness of policies is usually related to the intensity of the enforcement.

So, boys and girls, ESPN is encouraging their Sports Anchors to voice their political opinions…as long as their opinions agree with those of ESPN and its bosses at Disney.

Remember this story from one year ago?

Former MLB pitcher and game analyst Curt Schilling has been fired by ESPN.

“ESPN is an inclusive company,” said the network in a statement on Wednesday. “Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”

The 49-year-old once again found himself in hot water on Tuesday after he shared an anti-transgender meme over Facebook, which he later deleted. 

The meme opposed transgender individuals using the bathroom which correlated to their gender identity. 

In a later blog entry, after the meme was removed from his page, Schilling wrote, “I didn’t post that ugly looking picture. I made a comment about the basic functionality of men’s and women’s restrooms, period.”

Schilling was previously suspended from ESPN’s baseball coverage for the remainder of the 2015 regular season and the wild-card playoff game after posting a tweet comparing Muslims to Nazis. 

At that time, the sports network said Schilling’s tweet was “completely unacceptable, and in no way represents our company’s perspective.” 

So, when did standing up for your beliefs and principles and speaking the truth become “politically incorrect”?

I am aware that political correctness has been around for a good while now.

However, when Barack Hussein Obama became President of the United States, political correctness seemed to become magnified by 100 fold.

For example, you cannot criticize Obama or any other Liberal of without being called a Bigot or a Raaaciiist.

CNN yesterday said that the news reports concerning Dr. Susan Rice’s involvement with the surveillance of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump and his Staff were “racist and sexist”.

This seems awfully hypocritical to me, because all of the self-proclaimed Liberal experts on political correctness called President George W Bush everything but a child of God.

At the end of last November, Breitbart.com reported that

The Nielsen estimates revealed that ESPN lost 555,000 subscribers during the last month.

In other words, ESPN essentially lost the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. This, coming on the heels of last month, the worst month in ESPN history, where the network lost 621,000 subscribers. 

In the last two months, ESPN has lost 1,176,000 subscribers, a subscriber loss nearly the size of the city of Dallas, Texas. ESPN currently has just over 88 million domestic subscribers. In 2013, a mere three years ago, ESPN had 99 million subscribers. That’s right, in the last three years, ESPN lost somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million subscribers, the rough equivalent of the combined populations of New York City and Phoenix.

People in “Show Business”, and that includes Professional Sports, and the reporting of it, need to stop their self-appointed mission of spreading Liberal Propaganda.

As ESPN and Hollywood are finding out the hard way, average Americans want them to shut up and entertain us.

As I have written several times, America is still a Majority Conservative Nation.

Look at an Electoral Map of what happened during the Presidential Election of November 8th.. America is a Sea of Red, with little Blue Enclaves, up in the Northeast and on the Left Coast.

Hollywood and the Television Bigwigs on the East and West Coasts need to pay attention to which television programs and movies the American public are watching at home…and make more just like them.

Also, Americans tune in to ESPN for Sports Programming, not Liberal Political Propaganda.

Average Americans are more perceptive than Liberals think we are.

The more determined that Liberals are to force their Relative Morality and Situational Ethics down the throats of the actual overwhelming majority of average Americans, living here in “flyover Country”, who want no part of it.

Until the Liberals in Hollywood (and New York City and Washington, DC) realize that, they will continue to fail.

Just as their precious Democratic Party and the Presidential Candidate that they thought could not lose got their hindquarters handed to them on November 8th.

If this “standing up for what you believe in”, in the name of  “political correctness”, emanating from the mouths of “the enlightened”, was coming from the mouths of Christian Business Owners, it would be labeled as “hateful bigotry”…wouldn’t it?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

From Watergate to Towergate: Even With Obama’s “Eavesdropping” and Obfuscating, Trump is Still President

March 5, 2017

all-ears-jpeg-sm

Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), located in the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he “committed or may have committed” while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency. (courtesy of www.history.com)

And now, Foxnews.com reports that

Former President Obama on Saturday denied President Trump’s accusation that Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.

“Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false,” said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.

Trump made the claim in a series of early Saturday morning tweets that included the suggestion that the alleged wiretapping was tantamount to “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate.” 

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism,” Trump tweeted.

“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he said in another tweet.

Trump also tweeted that a “good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

“How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!” the president continued.

Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration’s alleged wiretapping.

However, he could be referencing a Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower, related to possible links with Russian banks.

No evidence was found.

The article was based on a segment by radio host Mark Levin.

However, the timelines for each seems to draw from a range of news reports over the last several months, including those from The New York Times and Heat Street. 

Lewis also said Saturday: “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice.”

Former Obama foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes tweeted earlier in the day: “No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”

During Trump’s Saturday morning tweets, he also brought up the ongoing controversy surrounding Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his reported 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Trump said the first meeting between Sessions, a senator at the time, and Kislyak was arranged by the Obama administration.

He then said Kislayk also visited the White House nearly two dozen times during the Obama administration.

“Just out: The same Russian Ambassador that met Jess Sessions visited the Obama White House 22 times, and 4 times last year alone,” Trump wrote.

On Friday, Trump fought back against top Democratic lawmakers who are demanding his attorney general’s resignation over past meetings with Russia’s ambassador — after pictures emerged of the same lawmakers in similar meetings, exposing them to “hypocrisy” charges.

Trump tweeted: “I hereby demand a second investigation, after Schumer, of Pelosi for her close ties to Russia, and lying about it.

To paraphrase the late, great Yogi Berra,

Is this “deja vu…all over again”?

According to Rush Limbaugh,

We are witnessing — right in front of our eyes — a silent coup to unseat and render effectively immaterial Donald Trump as president of the United States. The real Russian scandal is the collusion between Barack Obama and his administration and the Russians. Obama’s team used the pretext of Russian interference in the election to justify wiretaps and illegal leaks of the Trump team, including a U.S. senator and now attorney general. What has really gone on here — and I just want to repeat what I said in the opening of the hour, ’cause it wasn’t happenstance, and I mean it.The real collusion between our government and the Russians happened with Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin and the Russians. And just to reiterate, I want you to remember some things. Just ask yourself: How far back do you have to go into the campaign before you remember hearing that Trump and Putin were buddies? Remember when Trump is getting all excited about the fact that Putin was praising him and then Trump wouldn’t release tax returns? So there became a new narrative and that is that Trump and Putin are good buddies, and this could be very bad for the United States.

The way it manifests itself is Trump is such an idiot, he’s such a neophyte, he’s such an outsider, he doesn’t know things. He doesn’t understand, and he wants to sidle up to Putin just ’cause he likes Putin ’cause Putin likes him. You know, Trump’s such a sophomore. So Trump really poses a great danger because Putin doesn’t like him and Putin doesn’t like us and Putin is playing Trump for a fool and all that. So that gets the ball rolling that there’s a tie, that there’s a connection — a bromance, if you will — between Putin and Trump. And there isn’t.

The real bromance is Barack Obama and the Russians. That makes more sense ideologically, it makes more sense politically, and it makes more sense historically. We know that Obama has worked with Putin on the disarming of the United States nuclear arsenal. We got Obama on tape telling Putin’s number two guy, “Be patient with me. Be patient. I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” But Obama has turned this around, the Democrats have turned this around, and they’re now saying that it is the potential danger of Trump working with the Russians.

They used this “potential danger” to justify wiretaps of Trump’s team during the campaign and the transition, and this is what’s justifying this so-called illegal leaking. If the fake news were not so instantaneously and irrevocably left wing, the effort by an outgoing president to undermine his predecessor using intelligence agencies would be a bigger scandal than Watergate, because that’s what’s going on here. That’s what’s unprecedented. I mean, Truman and Eisenhower hated each other. But when Eisenhower assumed office, Truman went back to the haberdashery in Independence, and that was that.

Except, boys and girls, as we all know, Obama is way too vain and self-serving to do that.

Nope.

The former Petulant President Pantywaist has set up his Command Headquarters for his “Shadow Government” just a few blocks away from the White House and has even moved his “right-hand Iranian” Valerie Jarrett, into the house with him and “Mooch”.

Scary? OH, HECK YEAH.

It is all beginning to resemble a Tom Clancy Novel.

You have a Former Nazi Sympathizer, now a Billionaire “Philanthropist”, funding Far Left Causes. Add to that a disgruntled Former President, desperately trying to ensure that his mission to turn the Greatest Country on the Face of the Earth into a Third World Socialist Paradise is not derailed by the unexpected loss of his hand-picked predecessor to a “Citizen Statesman”.

Faced with the reality of a splintered Democratic Party, which has alienated its base by moving to the Extreme Far Left of the Political Spectrum, this Former President , while still in office, decided to spy on the one candidate who might actually have a chance to beat his own party’s lousy candidate in a fair Presidential Election, through the means of obtaining an order to wire tap his offices.

After that did not help and the Citizen Statesman became the President, the Former Petulant President Pantywaist, encouraged “rebellion”, as if the reality of a nation being torn asunder was some sort of “Star Wars” Movie, through the use of his “benefactor’s”(the Former Nazi Sympathizer) money in the funding of manufactured protests and a Media-Driven, Community -Organizing Assault, which includes the Former President’s own “Organizing For America” Website.

Not unlike the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution, this “rebellion”, with their willing accomplices in the Main Stream Media, launched a massive assault, through the dissemination of propaganda, manufactured protests, and Fake News, in order to somehow diminish the sitting President, in the hopes of regaining their lost power and continuing their mission, inspired by Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky.

Unfortunately for them, they have underestimated the power of the New Media and the resiliency of the average American, here in the Heartland, who stopped believing their lies some time ago.

And now, with the revelation that came out yesterday, that the Political Elite of both political parties knew of the specious wire tapping, this weakens the momentum of the Shadow Government’s Rebellion and strengthens the resolve of both the sitting President and the average Americans who voted him into office, against all odds.

Because, you see, boys and girls, most average Americans, out here in the Heartland, can smell a truckload of manure coming down the road at us from a mile away.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Trump’s First Address to Congress: “Are You Ready to Rummmbllle?”

February 28, 2017

fine-tuned-600-li

Get your popcorn ready, boys and girls. This promises to be good.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Trump is planning to outline an ambitious first-year agenda tackling everything from immigration to infrastructure when he delivers his first address to a Joint Session of Congress Tuesday night, the White House said.

The White House detailed Trump’s highly anticipated address on Monday, outlining what will be the president’s biggest speech since his inauguration. Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump will push a “bold agenda,” while another White House official described it as an “optimistic” look toward the next four years. 

For the new president, whose opening month has been marked by rapid-fire executive actions but also a string of controversies, the primetime televised address is a critical chance to reframe some of the more contentious aspects of his young presidency – and reinforce campaign pledges that have yet to kick into action, like repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

Spicer said the goals outlined in Tuesday’s speech will also strike a balance on the challenges ahead, while reflecting a more optimistic, forward-looking tone that focuses on the “American spirit.” 

Such a tone would strike a contrast with Trump’s inauguration address, marked by gloomy warnings about the country’s economic decay and rampant crime which he vowed to fix. The official said the same team of speechwriters who worked on the inaugural speech were working with Trump on Tuesday’s address. 

Spicer also said the president would highlight “public safety, including defense, increased border security, taking care of our veterans, and then economic opportunity, including education and job training, health care reform, jobs, taxes and regulatory reform.”

Trump is also expected to reach out to Americans “living in the poorest and most vulnerable communities, and let them know that help is on the way,” Spicer said.

Trump’s young administration has seen its share of growing pains.

The president has faced sustained resistance from Democrats, over everything from his Cabinet picks to his border security plans. But other issues have drawn bipartisan criticism from some corners: late-night tweets; the rocky rollout of the controversial suspension of refugee and other admissions (actions on hold by the courts and currently being rewritten); the forced resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn following reports of contacts between him and a Russian diplomat; White House leaks driven by infighting; and strained relationships with China, Mexico and Australia.

Trump has an opportunity Tuesday to refocus on his policy priorities.

“This will be an opportunity for the people and their representatives to hear directly from our new president about his vision and our shared agenda,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said.

The White House official said much of the speech would be derived from so-called “listening sessions” Trump has held over the last several weeks with a number of interest groups, including law enforcement officials and union leaders. 

On Monday, Trump laid much of the groundwork for Tuesday’s speech, as he met with governors and health insurance CEOs in large part to discuss plans to replace ObamaCare.

The Obama legacy legislation has been a GOP target for many years. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised to repeal and replace it during his first 100 days in office. He went so far as to claim in the last few weeks of the general election that he would consider calling a special session of Congress to repeal it – something that has not happened.

Governors visiting Washington, D.C., over the weekend and on Monday voiced concern about the future of Medicaid and its related costs, but Trump insisted that the current insurance market is going to “absolutely implode” and something must be done.

The president also announced a “historic” $54 billion increase in defense spending, alongside cuts to almost every other federal agency as part of his forthcoming budget plan. “This budget will be a public safety and national security budget,” Trump said.

He added that he wanted to better prepare the military not only to prevent wars but also win them when called to fight.

During a meeting with governors at the White House on Monday, Trump also teased a “big statement” on infrastructure. He told the governors he plans to boost spending to rebuild the nation’s roads and bridges.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., asked what he wanted to hear from Trump on Tuesday, told a Chamber of Commerce crowd in Kentucky last week: “A tweet-free, optimistic and uplifting message about where America needs to go.”

Already, the Democratic leadership has issued a pre-buttal and called out Trump for being “a lot of bluster and blame.”

“The first month of a Trump presidency is less of a bang and more of a whimper,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “Not much impact.”

Schumer predicted Trump’s speech “will mean nothing if this president continues to do as he’s done these first few weeks – breaking promises to working people, and putting an even greater burden on their backs while making it even easier to be wealthy and well connected in America.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also needled the White House, saying it had failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs. 

“He has created a lot of jobs,” Spicer countered Monday at the daily press briefing. “I think that he is continuing to work with Congress on both repealing and replacing ObamaCare, tax reform and fundamentally both of those two items alone I think can help spur a lot of growth.”

While the traditions of Congress typically dictate an atmosphere of cordiality, there have been moments of outburst over the years that have hyped up the drama.

In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., blurted out “You lie!” during then-President Barack Obama’s address. The remark was viewed widely by both parties as disrespectful.

Michael Waldman, chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton, told The Associated Press that Trump could easily “blow up a speech” with just a few deviations from the text on his teleprompter.

Waldman added that opposition from Democrats could also throw Trump off his game. 

Following Trump’s speech, former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will deliver the Democratic response.

Perhaps the Governor will address the poor behavior planned by his fellow Democrats for Trump’s address.

Heatstreet.com reports that

Although President Donald Trump won’t be giving a formal State of the Union address Tuesday night (he’s only been in office a month), Democrats are still planning on making his address to a joint session of Congress as uncomfortable as possible.

Each legislator is allowed a handful of tickets for the public gallery, so that interested constituents and guests can be present for what is typically the President’s most important speech of the year. Most often, those tickets go to hometown heroes from the legislator’s respective districts, people who have made the news over the past year, or those who have benefitted from the administration’s policy agenda.

But the power can also be used for evil: Legislators have been known to pass off their tickets to protesters—including perennial anti-war activists Code Pink—or to special interest groups opposed to key items in the speech.

This year, Democrats will be using their tickets as part of an organized effort to invite the families of illegal immigrants, DREAMers protected by former President Obama’s executive orders on immigration, and Muslim-Americans they claim will be harmed by Trump’s temporary travel ban. (A court has stayed Trump’s travel ban.)

Rep. Nydia Velázquez from New York is inviting an Iraqi man who served American troops as a translator, and who was detained for several hours when the travel ban went into effect.  Rep. Jim Langevin will invite a Muslim-American born in Pakistan whom he says represents the idea that “patriotism” is not the sole purview of Trump voters.

 Since it would be hard to actually find an illegal immigrant willing to walk into the United States Capitol, Dems will instead bring several people helped by the DREAM act (which Trump says he won’t undo), and the family of a woman slated for deportation back to her home country of Mexico during a routine check-in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials.

Sources in one Democratic Congressional office tell Heat Street an invitation was even extended to Meryl Streep, but it’s not clear how serious the invitation was (or whether it was even received).

In case you aren’t sure who is who, Langevin also intends to hold a press conference before the joint session, just to introduce media and viewers to the people on his subversive guest list. He expects 10 to 15 of his colleagues to participate.

In order to be an effective President, you have to build a Coalition. The most effective President in my lifetime did.

On July 27. 2012. John Heubush, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, wrote the following op ed for The Daily Caller

“You’re in the big leagues, now.”

So the speaker of the House said to the 40th president of the United States just days after his inauguration.

It was 1981. The 97th Congress was a mixed bag, with a Democratic-controlled House, led by Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, and a Senate held by Republicans who, for the first time since 1953, controlled a chamber of Congress.

But Ronald Reagan didn’t think “eight years as governor of one of the largest states in the union had exactly been the minor leagues.” Sacramento had been Reagan’s beta-site where nothing was accomplished until strong coalitions were formed. “It was important to develop an effective working relationship with my opponents in the legislature,” Reagan wrote, “our political disagreements not withstanding.”

What did this adversarial relationship with O’Neill and Democrats produce in the next two years? Caustic gamesmanship? A stand-off? On July 29, 1981, less than six months after Reagan took office, a strong bipartisan coalition in the House passed one of the largest tax cuts in American history, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Two days later, the Senate followed suit.

How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

Matching wits with Jack Warner (of Warner Brothers) as head of the actors’ union and Jesse Unruh (speaker of the California State Assembly) as governor taught Reagan to come to the bargaining table prepared. “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts,” Reagan wrote, “that you seldom get everything you ask for.” (Years later, the press asked him about negotiating with Gorbachev. “It was easier than dealing with Jack Warner,” Reagan shot back.)

Although the Democrats were in a tough position after the Carter years, their big trump card was that nothing would get done unless Reagan won over a substantial number of them in the House. It’s no wonder that O’Neill was so full of braggadocio.

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

The strategy to get the Economic Recovery Act passed by a conflicted Congress had two major parts.

First, Reagan would use his tremendous skills as a communicator by making repeated televised appeals to Congress and the American people. “Every time he spoke,” Reagan Chief of Staff Jim Baker recalled, “the needle moved.”

Second, the Legislative Strategy Group led by Baker and Ed Meese “did the grunt work” of inviting Democrats to the White House, while the president worked the phones. “I spent a lot of time in the spring and early summer of 1981 on the telephone and in meetings trying to build a coalition to get the nation’s recovery under way,” Reagan wrote. At the time, he even noted in his diary, “These Dems are with us on the budget and it’s interesting to hear some who’ve been here ten years or more say that it is their first time to ever be in the Oval Office. We really seem to be putting a coalition together.”

These “Dems” — the Boll Weevils — were Southern conservative Democrats who became key players in Reagan’s economic recovery strategy. It helped Reagan’s purpose that many represented districts that the president had carried in 1980. If they voted against a popular president, it could cost them their seats in 1982.

“To encourage the Boll Weevils to cross party lines,” journalist Lou Cannon wrote, “Reagan accepted a suggestion by James Baker and promised that he could not campaign in 1982 against any Democratic members of Congress who voted for both his tax and budget bills.” It was a shrewd and effective move.

The task of working together with the Opposition Party is a lot harder for President Trump than it was for President Reagan.

This is a completely different Democratic Party.

The brilliant Conservative Economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell once wrote,

…Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

Liberal Ideas always cost taxpayer money…and they never make things better for the average American.

President Ronald Reagan once famously said,

It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.

A quotation which also helps to explain the Far Left Liberals of the Democratic Party’s gross overestimation of the popularity of Liberal Ideals among Average Americans here in “Flyover Country”.

Their immature, bordering on manic, denial of the fact that Americans voted for change appears to be a part of an alternative reality that the “Special Snowflakes” who voted for Hillary Clinton and who compose the Far Left Base of the Modern Democratic Party, seem to have transported themselves into, immediately upon hearing of Donald J. Trump’s victory in last month’s Presidential Election.

The pain of their frustration is so immense over Clinton’s loss that they have created a reality in which Clinton beat Trump, having won the hearts and minds of the American People.

Somehow, as is being shown in the paid protests and the political shenanigans being planned by the Democrats for Trump’s first address to Congress, their undersized medulla oblongatas and oversized craniums will not allow them to accept the fact that Americans completely rejected their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and their Political Ideology on that fateful day in November.

So, they have retreated to that alternative reality, where they can feed and ride their unicorns somewhere over the rainbow and where they will find rest in their “Safe Space”.

Let them stay there.

The men and women of this nation, after 8 long, arduous years, finally, once again have an American President.

And, Modern American Liberals’ unending National Temper Tantrum is not helping their cause.

Instead it is backfiring spectacularly, deepening the divide between the isolated Liberal Metropolitan areas on the East and West Coasts and the “Sea of Red” as found on the 2016 Electoral Map, where the majority of average Americans live.

The Democrats should have figured out, after that glorious night of November 8, 2016, that Americans are ready to move on from their failed political ideology.

We are ready to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberals Attempt to Shame Christians About Supporting Trump’s “Immigration Ban”. Why They’re Wrong.

February 26, 2017

bible-and-flag

Last night, as I was trying to figure out what to write about, I came across a wonderful article by Peter Heck, a speaker, author, and teacher, who writes for The Christian Post.  The title of the following article is “Would Jesus Scold Trump on the Refugees”?

If there is one thing that I am grateful to see coming from the Trump presidency, it has been the sudden renewed interest in applying Biblical principles to our country’s moral and ethical dilemmas amongst so many on the progressive left.

Whether politically motivated or not, it is refreshing to see Hollywood (of all places) express concern over debauchery and indecency. It’s encouraging to witness progressive voices that have long sought to keep discussions over Biblical morality confined within the church walls now asking society how Jesus would treat foreign refugees.

In my view, the more we are talking about pushing American society closer to the character of God, the better off we will all be.

That said, I think it is important to be wary of those who prefer selective application of Biblical principle when it comes to the great moral issues of our day. If God’s word should inform our people how we should think and act relative to the plight of the immigrant or refugee (it should), it should also inform our people how we should think and act relative to race relations, abortion, pornography, and sexuality.

Those who demand Scriptural fidelity to one, but not another, are likely far more interested in twisting and manipulating the Bible to promote personal political agendas than they are understanding and properly applying Biblical values.

For instance, notice the glaring paradox that unfolds when progressive faith leaders on the left like Al Sharpton remind everyone that, “Jesus was a refugee.” Obviously they are referencing the escape of Mary and Joseph to Egypt in the years shortly after the birth of Jesus. Making their case for an open door refugee policy where the United States government places no restrictions on access to the country and its resources from those fleeing persecution in foreign lands, these progressives correctly note that Mary and Joseph sought refuge in a foreign country to escape the mass infanticide decree of King Herod.

What is peculiar about that is that the very same political movement citing this account of Scripture is the same one that has been adamantly demanding for a generation that the teachings of Jesus be stricken from the law so as to allow the continued legalization of mass infanticide.

That is not to say that all Biblical arguments relative to refugees are as flimsy. Progressive faith leaders often point to the admonition of Hebrews 13:2: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.” There’s no question that we are given a direct and unequivocal personal command to be hospitable to those in need. Coupled with the directives Jesus gives us personally in Luke 14 and in the parable of the Good Samaritan, living an inhospitable life lacking in personal compassion is simply irreconcilable with godly, Christian conduct.

It’s fair to assume that is why Christians, individually and collectively, remain the single greatest charitable giving force in the world by far. But when it comes to refugee policy we are contemplating more than just personal commands. We must endeavor to determine whether or not it is Biblically sound to apply such individual instructions to the work of civil government.

When famed evangelical Christian leader Franklin Graham articulated one perspective on this question saying, “We have to realize that the president’s job is not the same as the job of the church,” progressive Christian activist Shane Claiborne immediately criticized him. Claiborne tweeted in response: “No. It is theological malpractice to say that the president is exempt from the Sermon on the Mount or not accountable to Christ’s commands.”

But that isn’t what Graham said. He accurately affirmed that while all Christians are held to the same standard of private, personal morality, the Biblical expectations for ministers are different than those for government leaders. Far from heretical, such an understanding is essential to any logical, consistent reading of Scripture.

Imagine the turmoil that would ensue, for instance, if we pretended the command of Jesus not to judge another (Matthew 7:1) applied to American courtrooms. Or consider the calamity if we assumed our instruction to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) was to be the national security policy of our civil government.

Cultural Left’s Influence on Democratic Party Is a ‘Real Problem,’ Jim Wallis Warns
Claiborne’s failure to grasp this fairly obvious reality was perplexing until just days later when he again lashed out at Graham on the issue, this time in a very personal way. After Graham had offered his opinion that we lock our doors at night, “Not because you hate the people on the outside, but because you love the people on the inside,” Claiborne compared him to the villains in Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan.

He chided, “As the religious folks turned a blind eye, the Samaritan was more concerned about the man in the ditch than himself.”

At this point I realized that Claiborne was far less concerned with understanding a Biblical approach to refugees than he was in grandstanding and attacking a fellow Christian publicly. After all, it takes an extraordinary amount of personal animus and tunnel vision to miss that Franklin Graham’s ministry literally does the work of the Good Samaritan all over the world, regardless of creed, nationality, or ethnicity.

Minds dedicated to Scriptural fidelity will ignore unserious voices such as Claiborne’s and instead work to contextually understand and apply God’s truth. We will ask whether it is responsible to extrapolate the teaching of Hebrews outward into a command on civil government.

To say that Christians have a duty to care for widows, orphans, the impoverished, and endangered is unquestioned (by anyone) Biblical truth. To say that such care can only be provided by enacting open-door refugee policies that may or may not compromise the security of citizens (including widows, orphans, and the impoverished here at home) is an entirely different proposition. It’s a proposition that, to this point, does not appear to be supported by Scripture.

On February 5th, 2015 after then-President Barack Hussein Obama’s incendiary and decidedly anti-Christian remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, Reverend Franklin Graham spoke truth to power:

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President–Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.

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

During the Republican Presidential Primary, Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party, and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law in incompatible with The United States Constitution.

He was absolutely right.

The Center For Security Policy issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”,

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

  • Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
  • Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
  • Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57.  In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

  • Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”  
  • Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 
  •  Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

  • Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 
  • Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

  • Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.”  Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.”  Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
  • Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”  Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims.  A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

  • Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
  • Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

  • Constitution:  Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
  • Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law.  Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. 

Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslim Refugees, being imported into the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?

Back on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy released the following findings for a poll they took of 600 Muslims, who were living in America…

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

To conclude, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.

However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.

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

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

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

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

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

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

However…

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

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

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

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

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

While we are told as Christians to “entertain strangers”, we are also told to

be wise as serpents and innocent as doves – Matthew 10:16

And, you can’t “be wise” if you lose your head.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

2/16/17: The Day President Trump Held the MSM Accountable For Their Actions

February 17, 2017

16806659_10209571555899378_5307203823855270566_n

By now, I am certain, gentle readers, that you have either watched , read, or been told about the evisceration of the Main Stream Media by the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, in his Press Conference yesterday.

The poor saps did not know what hit them.

Here is what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it…

…So the CNN guy stands up and effectively asks — I’m paraphrasing Jim Acosta — “Don’t you think…? Don’t you think that these routine attacks of yours on the press and on the media undermining the First Amendment by calling what we’re doing ‘fake news’?

“Aren’t you doing a terrible disservice to the Constitution and to the American people by criticizing the media?” And there it was. Sure as I’m sitting here watching, there it was. They can sit here all day and not just criticize. They can try to destroy people. They can — using whatever power they think they have been granted by the First Amendment — go out and literally destroy people. Let Trump criticize the way they do their jobs, and all of a sudden it’s a constitutional crisis. Well, how about Obama trashing me all the time?

How about Obama trashing Fox News all the time? Was that not a threat to the First Amendment? No, they applauded that. They still do applaud that. They join in the attacks on Fox News — and, more often than not, they join in attacks on me, too. But they want you to believe that they are this watchdog and that they’re holding truth to power, that they’re holding powerful people accountable. They’re not doing anything of the sort. The press has gotten to the point where they need a watchdog, and it turns out that Trump is the watchdog!

Trump is the guy holding them accountable.

Trump is the guy calling them out. I’ve never seen anything like this today. I have never seen it. We have wanted Republican presidents all of my life to deal with these people this way, and the only thing we ever got was Spiro Agnew. We’ve not seen anything like this, and Trump did it with an air of confidence and self-assuredness. He was not nervous at all. He was having fun with them. He was toying with them. It’s like if you got a cat. You know how you get these little laser pointers and you have a little kitten or a cat and the cat goes nuts chasing the light? It will run into a wall.

That’s what I was watching here today. It was just… It was fantastic, and the American people are gonna eat this up. Now, I said yesterday on this program that what I thought Trump could do to recapture and regain control of the narrative here, if you will — of the agenda — is simply focus on the domestic agenda. Just get in gear and very publicly start talking about repealing Obamacare, tax reform, building the wall, immigration reform. All of it. Just go full speed at it, and in the process keep people who voted for him on his side and they won’t care about whatever these efforts are that the press is engaging in with the intel community to undermining him.

And make no mistake. And he called this out. He accused Obama of running the shadow government. He accused Hillary Clinton and George Soros of being the people paying for people to show up and protest things. He held nothing back! He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being in part of a deal that gave up 20% of our uranium supply and for having that cheap little red reset button when she became secretary of state. And each time he mentions Obama. He mentions… He didn’t say “shadow government” but he said, “Our opponents are doing what they can.”

He called all of this fake news. He was on spot with all this. You know, it’s hard to say. You get caught up in the moment. But this was one of the most effective press conferences I’ve ever seen. The press is gonna hate him even more after this, don’t misunderstand. When I say “effective,” I’m talking about rallying people who voted for him to stay with him. He made a point (paraphrased), “What chaos? You people are reporting chaos here. We’re not in chaos! We’re a well-oiled machine. We got one of the smoothest running machines in the history of machines.

We got one of the best administrations in the history of administrations,” and he rattled off the achievements they’ve had here that the media’s not reporting ’cause they’re so focused on whether or not Trump worked with Russia to screw Hillary out of the presidency. He’s reassuring his people he’s on top ever and nothing’s changed, and everything that he campaigned on he is doing. All he’s doing is fulfilling campaign promises. And of course the Democrats don’t like it, and of course the media doesn’t like it, but it isn’t gonna stop him.

You want to know why yesterday was unlike any Presidential News Conference ever witnessed in the Modern Era?

It is because Donald J. Trump is not a Professional Politician.

He is a Citizen Statesman.

He is an American Businessman, a self-made billionaire, who is used to dealing with all kinds of people in the Business World, from high-powered executives like himself to insolent little know-it-alls, who believe themselves to be smarter than he is and are determined to take him down, like the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party known as the Main Stream Media.

Americans are now living in a time when the Main Stream Media’s blatant propaganda is no longer believed at face value, as the evidence which refutes it is appearing in the live videos and photographs being shared on Facebook and other Social Media.

Average Americans are winning the war against the “New Fascism” of the Tyranny of the Minority by the sharing of information through Social Media.

All afternoon long on the Social Media, all of the Liberal Political Pundits, both ‘Professional” and self-proclaimed, were lashing out at anything that moves, in a mass hissy fit, resembling a Kindergarten Class that didn’t get their afternoon nap.

Combine Trump’s masterful performance at that Presser with his steadily rising (55%) Approval Rating, found at http://RasmussenReports.com, and it turned into a very enjoyable day for those of us who voted for him out here in America’s Heartland.

So, why are all of us still walking around with a smile on our faces?

We have an AMERICAN President again!

President Donald J. Trump is one of US.

America was formed by men seeking FREEDOM. She grew and prospered because of an indomitable will and spirit forged through the Refiner’s Fire, guided by the common-sense words, inscribed in our Constitution, and administered through a Constitutional Republic. Our nation’s largesse and strength comes through the actions and character of her citizens, not through the usurpation of power by professional politicians, who has long since lost touch with their constituency.

Obama’s attempt to “radically change” our nation into a Third World Barrio was met with resistance, not because of professional politicians, but, because of the defiance of the American People, who love their country.

It was this Defiant Spirit which caused Americans to elect American Entrepreneur and Businessman Donald J. Trump as our 45th President.

And, President Trump recognizes whom he owes his Presidency to….because he possesses that Defiant Spirit, as well.

On November 8th, average Americans proved that America’s Heritage of God and Country is still alive and well in the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the citizens in this country, even those who have dropped out of the workforce.

A President’s role, if he wants to be viewed positively as a world leader, is to work to restore America to a position of strength, both both in foreign and domestic policy.

President-elect Trump understands the mandate that he has been given and is already serving Americans by making deals which will help to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN .

Yesterday, he stood up to those who wish to stop him from fulfilling his Campaign Promises to the American People.

That Press Conference will be spoken of in hushed tones by future generations.

It was the day that the Main Stream Media found out what it is like to be held accountable for their actions.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Trouble at 1600: Flynn’s Gone, But the “Deep State Spies” Remain. Who is “Organizing” Them?

February 15, 2017

cookware-001

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. – Saul Alinsky, “Rules For Radicals”, 1971

Damon Linker, writing for TheWeek.com, reports that…

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down. The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

 Donald J. Trump  ✔ @realDonaldTrump

“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?”

President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It’s weaponized spin.

This doesn’t mean the outcome was wrong. I have no interest in defending Flynn, who appears to be an atrocious manager prone to favoring absurd conspiracy theories over more traditional forms of intelligence. He is just about the last person who should be giving the president advice about foreign policy. And for all I know, Flynn did exactly what the anonymous intelligence community leakers allege — promised the Russian ambassador during the transition that the incoming Trump administration would back off on sanctions proposed by the outgoing Obama administration.

But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

What if Congress won’t act? What if both the Senate and the House of Representatives are held by the same party as the president and members of both chambers are reluctant to cross a newly elected head of the executive branch who enjoys overwhelming approval of his party’s voters? In such a situation — our situation — shouldn’t we hope the deep state will rise up to act responsibly to take down a member of the administration who may have broken the law?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That’s bad. But the answer isn’t to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.

As Eli Lake of Bloomberg News put it in an important article following Flynn’s resignation,

“Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. [Bloomberg]”

Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump.

It is the role of Congress to investigate the president and those who work for him. If Congress resists doing its duty, out of a mixture of self-interest and cowardice, the American people have no choice but to try and hold the government’s feet to the fire, demanding action with phone calls, protests, and, ultimately, votes. That is a democratic response to the failure of democracy.

Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn’t an acceptable alternative.

Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

So, Boys and Girls…here’s the Million Dollar Question: What weasel put these Professional Bureaucrats, who had been in their positions in the previous Administration, up to betraying the 45th President of the United States of America with no regard as to our National Security?

I’ve got three words for ya: PETULANT PRESIDENT PANTYWAIST.

And, that’s not all that the Former Community Organizer and Ex-President of the United States of America is doing to ruin Trump’s Presidency and the country that he was previously sworn to protect right along with it.

In an article published last Saturday in The New York Post, titled, “How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s Presidency”, author Paul Sperry wrote that

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy, it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.

“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”

Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.

Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democratic Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.

Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing, “It’s time to organize and fight . . . We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

“You’re going to see me early next year,” he told his OFA troops after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”

At the beginning of this post is a quote from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, a favorite of the 60s counter culture, which was also on the reading list of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and his First Secretary of State and Failed 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Let’s look at rule #8 – rule #13:

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

It’s very apparent from what is happening during Trump’s Presidency that somebody’s read Alinsky’s book.

In American Politics, as far as anybody can remember, that is still alive and kicking, you have had those of a political ideology who were Pro-American and Gung Ho about all the things that this country stands for. And, on the other side, you had those of a political ideology who criticized everything that America stood for, and still stands for, to this day.

From those who believed that Communism would be great for America back in the 1950s, to those in the 1960’s, who wanted to “tune in, turn on, and drop out”, and spit on our returning Servicemen, to those of the 1970s who were naive pacifists like their President, Jimmy Carter, to those in the 1980s, who were part of the “Me Generation”, to those whom we call “Progressives” (a misnomer) or “Modern Liberals” in our present generation, Including President Barack Hussein Obama and all of his minions, there has always been a minority segment of American Society, who despise everything that this land, which was given us by the Almighty and was fought for and died for by those before us, stands for, while they reap all the benefits of America the Beautiful.

As I have written, during Obama’s two terms as President, America suffered under a “Tyranny of the Minority”.

Obama owes everything that he is to the benevolence and largess of America and her people.

In his tenure as President, he proved that he was president of some of the people, not all of the people.

And, those of us, whom his failed political ideology did not appeal to, had enough of his failed leadership and decided not to go “quietly into that good night” by voting for Donald J. Trump,  instead of Obama’s chosen successor, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So now, it is apparent that Ex-President Obama and his Mentor and Benefactor George Soros are going to try to make average Americans submit to their political ideology of “forced Socialism through Fascism” by sabotaging the Presidency of Donald J. Trump “by any means necessary”.

As I have written before, George Soros needs to be deported…NOW!

As far as the “clean and articulate” Ex-President is concerned…

Can an Ex-President be tried for TREASON?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

The Ninth Court Ruling: Of Judicial Activists, Naïve Liberals, Radical Islamists, and Founding Fathers

February 10, 2017

robart-600-ci “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182 

If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to usurping the Constitutionally-granted Authority of the President of the United States of America.

Foxnews.com reports that

A defiant President Donald Trump tweeted “SEE YOU IN COURT” after a San Francisco federal appeals court Thursday upheld the suspension of his controversial immigration order.

He also warned the security of the nation was at stake and said he expected to easily win the case.

Top presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway told Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days” that she could not specify if Trump meant he would take it to the Supreme Court, but there were “different options” open to the White House.

She added that the ruling “does not affect the merits at all.”

The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to it last week.

But the Justice Department said it is “reviewing the decision and considering its options.” Trump later tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

He also told the White House press pool shortly after the ruling, “it’s a political decision and we’ll see them in court…it is a decision that we will win in my opinion very easily.

Asked how he learned about the decision, Trump replied, “we just saw it, just like you did.”

Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.

The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued.

Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.

However, the court ruling disagreed with that argument:

“In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” the court ruled.

Supporters of Trump’s order argue it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban” and that it has harmed individuals and businesses.

The court ruled that the government has not presented “any evidence” of a sufficient national security threat from the seven countries in question.

“…[The] Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.

The Democratic National Committee called the ruling a “massive blow to the White House.

“Let’s be clear: This is a massive blow to the White House. The court upheld that we do not discriminate based on religion. That is what terrorists do, and what terrorists want us to do,” Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union also praised the ruling.

“The government’s erratic and chaotic attempts to enforce this unconstitutional ban have taken a tremendous toll on innocent individuals, our country’s values, and our standing in the world,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Projects, said in a statement. “We will keep fighting this un-American executive order until it is permanently dismantled.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, called on Trump to abandon the order entirely.

“President Trump ought to see the handwriting on the wall that his executive order is unconstitutional. He should abandon this proposal, roll up his sleeves and come up with a real, bipartisan plan to keep us safe,” he said.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations. If the Constitution does not enact Herbert Spencer’s “”A Theory of Justice”.

This action by the 9th Circuit Court proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.

And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?

The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.

And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.

Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Libs’ National Temper Tantrum Continues…NEWSFLASH: Donald Trump is STILL the President

January 31, 2017

media-war-600-laThe Liberal Sycophants of the Main Stream Media attacked President Donald J. Trump’s Press Secretary once again during his daily press briefing. And, once again, Spicer proved to be up to the task.

Foxnews.com reports that

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused the media Monday of overplaying and misreporting on a range of fresh administration controversies — specifically describing claims of a shakeup at the National Security Council as “utter nonsense.” 

“There’s been a lot of misreporting,” Spicer said.

The press briefing on Monday saw a return to a more combative style for Spicer. While he spent much of the briefing chiding the media over their description of President Trump’s executive order on immigration, he opened with a point-by-point rebuttal — complete with visual aids — to critical reports about a separate action signed Saturday that restructures the NSC, a key advisory body. 

Those reports claimed Trump had effectively downgraded the roles of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence, while promoting adviser Steve Bannon to the principals committee – which is the National Security Council, only without the president.

The New York Times had labeled Bannon’s role “a startling elevation of a political adviser” and said it put him at the same level as National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. The Times also said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI chief are only to join the principals committee when directly affected.

Spicer shot back, saying, “The idea that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and DNI are being downgraded or removed is utter nonsense.”

In making his point, he presented a related 2001 memo by President George W. Bush and a related 2009 memo by President Barack Obama, and argued the relevant passages were virtually the same. 

As for Bannon’s elevation, Spicer also downplayed its significance and noted that former Obama adviser David Axelrod had attended NSC meetings as well, though had not been given a formal promotion to the role.

“David Axelrod walked in and out of NSC meetings,” he said. “What this shows is that this administration is being rather transparent.”

He also suggested Bannon “won’t be at every meeting.” He added, “He’ll come in and out as needed, but we wanted to be up front about it.”

Spicer also reacted to a tweet by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who had asked where the role of the CIA was in the memo. Spicer noted there was no mention of the CIA in Obama’s 2009 memo either. However, he said Trump had decided to amend his memo to add CIA Director Mike Pompeo to the top circle of national security advisers

Since taking the podium for the first time last week, Spicer has made a point to call out what the administration believes to be inaccurate or biased reporting. On Monday, he also doubled down on the administration’s defense of the controversial order suspending the refugee program and entry to the U.S. for travelers from certain countries. Spicer said it was one of a number of steps “to make sure that this country is as safe as it can be and that we’re ahead of every threat.”

Spicer further was asked to comment on a report in The Washington Post that said dozens of State Department staffers are ready to sign a memo opposing Trump’s travel restrictions, saying they are poorly conceived and against American values.

Spicer seemed unfazed by the memo: “I think that they should either get with the program or they can go,” he said. “This is about the safety of America.” 

He also addressed the controversy surrounding a statement released by the White House on Holocaust Remembrance Day – which omitted any specific reference to Jewish people despite them being the overwhelming majority of victims in the genocide.

“By and large he’s been praised for it,” Spicer said of the statement. He said Trump was recognizing the suffering of those who endured the Holocaust, “whether they were Jews, Gypsies, gays, [people with a] disability, priests.”

“The idea that you’re nitpicking a statement that sought to remember this tragic event that occurred and the people who died in it is just ridiculous,” he said. 

The Republican Jewish Coalition, among other groups, called the omission “unfortunate.”

The Main Stream Media remain the Vanguard of the National Temper Tantrum which America has witnessed from Modern Liberals since Donald J. Trump was elected the President of the United States of America.

The Liberal Democrats just cannot come to grips that their “perfect” candidate was, in fact, a lousy pick and a hateful, inept, downright mean individual whom they never should have nominated as their Presidential Choice.

One of their arguments has been that Trump did not win the Popular Vote, a “fact” which is suspicious at best and one which is being investigated even as I write this post, with illegal aliens have voted already being discovered in California.

As I have stated before,  the Electoral College was put in place to prevent what the Liberals are still trying to accomplish, which is choosing a President based on the favored Political Ideology of isolated Metropolitan Areas with dense populations.

The Democrats, as a result of their own regional bias toward the major metropolitan areas on the East and West Coasts, which has been obvious to average Americans for the last several decades, effectively divorced themselves from the people whom they claimed in every previous election cycle to “love”…Average Working Class Americans.

To put it in Marital Terms, Average Working Class Americans and the Democratic Party are no longer “evenly yoked”.

The Democrats became the party of the “Upper Crust” and Special Interest Groups, who look down their noses at Americans who live here in “Flyover Country”.

The Democrats assumed, after reading their own press clippings, that all Americans wanted the Progressive/Marxist Political Ideology and style of governance which Barack Hussein Obama practiced during his time as President.

Well, we all know what assuming does, don’t we, boys and girls?

The American People overthrew the “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we have suffered under for the last 8 years on November 8th.

An article, recently written by a member of the Main Stream Media, strategically placed the word “mandate”, which Vice-President Mike Pence used while speaking about President Trump, in quotes, as a form of derision.

The Oxford Dictionaries define the word “mandate” as

the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.

Guess what, all of you “Special Snowflakes” who still throwing a National Temper Tantrum?

Trump won! Therefore, he does have a mandate.

It is to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Enjoy the ride.

I dedicate the following song which I have written to each and every one of you.

AND, DONALD TRUMP IS STILL THE PRESIDENT  

(sung to the tune of “The Times They Are Changing”)

Listen to me, you Liberals who are throwing a fit
On November the 8th your egos took a hit
Americans aren’t fooled yet you refuse to admit

Your political party has just failed you
It’s time you grew up, and go ahead and submit
Because Donald Trump is still the President.

Hey, Congressmen and Senators way up on the Hill
There’s a new Boss in town, this is no fire drill
Both Republicans and Dems should extend their goodwill

It won’t be business as usual
So you better get movin’ up in your anthill

Because Donald Trump is still the President.

Yes, Donald Trump is still the President.

Hey, MSM and George Soros, too
You can save your breath, America’s not listening to you
Try as you might, you won’t change our worldview

Americans just simply were outraged
So we took back our country after an 8-year miscue

And, Donald Trump is still the President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Deport Soros Now! Soros Funded Saturday’s “Women’s March”…Determined to Depose President Trump

January 23, 2017

untitled-123

More and more information is coming out about last Saturday’s “Women’s March on Washington”…and it ain’t pretty.

Not only were the women, as they proclaimed themselves, “nasty”, but the fascist behind the curtain is, as well.

Asri Q. Normani of The New York Times reports  that

In the pre-dawn darkness of today’s presidential inauguration day, I faced a choice, as a lifelong liberal feminist who voted for Donald Trump for president: lace up my pink Nike sneakers to step forward and take the DC Metro into the nation’s capital for the inauguration of America’s new president, or wait and go tomorrow to the after-party, dubbed the “Women’s March on Washington”?

 The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

It’s an idea that I, a liberal feminist, would embrace. But I know — and most of America knows — that the organizers of the march haven’t put into their manifesto: the march really isn’t a “women’s march.” It’s a march for women who are anti-Trump. 

As someone who voted for Trump, I don’t feel welcome, nor do many other women who reject the liberal identity-politics that is the core underpinnings of the march, so far, making white women feel unwelcome, nixing women who oppose abortion and hijacking the agenda. 

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UniteWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I pored through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

I found out: plenty.

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.  

On the issues I care about as a Muslim, the “Women’s March,” unfortunately, has taken a stand on the side of partisan politics that has obfuscated the issues of Islamic extremism over the eight years of the Obama administration. “Women’s March” partners include the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only deflected on issues of Islamic extremism post-9/11, but opposes Muslim reforms that would allow women to be prayer leaders and pray in the front of mosques, without wearing headscarves as symbols of chastity. Partners also include the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which wrongly designated Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, an “anti-Muslim extremist” in a biased report released before the election. The SPLC confirmed to me that Soros funded its “anti-Muslim extremists” report targeting Nawaz. (Ironically, CAIR also opposes abortions, but its leader still has a key speaking role.)

Another Soros grantee and march “partner” is the Arab-American Association of New York, whose executive director, Linda Sarsour, is a march co-chair. When I co-wrote a piece, arguing that Muslim women don’t have to wear headscarves as a symbol of “modesty,” she attacked the coauthor and me as “fringe.” 

Earlier, at least 33 of the 100 “women of color,” who initially protested the Trump election in street protests, worked at organizations that receive Soros funding, in part for “black-brown” activism. Of course, Soros is an “ideological philanthropist,” whose interests align with many of these groups, but he is also a significant political donor. In Davos, he told reporters that Trump is a “would-be dictator.”

A spokeswoman for Soros’s Open Society Foundations, said in a statement, “There have been many false reports about George Soros and the Open Society Foundations funding protests in the wake of the U.S. presidential elections. There is no truth to these reports.” She added, “We support a wide range of organizations — including those that support women and minorities who have historically been denied equal rights. Many of whom are concerned about what policy changes may lie ahead. We are proud of their work. We of course support the right of all Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government—a vital, and constitutionally safeguarded, pillar of a functioning democracy.”

Much like post-election protests, which included a sign, “Kill Trump,” were not  “spontaneous,” as reported by some media outlets, the “Women’s March” is an extension of strategic identity politics that has so fractured America today, from campuses to communities. On the left or the right, it’s wrong. But, with the inauguration, we know the politics. With the march, “women” have been appropriated for a clearly anti-Trump day. When I shared my thoughts with her, my yoga studio owner said it was “sad” the march’s organizers masked their politics. “I want love for everyone,” she said. 

The left’s fierce identity politics and its failure on Islamic extremism lost my vote this past election, and so, as the dawn’s first light breaks through the darkness of the morning as I write, I make my decision: I’ll lace up my pink Nikes and head to the inauguration, skipping the “Women’s March” that doesn’t have a place for women like me.

This past weekend, every Liberal who surfs the web and all of those who troll on Facebook, have been lauding Saturday’s march as being, like Ms. Normani wrote, “Spontaneous”.

As I wrote yesterday, it was indeed not spontaneous and again, as Ms. Normani wrote, one of its organizers and the march’s co-chair, was the Radical Islamist, Linda Sarsour.

And, as the writer related, the one pulling the strings behind this well-planned Inaugural Weekend Disruption was the Puppetmaster himself, George Soros.

Soros has been trying to overthrow the will of the American People for quite a while, now.

And, he really kicked it into gear after Trump was elected President.

According to The Free Thought Project,

Washington, D.C. – Billionaire globalist financier George Soros’ MoveOn.org has been revealed to be a driving force behind the organizing of nationwide protests against the election of Donald Trump — exposing the protests to largely be an organized, top-down operation — and not an organic movement of concerned Americans taking to the streets as reported by the mainstream media.

Wednesday saw protests in the streets of at least 10 major U.S. cities. Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D.C., Portland, Ore., St. Paul, Minn., Seattle, and several other cities saw protests, according to USA Today.

In light of the protests and rioting that have transpired since the election of Trump, a closer analysis of the dynamic at play is warranted to gauge whether it’s an organic grassroots movement, or something much more organized, sophisticated and potentially dangerous.

Soros’ affiliated organization MoveOn.org released the following press release yesterday afternoon:

“Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.”

Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

Now come reports from various protest locations that reveal a substantially coordinated effort, and not the organic grassroots showing by concerned Americans, as the mainstream media is reporting. Photos from Austin, Texas reveal a line of busses the “protestors” arrived in, making their appearance seem substantially less than organic – with a direct implication of being strategically orchestrated

For those of you who are unfamiliar with them, MoveOn.org was formed in 1998 as a supposedly “bipartisan e-mail group” in order to send a petition to Congress to “move on” past the planned  impeachment of President Clinton. It rose to national prominence for its strong disapproval of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

A Liberal Political Group based in the United States, MoveOn.org has played the role of a National Community Organizer and Democratic Propaganda Machine, whose “foot soldiers”, paid and unpaid, are estimated to number over 2,000,000. The group’s publicly stated mission was to promote “grassroots advocacy” through various political activities including running a PAC, voter registration drives, and political advertising (especially in swing states).

It’s covert mission is more nefarious.

MoveOn.org supported the Democratic nominees for the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and played a part in the failed attempt to stop George W. Bush’s re-election effort, raising millions of dollars for Democratic candidates. It is one of several 527 committees who supported John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in the 2004 U.S. presidential election; others include America Coming Together and the Media Fund.

Like numerous other Far Left Political Organizations, a major funder of MoveOn is Former Nazi Collaborator and Hedge Fund Billionaire, George Soros.

George Soros and a partner ponied up $5 million to MoveOn.org, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions in the failed attempt to oust President George W. Bush.

Now, in 2016, after funding the election of the worst United States President in History, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the “Evil Puppetmaster” is financing the racist movement known as Black Lives Matter, which during his Presidential Campaign, joined with MoveOn.org, in an effort to violate the First Amendment Rights of Donald J. Trump and to prevent him from becoming President of the United States of America.

Soros and his minions failed.

Now, they are attempting to exact their revenge through this series of orchestrated marches featuring paid participants.

It should be noted that, according to various sources, during the Nazi Occupation of Hungary in the 1940s, Soros reported his own countrymen to the Nazis (National Socialist Party of Germany), facilitating their removal via “the long train ride from which very few ever returned”.

Soros began his modern “philanthropic activity” in 1979, establishing the Open Society Foundations in 1984. These “foundations” (i.e., political organizations), fund a range of global initiatives “to advance justice, education, public health, business development and independent media.”

It is through this “philanthropic activity” that Soros has funded the ongoing “civil unrest”, the seeds of which were planted in Ferguson, Missouri.

An article published by the Washington Times, on January 14, 2015, titled “George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action”, reporter Kelly Riddell went into detail about Soros’ “Community Organizing”…

… Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.

The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.

“Our DNA includes a belief that having people participate in government is indispensable to living in a more just, inclusive, democratic society,” said Kenneth Zimmerman, director of Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, in an interview with The Washington Times. “Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.”

…Colorlines is an online news site that focuses on race issues and is published by Race Forward, a group that received $200,000 from Mr. Soros’s foundation in 2011. Colorlines has published tirelessly on the activities in Ferguson and heavily promoted the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and activities.

…Mr. Soros gave $5.4 million to Ferguson and Staten Island grass-roots efforts last year to help “further police reform, accountability and public transparency,” the Open Society Foundations said in a blog post in December. About half of those funds were earmarked to Ferguson, with the money primarily going to OBS and MORE, the foundation said.

So, why is the “Evil Puppetmaster” pouring so much into this Manufactured “Shout  Trump Down” Movement?

Soros is merely protecting his investment.

Per the Chicago Tribune,

Over the past few years, Soros’ charities have given between $1.5 million and $6 million to the Clinton Foundation. Soros’s biggest contribution this year is a total of $7 million to Priorities USA, the main super-PAC supporting Clinton. Another $1 million went to American Bridge, an opposition-research group. And last week [actually months ago], he announced he was putting $5 million into a new super-PAC known as Immigrant Voters Win. The group is part of a coordinated $15 million voter-turnout effort, first reported in the New York Times, that is targeting Latinos and immigrants in Colorado, Nevada and Florida.

As I have previously written, I firmly believe that America is now fighting a new war against fascism.

It’s not a war that is being fought with guns and bullets, But instead with state referendums, Congressional votes, Executive Orders, judicial activism, and FAR Left-sponsored and organized Political Activists.

And, it’s not our Brightest and Best who are dying on this field of battle, but rather, it is our Constitutional Freedoms which are dying an ignoble death, pierced by the arrows of socialism and political correctness.

Whether Soros and his paid-off “Special Snowflakes” like him or not, does not matter.

Donald J. Trump was legally elected as the next President of the United States of America.

These repeated attempts to circumvent the will of the American People though these Orchestrated protests is an exercise in intimidation that has not been seen since the days of the Russian Revolution and Germany’s National Sociality Party.

Gorge Soros will not stop until President Trump and the American Values which he represents have been eliminated for the National Scene and we are returned to the rule of a figurehead of his choice and the anti=-America Culture which Soros attempted to install during the reign of Barack Hussein Obama.

Soros almost bankrupted Great Britain.  In fact, he is well-known and despised in several European Nations for his Machiavellian Machinations.

And now, in desperation after the loss of his next Presidential Puppet, Soros is throwing caution to the wind and becoming more overtly involved in the attempt to depose President Trump than ever before.

He is a traitorous, evil kingmaker who needs to be deported immediately for the continued strength and stability of our Sovereign Nation.

Of course, do not attempt to tell a Modern American Liberal that.

After all, it’s not Fascism when they do it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

President-elect Trump Receives Thunderous Ovation at Army-Navy Game. Obama No Shows. I’m Shocked.

December 11, 2016

Our military has to be strengthened. Our vets have to be taken care of. – President-elect Donald J. Trump 

Foxnews.com reports that

Donald Trump on Saturday at the annual Army-Navy football game praised the athletes on the field and the service academies’ students in the stands whom he’ll soon command as president, calling them “amazing people.”

“You don’t see this kind of spirit everywhere,” Trump, the Republican president-elect, said during halftime of the game in Baltimore. “Just amazing people.”

He also said the experience of becoming president and knowing he would lead such great men and women was “humbling” and also a “great honor and responsibility.”

“They want to be strong,” Trump said.

Trump otherwise largely kept the conversation with the CBS commentators light and chatty, going along with the idea of making Vern Lundquist the U.S. ambassador to Sweden.

“I couldn’t do better,” he said. “I think you could (pass Senate confirmation.) I think Sweden would be very happy.”

He also talked briefly about owning the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League and called Super Bowl MVP New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath a “great star.”

Trump spent the first half of the game in the box of David Urban, a West Point graduate and Republican adviser. He spent the second half in the box of retired Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, a graduate of Annapolis and Fox News contributor.

A Trump transition official said before kickoff that Trump would not formally switch sides at halftime in the traditional symbol of commander-in-chief neutrality because he is not the sitting president.

Trump was expected at the game to join several advisers, including incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior adviser Steve Bannon.

Trump is a 1964 graduate of the New York Military Academy, near West Point, in upstate New York.

What a refreshing change.

Have you ever noticed that when United States President Barack Hussein Obama enters a room to address a group of the United States Armed Forces, a silence falls over those assembled?

Well… There’s a reason for that.

They don’t like him.

In 2015, The Military Times reported that

In his first term, President Obama oversaw repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Then he broke with one of the military’s most deeply rooted traditions and vowed to lift the ban on women serving in combat.

And the commander in chief has aggressively sought to change military culture by cracking down on sexual assault and sexual harassment, problems that for years were underreported or overlooked.

Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As Commander-in-Chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon’s personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.

For Obama’s supporters, the cultural changes he’s overseeing are on a level with President Truman’s 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality.

But to his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline.

And for the troops in today’s career force, the wave of changes to deep-seated policies and attitudes can be jarring.

“It’s a very different Army than the one I came in to,” said Sgt. 1st Class Eric Rexilius, who joined the Army 21 years ago and is now a helicopter repairman at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state.

“I personally don’t think it’s a bad change,” he said — while acknowledging that among his cohort of older career soldiers, “I’m probably a minority.”

“For most of my peers,” Rexilius said, “it makes them uncomfortable because it’s not what they are used to.”

The long-term effects of Obama’s social policies on the military remain unknown. But one thing is clear: He is a deeper unpopular commander in chief among the troops.

According to a Military Times survey of almost 2,300 active-duty service members, Obama’s popularity — never high to begin with — has crumbled, falling from 35 percent in 2009 to just 15 percent this year, while his disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent from 40 percent over that time.

Back on November 12, 2007, then-Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) proclaimed,

I’ll be a President who ensures that America serves our men and women in uniform as well as they’ve served us, and that’s why I’m proud to have the support of these veterans advising me on the issues facing our troops and veterans.

After seven years of an Administration that has stretched our military to the breaking point, ignored deplorable conditions at some VA hospitals, and neglected the planning and preparation necessary to care for our returning heroes, America’s veterans deserve a President who will fight for them not just when it’s easy or convenient, but every hour of every day for the next four years.

An ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure.

Obama is our Armed Forces Commander in-Chief (Thank God, that is about to change). The responsibility for everything that happens to the men and women serving in our armed forces, in which some part of our federal government is involved, both during and after their service, falls on his shoulders and his alone.

Through his treatment of our Heroes as “ancillary” servants to be used for social experimentation and budget cutting, when he wants to use their money to further his socialization of America, Obama has placed our Armed Forces in an untenable situation.

Distinguished American Veteran, Former United States Representative Lt. Col. Allen B. West once wrote the following, concerning Obama’s treatment of our Armed Forces:

Barack Hussein Obama cannot be seen as a Commander-in-Chief and I will never refer to him that way. His fundamental transformation of America means weakening our nation and leaving our Republic less secure. I can just imagine how appreciative and elated his Muslim Brotherhood friends are at this point, to include Turkey’s President Erdogan, as well as the mad mullahs in Iran. 

Spot on.

I remember my ex-brother-in-law, Dave. My late step-sister met him at the USO in Memphis during the Vietnam War. David was a Polish Catholic from outside of Detroit, a Navy guy who received his training in the computers of the day, while in service to our country. When he got out, they got married and moved to Dearborn (now Dearbornistan), Michigan, where he got a job with Burroughs. I remember Dave, because he was always good to me, even though I was just a runt kid, 15 years younger than him. I remember him cleaning his service rifle, sitting on the living room floor of our house, and, making sure it was empty, allowing me to to hold it. At the time,I thought that was the coolest thing I had ever done.

I also remember John. John was a friend of my sister’s, who stayed with us, because of problems at home. As I have related before, my folks were the ones whom all my sister’s friends would talk to when they had trouble at home. John was great guy, as well, who wound up enlisting and serving in that “crazy Asian War”, as Kenny Rogers and Mel Tillis once referred to it in song.

I have related before about my own Daddy and my Uncles, and their service in World War II. I have also had friends that served over the years, and one who is still serving in the Air National Guard.

All of these men were/are Patriots. They enlisted out of duty to God and Country.

Our Brightest and Best, who wear the uniform today, are no less dedicated. They deserve to be treated with respect, not as pawns in a game of political expediency, whose rules including social experimentation, political correctness, and blatant disrespect by the Commander-in-Chief.

The greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, once said,

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

Reagan was a realist. He realized that, as President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt once advised, the best way to keep America safe, is to “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

We have suffered for 8 long years under a president who speaks like a wuss and carries a feather pillow, a Mexican Flag, and a prayer rug.

And, you wonder why those “wonderful people” erupted in appreciation for our President-elect, Donald J. Trump?

They were simply happy that they will once again have a Commander-in-Chief who appreciates them.

Until He Comes,

KJ