Posts Tagged ‘America’

Brexit and the 2016 Presidential Election: Reclaiming Sovereignty

June 24, 2016

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

Breitbart.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per Fox News, Trump also said,

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

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

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

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

According to BBC News,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Liberal Hypocrisy: While Liberal “Entertainers” Try to Dictate What is “Morally Right” in NC, Muslims Prepare to Build an Islamic Museum on Ground Zero In NYC

May 21, 2016

th (70)Today’s Modern American Liberals, from President Barack Hussein Obama to the all-too-common Internet Troll, are continuing to fiddle around with “Gender Identity Rights”, while our nation, like Ancient Rome, burns.

CNSNews.com reports that

The pop group Maroon 5 on Friday joined the list of entertainers canceling appearances in North Carolina because of its law that denies anti-discrimination protections and dictates which restrooms transgender people can use.”This was a difficult decision for us to make as a band. We don’t want to penalize our fans in North Carolina by not performing for them, but in the end it comes down to what we feel is morally right,” the group said on its website.

The band led by Adam Levine, who doubles as a celebrity musician-coach on NBC’s “The Voice,” won’t appear Sept. 11 at Time Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte or Sept. 12 at PNC Arena in Raleigh.

A spokesman for Republican Gov. Pat McCrory in his race against Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, who opposes the law, responded by email. Spokesman Ricky Diaz said hundreds of performances, including one by Beyonce, have taken place in North Carolina since the law passed in March. Maroon 5 is only hurting its fans by “hypocritically targeting North Carolina for selective outrage,” noting that the group has not canceled a concert in Russia.

Beyonce did perform at N.C. State University in Raleigh, but only after she promoted the efforts of those trying to get the law reversed. She posted an image of herself wearing Equality NC’s “Y’all Means All” T-shirt and posted a statement supporting equality and encouraging donations to the group. “We think it is important for us to bring attention to those who are committed to being good and carrying on the message of equality in this core of controversy,” her statement read.

Other major performers pulling out of North Carolina include Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Pearl Jam, Itzhak Perlman and Ringo Starr. Other performers, including Cyndi Lauper and the comedian Louis C.K., said they would donate proceeds from their shows to groups fighting the law known as HB2. The NBA also could move the 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte.

“Morally right?” Are you kidding me?

To paraphrase Val Kilmer, as Doc Holliday in the great movie “Tombstone”,

Liberal Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

While Modern American Liberals, the New Pharisees, piously attempt to tell average Americans that out Traditional American Morals and Values, based on the Christian Faith of our Founding Fathers is somehow bigoted and restrictive to those who back in the 1980s, were listed in Collegiate Sociology Books as “Sexual deviants”, they continue to embrace and champion a political ideology, masquerading as a faith, which actually does restrict and even murders Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals, and Transgenders.

In the City That Never Sleeps, “so nice they said it twice”, the Liberals in charge there, including New York City’s Communist Mayor Bill DeBlasio, are about to heap the ultimate insult on the over 3,000 Americans who were savagely murdered by Islamic Terrorists on September 11, 2001 and their family and friends who survive them.

The New York Post reports that

The developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down “Sharia-compliant financing” for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said Wednesday.

The $174 million dollar project features a three-story Islamic cultural museum at 51 Park Place and 48 high-end residential condos in a 43-story tower at 45 Park Place in the Financial District.

The “Sharia-compliant” financing means the deal complies with complex Islamic laws that govern lending and borrowing, including a prohibition against accepting interest or fees for loans.

Manhattan developer Sharif El-Gamal’s 2010 plan for a 15-story Islamic cultural center sparked protests from opponents who dubbed it the “Ground Zero Mosque,” although it was four blocks away.

He abandoned that plan in 2011 and there has been little apparent opposition to the smaller museum or the development itself.

The project now includes two multi-story penthouses on the top four floors along with a pool, gym and kids’ playroom.

The deal, finalized Tuesday, was funded by the London branch of Malayan Banking Berhad.

The project was designed by Michel Abboud of SOMA Architects, along with Ismael Leyva Architects, and will include a 2,821 square-foot public plaza, green space and a retail shop.

Why are NYC politicians behind this desecration of hallowed ground?  Why are they bending over backwards to allow the Muslims a symbolic propaganda triumph that will be heard around the world?  And if it isn’t a symbolic “holy” mission of Islamic extremist propaganda, why are they building on Ground Zero, the site of the worst Terrorist attack ever on American soil?

And…why are Obama and his Liberal minions in the Main Stream Media and Entertainment, so adamant about allowing Dress-wearing Johnny to use Women and Girls Public Restrooms, as the next step in advancing “LGBT Rights”, while embracing their “Islamic Friends, who kill  people of these “alternate lifestyles”?

First off…while I have met some very nice American Muslims, I have also been inside a mosque where I was looked at as if they wanted to take a scimitar to my neck.

If Moderate Muslims are not behind their radical brethren’s eternal jihad against us infidels, they need to get their mugs in front of the cable news networks’ TV cameras and say so…because all I see representing them when I turn on the news, are the abrasive members of CAIR, blaming America for all the world’s troubles.

Which is ironic, because the President of the United States of America is demonstrably Islam’s biggest supporter in this country, as so aptly proven by his refusal to participate in the March Against Radical Islam, led by 50 World Leaders, held Paris France after the horrible Islamic Terrorist attack there.

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

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge liberals on this fact, they try to equate radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

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

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 70-75% 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.

As a Lifeway Survey taken in 2014  showed, older Americans, such as myself, actually see radical Islam and Sharia law for what it is.

Why is that?

I believe that it is because of the old adage,

With age comes wisdom.

Older Americans can remember when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Radical Mullahs took over the nation, holding Americans hostage, under the ineffectual American President Jimmy Carter, for 144 days.

The only reason that those hostages were not killed and were let go, was the inauguration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The only thing that these barbarians fear is strength, as the leader of Jordan has demonstrated.

Older Americans were raised differently than this current generation, for the most part. We were raised to understand Christianity’s place, as the stitching, in the fabric of our nation.

As I wrote earlier, American Christianity is a legacy which our fathers and their fathers, bequeathed to us, along with the courage to stand up for our beliefs.

Our Founding Documents and our System of Law are based on our Judeo-Christian Beliefs.

This latest generation, seems to be more interested in giving Dress-wearing Johnny his perceived “Constitutional Right” to “drop trou” in the company of our wives, daughters, and daughters-in-law in public and school restrooms and locker rooms, or watching a woman who takes a bath in fruit loops, interviewing the President of the United States, than they are about what is actually happening in our nation as related to our Sovereignty and our very lives.

This generation’s predilection for situational ethics, relative morality, and all-encompassing political correctness, is reminiscent of the cattle who are led up the ramp to the slaughter house.

They go through their lives, content in their ignorance, until the blade falls.

Unfortunately, this is the generation that we are leaving our country to.

It is time for them to wake up, grow up, and stand up…before it’s too late.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“First Post-Racial President” Tells Black College Students, “Racism Persists. Inequality Persists,”. Dr. King Weeps.

May 8, 2016

untitled (57)The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, whom, upon election to that office, was lauded as the “First Post-Racial President”, yesterday, while speaking to black American College Students, once again, intentionally, spoke about Racial Division, instead of American Cohesiveness.

Yahoo News reports that

Barack Obama visited a predominantly black college Saturday, making the case that the last decades and his presidency had brought substantial improvements for African-Americans.

Acknowledging that more needs to be done to reduce inequality, Obama took head-on the issue of race relations that have sometimes appeared to fester under his administration.

Since Obama came to office in 2009 as the first African American president, a strain of opposition to him has emerged that often appears racially driven.

Meanwhile, cities from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland have exploded amid the killing of young black men at the hands of white police officers.

African-American men are still far more likely to have served time in jail and to earn less than their white peers.

But Obama insisted progress had been made. “America is by almost every measure better than it was when I graduated from college,” he said, looking back to 1983.

“Race relations are better since I graduated. That’s the truth. No, my election did not create a post-racial society, but the election itself and the subsequent one — because the first one, folks might have made a mistake… was just one indicator of how attitudes have changed.”

“Racism persists. Inequality persists,” he told graduating students at Washington’s Howard University, while offering a litany of examples of how things had changed for the better.

“When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T,” the burly, Mohawk-wearing former professional wrestler. “Rap and hip-hop were counter-culture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyonce runs the world.”

“We’re no longer entertainers, we’re producers, studio executives. No longer small-business owners, we’re CEOs, we’re mayors, representatives, presidents of the United States.”

In a nod to the lingering problems that have spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, Obama insisted that anger at injustice was not enough.

“You have to go through life with more than just passion for change. You need a strategy.

“I’ll repeat that. I want you to have passion [but] you have to have a strategy. Not just awareness but action. Not just hashtags but votes. You see, change requires more than righteous anger.”

There was also a call for young black graduates to put themselves in the minds of others, police officers who may have bias or “the middle-aged white guy” who “you may think has all the advantages, but over the last several decades has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change and feels powerless to stop it.”

“You got to get in his head, too,” he said.

Amid an election that has seen millions of white Republican voters embrace Donald Trump’s populist message, Obama tried to offer a strategy.

“There’s been a trend around the country of trying to get colleges to disinvite speakers with a different point of view or disrupt a politician’s rally. Don’t do that. No matter how ridiculous or offensive.”

“My grandmother used to tell me, every time a fool speaks, they are just advertising their own ignorance.

“Let them talk.”

Now, over one-third of the way into his seventh and last (Thank God) year in office, it is quite apparent that, Barack Hussein Obama, the man who was billed as our first “Post-Racial President”, has done nothing but divide America even further, along Racial Lines.

According to gallup.com,

More than a third (35%) of Americans now say they are worried “a great deal” about race relations in the U.S. — which is higher than at any time since Gallup first asked the question in 2001. The percentage who are worried a great deal rose seven percentage points in the past year and has more than doubled in the past two years.

Concern about race relations in the U.S. has risen during an 18-month period marked by a series of deaths of unarmed blacks at the hands of police officers. These deaths sparked major, sometimes violent, protests and fueled the nationwide rise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement.

Democrats, Liberals More Worried Than Republicans, Conservatives

Concern about race relations over the past two years has increased among Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and blacks and whites. But the gap between the groups who were already most worried before 2015 — Democrats, liberals and blacks — and those less worried has not shrunk, and in some cases has widened. Of particular note is the 53% to 27% “worried” gap between blacks and whites, up from the 31% to 14% gap between blacks and whites in the 2012-2014 combined polls.

Race Relations Low on the List of Major Concerns

Prior to 2015, race relations was much less of a concern to Americans, relative to other national issues. In almost every one of 13 polls from 2001 to 2014, Americans were significantly less likely to be worried about race relations than about any of the other dozen or so issues tested. Even this year, though the percentage concerned is up, race relations still ranks near the bottom of the list of concerns, along with energy, climate change and illegal immigration. None of the four elicited a great deal of concern from more than 37% (illegal immigration) of the public, compared with more than 50% for healthcare, the economy, and crime and violence.

Bottom Line

Race relations may not worry as many Americans as do issues such as the economy, affordable healthcare or crime, but Gallup’s polling clearly shows that racial tensions over the past few years have significantly affected public opinion.

Not only are far more Americans — no matter their race or political beliefs — worried about race relations, Americans have also become less satisfied with the way blacks are treated and more likely to list race relations as the most important problem the nation faces.

The rising concern about race relations as the nation’s first black president completes his last year in office is a retreat from the optimism that swept the country in the immediate aftermath of President Barack Obama’s first election win in 2008. A Gallup poll one night after Obama won found that seven in 10 Americans believed race relations would improve because of his victory.

In fact, a mid-2015 Gallup poll indicated that treatment of blacks had not worsened during Obama’s time in office, even while concerns about race relations and treatment of blacks were rising. However, the poll also did not show any significant lessening of perceived racial discrimination among blacks.

In the current presidential election cycle, both conservatives and liberals have attacked Republican front-runner Donald Trump for his campaign’s racist overtones, and conservative pundits are already claiming that history will conclude the Obama presidency worsened race relations. These factors, along with the ever-growing number of racial protests on college campuses and elsewhere, make it unlikely that Americans’ concerns about race relations will diminish in 2016.

Gallup is, of course, a Liberal Organization. However, it is usually the most accurate among the pollsters.

The reference in their article concerning Donald Trump, however, belies a SurveyUSA Poll last September, in which 25% of Black Americans polled, stated that they would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

But, I digress…

Ever since Obama got into office, all I have heard from him is the Rhetoric of Racial Division and Class Warfare.

It reminds me of all the historical conflicts which I used to read about, during the course in college which I took, titled “The Rhetoric of Social Protest“.

Karl Marx knew long ago that all you needed to do to touch the heart of the common man was to convince him of a shared struggle.

Vladimir Lenin took this a step further, by using the concept of a shared struggle to convince the Bolsheviks to help him overthrow the Czar of Russia and murder him and his family during the Russian Revolution.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but fiery rhetoric spoken by a national leader has consequences.

President Barack Hussein Obama is as responsible for what has happened to Race Relations in America, as any thug wannabe in any city.

However, he is not alone in his responsibility.

Every race-baiter, local & national, who have fanned the flames of racial hatred, has the blood of any innocent person, police and civilians alike, slain in the name of Racial Division.

Do you remember when one half of the “Justice Brothers”, the “Reverend” Al Sharpton, led a march in New York City, capitalizing on the deaths of two of Michael Brown and Earl Garner?

During the march, the protesters chanted

What do we want? Dead Cops!

Somehow, America’s Professional Race-Baiters, from the Community Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, on down, twisted the facts to make it America’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Fault that two thugs got themselves killed in altercations with police officers.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

President Ronald Reagan once said,

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Compare it to these words:

It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history. – President Barack Hussein Obama, 7/19/2014

President Obama, for his own political reasons, reinforces, at every opportunity, the self-fulfilling prophecy that the Black Community is still shackled and limited in their freedom.

Which is an ironic statement, considering, as a Black man, that he presently holds the position of President of the most powerful country on the face of the Earth.

On November 25th of 2014, The Daily Caller reported that

Retired neurosurgeon and potential GOP 2016 candidate Ben Carson believes race relations in America, as a whole, have “gotten worse” under President Barack Obama’s leadership, saying he should take a ”balanced, objective look at things” instead of invoking the race card.

Carson made the comments to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday night.

“I actually believe that things were better before this president was elected,” Carson told Hewitt, “and I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race.”

“Can you explain more? What do you mean by that?” asked Hewitt. “How did they get worse, and how did he contribute to it?”

“Well, for instance, in the incident with Henry Louis Gates, Skip Gates and him calling out the police, and you know, how they always do this kind of thing, and the Trayvon Martin case, you know, if I had a son, this is what he would look like, rather than trying to take the balanced, objective look at things, and then, you know, what’s happened here,” responded Carson.

“And then the way, which really irritates me to some degree, the way he and a bunch of progressives manipulate, particularly minority communities, to make them feel that they are victims. And of course if you think you’re a victim, you are a victim,” Carson continued.

Back in High School, during the 1974-1975 school year, I was a Sophomore Commissioner on the Student Council with a fellow named James. James was one of those students who were bused to our school. He went on to play football and run track. More importantly, James went on to have a 4.5 GPA, graduate high school as Valedictorian, make a 32 on his ACT, and receive a full scholarship to Harvard, and later, went on to Johns Hopkins Medical School. James worked hard and he achieved.

Millions of other Black Americans have, as well.

The current race-baiting and racially-based pandering by the President, his Administration, and all those who profit from it, locally and nationally, dishonors those who have achieved and has constrained those who might otherwise achieve.

I remember, as a 9 year old in Memphis, Tennessee, watching my parents’ black and white television as the National Guard was called into action on the night that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

I remember after that Civil Defense Announcement that President Lyndon Johnson come on national television to make the announcement of Dr. King’s death. I remember a feeling of helplessness and of fear, as a nine-year-old, that I had not felt before.

It wasn’t just the fact that we were living in Midtown Memphis, that made me afraid.

It was the fact of the out-of-control violence itself, that caused my consternation.

And now, all these years later, I have the same feelings tugging at my gut. It’s not because I can’t take care of myself, trust me, I can.

It is because, those leaders, who have sworn to protect American Citizens, up in our nation’s capital and in cities across America, have skirted that responsibility, choosing to fan the flames of Racial Division, promising to “share the wealth” in the name of “Racial Equality”.

Meanwhile, ever since 2013, Black Youth Unemployment (16-19) remains at a rate 393% higher than everyone else’s in this stagnant economy.

…Even with George Soros hiring Black Lives Matter to protest at Donald Trump Rallies.

So, to summarize, in the last year of the Post-Racial Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, America’s concern about Racial Division remains at an all-time high.

And, summer hasn’t even started yet.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Iran’s Ayatollah Defends Continued Development of ICBMs. Did Obama’s “Brilliant” Nuke Deal Fund the Means to Our Destruction?

March 31, 2016

untitled (42)I think it’s brilliant! What an idea! And I was there! He took the idea! He saw it ripe on the tree, he plucked it, and he put it in his pocket. It’s, it’s, dare I say… genius? Ah, no, no! But maybe, ooh! ah! maybe it is! Maybe I’m in the presence of greatness, maybe I just don’t know it. But I saw it… – Fire Chief C.D. Bales (Steve Martin), “Roxanne”, 1987

Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. – Barry McGuire, “Eve of Destruction” (1965)

Since the ouster of the Shah, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the Free World, and, especially, the United States of America. Are you old enough to remember the Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

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

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

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

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

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

And, now, all these years later, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has handed the Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and  our staunch ally, Israel, through a toothless, ineffectual “Nuclear Deal”, that supplied Iran with the money they needed to continue developing the means of America’s destruction.

Schmuck.

Don’t believe me?

CNSnews.com reports that

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared Wednesday that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities are crucial for the country’s defense, and – in an apparent swipe at an influential former president – added that those who argue that this is a time for talks rather than for missiles are either ignorant or traitors.

At a time when some U.N. Security Council members are mulling a response to Iran’s recent missile launches, Khamenei used an address to Iranians marking the birthday of Mohammed’s youngest daughter to laud the program.

He praised the recent demonstrations of missile prowess by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), saying – according to a statement on his website – they were “a source of happiness for those nations that have been wronged by the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel, and are at the same time unable to do anything about it.”

 In the “jungle-like circumstances” of today’s world, Khamenei argued, if Iran focuses on negotiations and economic and technological exchanges but neglects its defensive capacity, then it will find itself backing down in the face of threats by even “petty countries.”

Disputing those who say the times call for talks, not missiles, he said “[our] times are times for everything. Otherwise, the nation will see its rights trampled on, easily and overtly.”

“If this claim has been made due to lack of knowledge it is one thing,” he said. “But if it is said knowingly, it would amount to treason.”

Khamenei did not elaborate, but on March 24 former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Twitter message illustrated with a photo of a magnolia blooming in spring, wrote that “the world of tomorrow is one of discourse, not missiles.”

Khamenei did not elaborate, but on March 24 former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, in a Twitter message illustrated with a photo of a magnolia blooming in spring, wrote that “the world of tomorrow is one of discourse, not missiles.”

He accused Iran’s foes – “the global arrogance” – of using all means at their disposal to undermine Iran – political, economic, cultural and military.

“They use dialog, economic relations, sanctions, military threat, and other means to realize their objectives,” he said. “Likewise, we should make optimum use of all these tools to fight back and defend.”

Khamenei said Iran’s foes should not claim that Iran is against dialogue.

However, “we say that we should negotiate in a powerful and vigilant manner in a bid to avoid being deceived.”

So, while the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Secretary of State John (I served in Vietnam) Kerry continue to praise their “wonderful, magnificent deal” with the Rogue Radical Islamic Nation of Iran, which they pushed down America’s throat, Iran continues their quest for World Domination, as if it never happened.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be more concerned about America’s Enemies than our Allies….and the American Citizens he has sworn to protect.

So, why does the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, continue to claim to trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement”, “ratified” with a wad of cash, to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel, seeming oblivious to Iran’s continued Arms Build-up?

Iran remains our mortal enemy, who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

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

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

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

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

Obama’s concern is not with our allies nor the safety of the citizens of the United States.

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

Giving Iran the means to “kill the infidels” has definitely cemented Obama’s Legacy…if there will be anyone left to remember it.

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

Either due to naiveté or a simple over-estimation of their own intelligence, on the part of Obama and his Administration, as regards their “superior intellect”, to quote Fred Thompson, as Admiral Josh Painter, in the great movie “The Hunt for Red October”…

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

Obama has screwed both God’s Chosen People (Israel) and the nation which he is sworn to protect…for the sake of his own ego’s contentment.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Trump, Cruz, the RNC, and Our Right to Self-Determination

March 17, 2016

Trump-Pheno-600-nrdThey promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. – 2 Peter 2:19

According to cnbc.com,

Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories. 
“The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That’s the conflict here,” Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC’s ” Squawk Box ” on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries are held.

There are 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate, because their states and territories don’t hold primaries or caucuses.

Even with Trump ‘s huge projected delegate haul in four state primaries on Tuesday, the odds are increasing the billionaire businessman may not ultimately get the 1,237 delegates needed by the convention to claim the GOP nomination.

This could lead to a brokered convention, in which unbound delegates, like Haugland, could play a significant swing role on the first ballot to choose a nominee.

Most delegates bound by their state’s primary or caucus results are only committed on the first ballot. If subsequent ballots are needed, most of the delegates can vote any way they want, said Gary

“The rules haven’t kept up,” Haugland said. “The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That’s just the way it is. I can’t help it. Don’t hate me because I love the rules.”

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he’s proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer’s convention.

If the GOP race continues at the same pace, Trump would likely have a plurality of delegates. So far, he’s more than halfway to the 1,237 magic number.

Trump split Tuesday’s winner-take-all primaries in Florida and Ohio.

The real estate mogul dominated in Florida over Sen. Marco Rubio , who dropped out of the race after losing his home state.

But Trump lost Ohio to the state’s governor, John Kasich . Trump also won Illinois and North Carolina. He held a slim lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Missouri early Wednesday.

Emineth, also a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, told “Squawk Box” in the same interview he’s concerned about party officials pulling “some shenanigan.”

“You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee,” he warned. “[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated.”

Emineth said he’s worried that such frustration would discourage Americans in the general election from voting Republican.

Everyone join in:

Gee, DiNozzo. Ya think?

Back on August 10th of 2014, as I was watching a PBS “Beg-a-thon”, featuring a “My Music” Rewind of the hits of the 50s and early 60s, hosted by Jon “Bowzer” Bauman, of the legendary Oldies Cover Group, Sha Na Na, I was multi-tasking and carrying on a “discussion” , concerning the Chris McDaniel/Thad Cochran Kerfuffle, in which the Sittiing Republican Senator, and dinosaur, along with Hayley Barbour, State Republican Leader, alledgedly paid poor black voters to vote for Cochran in the state Primary Election, in order to keep  Cochran’s phony baloney job and secure the power of the Vichy Republicans in my state. I had dubbed this chicanery, the “Mississippi Malfeasance”, on one of my favorite Facebook Political Pages, while on my phone.

The fellow that I was “conversing” with, flat-out told me that I should shut up and support feeble old Thad Cochran and the rest of the Establishment Republicans, even though they just screwed us Conservatives in Mississippi, because it was an important Senate Seat, and it was essential to hold onto it, in order for Republicans to gain control of the Senate this November in the Mid-Term Elections.

I told the gentleman that it was easy for him to write that advice, as he did not have to live down here in the Magnolia State.

Like many average Americans, I have since lost all faith in both my state’s and in the National Republican Leadership.

As regular readers know, I have gone after the out-of-touch National GOP Establishment incessantly, bestowing upon them the title of “Vichy Republicans”.

However, in my naiveté, it never occurred to me that a politician from the Magnolia State, where we pride ourselves on our gentlemanly manners and Christian upbringing, could be just as big a cold-hearted snake as the spineless Speaker of the House at that time, Cryin’ John Boehner, and that product of Chicago Backroom Politics, the fallen messiah in the White House.

Brother, was I wrong.

Political Corruption and moral ambivalence have become a national disease.

It troubles me to no end that, even though I know, in my heart of hearts, that there are plenty of average Americans who are just as upset over the dilapidated moral and fiscal condition of “the Shining City Upon a Hill” as I am, there are times when I feel like the little Dutch boy, with his finger in the dike, desperately trying to hold back the flood waters, which are about to destroy everything in its path.

I know that civilizations come and go. I am a student of history, and I have read about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Their incredibly advanced governmental, military, and architectural legacy was eclipsed by situational ethics, immorality. and governmental corruption, caused by enemies foreign and domestic.

Sound familiar?

The United States of America has been one of the most noble undertakings in the history of mankind.

Our Founding Fathers came here to escape religious persecution. Not to get away from religion , as both Liberals, and their unwitting dupes, attempt to claim as truth.

Today 75% of Americans still believe that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior. You wouldn’t know that fact from exposure to our American Media, nor from following the anti-Christian actions of our present Administration.

I know. I am a Believer.

I suppose that’s why the relative morality and the situational ethics displays by today’s “public servants” (and, some of their constituents) troubles me so greatly.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I want the Republicans to win the Presidency.

However, with the Republican Establishment embracing the heathen philosophy of today’s Far Left-controlled Democrat Party, and to even being discussing the possibility to take away our Constitutional Right of Self-Determination through the use of the Voting Booth away, to quote that party’s inevitable next Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton,

At this point, what difference does it make?

The desire to win an election should not cause a Sitting Republican Senator to go out and screw his own constituency, the Conservative Base, like Thad Cochran, Haley Barbour, and the Establishment Republicans did in Mississippi.

And, it for dang sure does not bestow upon the Republican National Committee,  the “moral imperative” to decide our Republican Presidential Candidate for us.

Until the good ol’ boys in the Northeast Republicans’ Club, or Vichy Republicans, as I like to call them, realize that the majority of Americans out here in the Heartland are still Conservative “bitter clingers”, who love God and country, they will continue to be out-of-touch victims of their own hubris, and will continue to lose Presidential and State Elections, alike.

And, it will be nobody’s fault but their own.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Congress to Have to Vote in Order to Declare ISIS’ Mass Extermination of Middle East Christians “Genocide”

March 14, 2016

untitled (35)The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. – John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States of America.

CNS News reports that

The House of Representatives on Monday evening is expected to vote on, and pass, a bipartisan resolution declaring that atrocities carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) against Christians and other religious minorities amount to genocide. The scheduled vote comes just three days before a deadline for Secretary of State John Kerry to deliver the administration’s view on the matter, in line with a requirement in the omnibus spending bill passed last December.

The resolution, which was approved unanimously by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 2, expresses the sense of Congress that “those who commit or support atrocities against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities, including Yezidis, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka’e, and Kurds, and who target them specifically for ethnic or religious reasons, are committing, and are hereby declared to be committing, ‘war Crimes,’ ‘crimes against humanity,’ and ‘genocide.’”

Going further, it calls on “all governments, including the United States” to “call ISIL atrocities by their rightful names: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”

The House Majority Leader’s list of business for Monday includes a vote in the evening of the resolution, which was sponsored by Reps Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).

The measure lists among ISIS’ atrocities against Christians and other minorities “mass murder, crucifixions, beheadings, rape, torture, enslavement, the kidnaping of children.”

It says those acts, and other violence, is “deliberately calculated to eliminate their communities from the so-called Islamic State” – a reference to the caliphate ISIS has declared across parts of Syria and Iraq.

Why is this bill even necessary, in a nation founded by Christians, whose population, to this day, consists of 75% of individuals, who proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior?

Remember the “tyranny of the minority”, which I wrote about, yesterday?

Well, there ya go.

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

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

Now, before I go off on one my world famous KJ rants, I want you to understand that I am NOT saying that every Muslim in the world is taking part in a jihad against United States of America.

However, those were not Southern Baptists, who massacred the citizens of Paris, France or killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans on September 11, 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The present situation, that is laying waste to Europe, and that we soon may be facing, with a possible Invasion Force, disguised as “Syrian Refugees”, can be traced back to Obama’s premature evacuation of Iraq.

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

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

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

Because of his political ideology and the time that he spent among Jakarta’s Upper Crust, Obama is very naive, or at least, he seems to be, about those Muslims who aren’t as cultured as he and his friends were and are.

In fact, he seems to be quite ignorant about the Muslim practice of taquiyya, in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels in order to achieve their mission.

Could Obama’s “Coalition of the Unwilling”, consisting of Middle Eastern Muslims, be practicing taquiyya? Could it be that arming the Syrian “Rebels” was a very stupid thing to do? Could these “Syrian Refugees” actually be a Radical Muslim Invasion Force? Could it be that it is past time for Obama to quit this halfway waging of War and to go ahead and send in ground troops and take care of business ourselves before every Worshiper of the God of Abraham is eradicated from the Middle East, and, more importantly, before our nation is invaded by the same “Invasion Force” presently laying waste to Europe?

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

Especially the last one…For the safety of our nation.

Because, with his present halfway effort, which was ironically named “Smart Power!” Obama, as the picture at the top of today’s post illustrates has “come up short”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

March 3, 2016: The Day That The Republican Establishment “Mooned” Its Base

March 4, 2016

GOP-Great-600-LI-1Indeed, we gave birth to an entirely new concept in man’s relation to man. We created government as our servant, beholden to us and possessing no powers except those voluntarily granted to it by us. Now a self-anointed elite in our nation’s capital would have us believe we are incapable of guiding our own destiny. They practice government by mystery, telling us it’s too complex for our understanding. Believing this, they assume we might panic if we were to be told the truth about our problems. – Ronald Wilson Reagan, March 31, 1976

In the middle of a day which saw the Grand Old Party attack its own Political Primaries Front-runner, with a savagery unseen during the 7-year reign of Petulant President Pantywaist, the following self-serving example of the Vichy Republicans’ oblivious nature broke on CNN.com:

Washington (CNN) – Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney’s inner circle says.

The 2012 GOP nominee’s advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising. 

“It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention,” said the source.

Romney is focused on suppressing Trump’s delegate count to prevent him from accumulating the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the nomination.

But implicit in Romney’s request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party’s banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee. Another name these sources mentioned was House Speaker Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate in 2012. 

You don’t have to read too far between the lines of the speech Romney gave Thursday at the University of Utah to see the imprint of this plan. He urged voters to support the candidate most likely to prevent Trump from racking up delegates in their states — saying he’d back Florida Sen. Marco Rubio if he were voting in the Sunshine State, Gov. John Kasich if he were voting in Ohio, or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the states where he polls as Trump’s strongest foe.

“If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism,” Romney said.

According to the source, Romney does not expect Rubio, Cruz or Kasich to emerge as the single candidate that can accumulate 1,237 delegates and outright defeat Trump before the convention. So the only way to rob Trump of a victory would be to keep him from reaching that magic 1,237 number.

For those of you who don’t know, a brokered political convention comes about when no single candidate has secured a pre-existing majority of delegates (whether those selected by primary elections and caucuses, or superdelegates) before the first official vote for a political party’s presidential candidate at its nominating convention.

In other words, the Leaders of the Political Party choose their Presidential Candidate, regardless of the wishes of the American Voters.

In Former Governor and Presidential Election Loser. Mitt Romney’s scripted attack on Trump yesterday, he spoke, to a great extent, in the same didactic tone in which Barack Hussein Obama has insulted, cajoled, and lectured us in for the past 7 years.

The day-long attack continued last night, during the Republican Candidate Debate, held by Fox News at the historic Fox Theatre, as The Washington Post describes:

Billionaire Donald Trump entered Thursday night’s GOP debate as the race’s front-runner — but he spent much of the night on the defensive, struggling to explain his positions to skeptical moderators, arguing with his rivals, even trying to drown out their arguments with shouted insults.

“I won 10 states,” Trump said at one point, reasserting his dominance on a night when it seemed to be under assault. “I am by far the leader!”

Throughout the debate, both Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) returned to the furious attacks they had mounted on Trump a week before. Rubio, as before, assailed Trump with an eye toward moderate voters — asserting, again and again, that Trump was an unserious con man who was simply telling them what they wanted to hear. Cruz made a different pitch: Aiming at conservatives, he repeatedly sought to assert that Trump was a closet liberal, who had donated and befriended conservative enemies such as Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Trump replied, as before, that he was beating them both. Which he is. With the anti-Trump vote still split between Cruz, Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, it will be hard for a single challenger to pass Trump.

…The debate reflected the degree to which Trump has changed the GOP’s discourse — at one point, he made an unprompted joke about his genitals — but also the degree to which the other candidates have mimicked his style. Cruz often treated Trump like a child with a temper tantrum, urging him to “breathe” with mock concern. Rubio repeatedly interrupted Trump, as Trump had interrupted others, saying “False. False,” as Trump tried to make a point.

Kasich, as he did in the last debate, did not participate in the attacks on Trump. Instead, he seemed to be holding his own private event at the side of the stage, ignoring the fighting next to him and trying to speak directly to voters.

At the end of the debate, all four candidates onstage refused to break the last taboo of a party debate. The other three said they would vote for Trump, if he became the GOP nominee. Trump said he would vote for one of them, if the nominee turned out to be somebody else — a vow he has made, and then reconsidered before.

But first, Trump mocked the idea that he might have to face the choice at all.

“Even if it’s not me?” he asked, as if the idea were something he hadn’t thought of before.

The way that the Republican Establishment is orchestrating their failing attacks on Donald J. Trump reminds me of “Blazing Saddles”:

We must protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen! Hrumph!

During his speech yesterday, Mitt Romney said,

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Pardon my bluntness, Governor, but

You guys don’t understand squat!

The anger that you are witnessing, that has propelled an outsider to the undisputed lead in the Republican Primaries, is one which has been building since January of 2009, when a Lightweight, who seems to have as much in common with us as a Martian would, was inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

That anger, a result of his anti-American actions and resulting policies, which have affected Americans’ daily lives, has been exacerbated by you out-of-touch, pompous professional politicians that comprise the Republican Elite, whom, in your desire to “reach across the aisle” and “go along to get along”, have distanced yourselves from the average Americans, here in “Flyover Country”, who elected you to Congress in the first place.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like myself, remain mired up to our necks in an abysmal swamp of bills and taxes, living paycheck-to-paycheck, afraid to make a move, for fearing of drowning in an ocean of debt.

Seemingly forgotten, among all of your self-righteousness and empty promises, are the 94 million Americans, who are no longer, largely through no fault of their own, participating in our Workforce.

You want to talk about anger and frustration?

Try looking for work, when you are over 55 years of age.

It makes you want to give up…daily.

But, I digress…

Anger has played an important part in the forging of this great country, which will be lucky to survive Obama’s final year in office.

It was anger that formed our country….an anger over being held captive to “Taxation Without Representation”…an anger which, as a prime example of history repeating itself, Americans are experiencing, even as I type this blog.

It is this anger, which has propelled Donald J. Trump to his lead in the Republican Primary Race…and those, like yourself,  who prefer your beloved “Washingtonian Status Quo” know it.

Hence, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s alluding to it in her Rebuttal to this year’s State of the Union Address, something which has never been done before.

When delivering a Rebuttal to the SOTU Address, the Opposition Party’s Spokesperson is supposed to discredit the sitting President, not one of their own.

In conclusion, concerning the “Mantle of Anger”, I, like Trump, wear it proudly.

And, judging by the reality of Trump’s overwhelming lead in the Republican Primaries, I am not alone.

It is an American’s Right…and Heritage.

And…it shows that you and your fellow Vichy Republicans, don’t have a clue.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Head of ICE: “Rubio Absolutely Knowingly Mislead the American People”

February 20, 2016

cartoonmarcorubiogangof8Listen, I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. – Jeffrey Pelt, “The Hunt for Red October”

The President of ICE, Christopher Crane, recently gave an Exclusive Interview to Breitbart News

in which he detailed his behind-the-scenes interactions with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), as Crane sought to protect the nation’s ICE officers and national security.  Crane was integral to stopping Sen. Rubio’s amnesty plan from passing the House—which, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently explained, “was a near-run thing.”

…In his responses, Crane addresses an incident—first detailed by Breitbart News— in which Marco Rubio stood idly by as Crane was ejected from a Gang of Eight press conference for trying to ask a question on behalf of law enforcement.

Crane, an active duty ICE officer, has served as an officer for approximately 13 years and has been elected by his peers as the president of their union, as thus their voice on the national stage. Prior to joining ICE, Crane was a United States Marine.

Here is an excerpt from that interview…

BREITBART NEWS: It is well known that the Gang of Eight reached out to big business groups and amnesty groups in the process of writing the bill. When Sen. Rubio started writing his bill, did he reach out to you and other ICE officers for your ideas and input?

CRANE: Sen. Rubio never reached out to us. He surrounded himself with big business and amnesty groups, most of which were more interested in cheap labor and their own political agendas, and had no real concern for the welfare of immigrants, public safety, or the security of our nation. This while he ignored boots on the ground law enforcement officers who work within our broken immigration system every day and know better than any what’s needed to fix it. Common sense dictates that law enforcement be at the table when creating a bill like this. I think Sen. Rubio knew that, but actively chose to exclude us because of his own personal agenda.

BNN: Did Sen. Rubio meet with you voluntarily or did he have to be pressured into doing so at the last minute? Do you remember how you were ultimately able to secure the meeting? Did it take a long time?

CHRIS CRANE: It was definitely last minute as we met in the evening and they introduced the bill a few hours later that same night. It doesn’t get much more last minute than that. Was he pressured? I definitely think so. Not just by the public, but by some in the media as well. I think appearances on the Greta Van Susteren and Gov. Mike Huckabee shows are what tipped the balance and got us in. I think Gov. Huckabee was especially important in making the meeting happen, he was genuinely concerned that law enforcement was being excluded from the process and reached out to Sen. Rubio on our behalf. Many thanks to him for his attempts to help us.

BNN: What happened in the meeting? Did Sen. Rubio make any promises to you? Did he keep them?

CRANE: To start, even though I had requested to bring someone with me, Sen. Rubio denied the request and demanded that I come alone, which I still believe was highly peculiar and inappropriate.

He, of course, had what appeared to be his entire staff in his office with me. Most of his staff stood behind me as there was no place for them to sit. I raised a series of strong concerns with the bill, and as I raised each issue, Sen. Rubio would look to his staff and ask if that was what the bill said. Each time his staff agreed with my interpretation, and Sen. Rubio would shake his head in disbelief and indicate the bill had to be changed.

Sen. Rubio talked very specifically and very directly to me and his staff saying that the changes I suggested had to be made and specifically said that other Gang of Eight members wouldn’t be happy, but “Oh well.” Obviously the changes I suggested were all serious enforcement related issues, such as establishing a biometric entry-exit system, and cracking down on sex offenders, gang members, violent criminals and other criminal aliens.

When I walked out of his office that night I definitely thought the bill would undergo significant changes, but of course absolutely no changes were made.

BNN: Almost immediately after you met with Sen. Rubio, he introduced bill. Did it include any of the changes you asked for?

CRANE: Not one of the changes we suggested was made to the bill before Sen. Rubio introduced it.

All of his strong statements during our meeting about making the changes we suggested were apparently all just a dodge to get rid of me. It quickly became obvious why he didn’t permit me to take anyone with me to the meeting— he didn’t want any witnesses.

BNN: What happened during the press conference when you tried to ask Sen. Rubio and Chuck Schumer to take a question?

CRANE: I was polite, professional and respectful at all times. I didn’t interrupt anyone or cause a scene. The press was there, but Sen. Rubio and the rest of the Gang of Eight had also filled the large room with amnesty supporters and open borders people to cheer and applaud the Gang of Eight every time they said something. It was a real dog and pony show, sort of a circus.

Because it wasn’t your traditional closed press conference, it didn’t seem at all out of place to me, as an American citizen, to politely ask these elected officials a question about the legislation they were there to discuss. After all, I thought that Congress was the People’s House.

When the floor was opened to reporters to ask questions, I too politely raised my hand and asked, “Will you take a question from law enforcement?”

The amnesty folks immediately started making hateful comments like: you’re not welcome here, you need to leave, you have no right to speak here. A commotion took place on the stage with the Gang of Eight Senators. Sen. Rubio did look directly at me, and it appeared that he told Sen. Flake who I was.

Yet, despite having looked directly at me, Sen. Rubio did absolutely nothing to allow me to ask a question on behalf of the nation’s ICE officers, sheriffs and front line law enforcement.

I was able to ask the same question approximately two more times, before a Senate staffer accompanied by Capitol Hill police approached— demanding that they escort me out.

As I was escorted out by police, some within the amnesty groups applauded, laughed at me, and made hateful remarks. Once police escorted me outside of the main room, police informed me that I was not free to go and that I was to be taken somewhere for questioning.

As a law enforcement officer I knew that their actions met the legal standard for an arrest. At that point I demanded to know the charges against me and why I was being arrested. Television cameras, reporters and microphones came swooping in, and as they did the Senate staffer scurried away like a cockroach, leaving the Capitol Hill police on their own. I was allowed to leave the area, but I think it was only because the police were afraid to handcuff me with reporters filming them.

Senator Rubio and the Gang of Eight stood there and watched it all happen. Anyone of them could have jumped to the mic and yelled for the Senate staffer and the police to stop what they were doing to me, but none did. Sen. Rubio just stood their silently and watched it happen. I am told that Sen. Rubio later stated that I should not have been removed, but he never reached out to me to say that or apologize. To my knowledge he and the Gang of Eight never called for an investigation.

If it had been Mark Zuckerberg in the crowd asking questions the Gang of Eight Senators would have been tripping over themselves to kiss his backside, but as a normal citizen without the means to filter money into their campaigns they had me forced out by police

BNN: What did you mean when you said in Congressional testimony: “Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as what I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight”? CRANE: As ICE officers, we wrote a letter to Congress expressing strong concerns with the Gang of Eight bill. The letter was endorsed by approximately 150 Sheriffs, to include Sheriff Sam Page of the National Sheriffs Association Border Security and Immigration Committee, as well the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers and other law enforcement groups. Law enforcement officers were screaming for help from the Gang of Eight to make changes to the bill that would better provide for public safety and national security, but the Gang of Eight ignored all of them. The Gang of Eight not only ignored law enforcement, but actively fought to keep our input out. Only wealthy special interests like the Chamber of Commerce were permitted to be a part of the process. It was dirty D.C. politics at its worst.

BNN: Sen. Rubio touted his bill as “The Toughest Border Security & Enforcement Measures In U.S. History,” do you believe this was an honest representation of the bill?

CRANE: I think that’s absolutely false – there was no real promise or guarantee of stronger border security. The bill actually relinquished Congress’ authority to establish border security measures to the head of DHS. The head of DHS then had something like so six months to unilaterally develop a border security plan after the Gang of Eight bill passed.

So not only was there no real plan, but Sen. Rubio apparently thought that giving a presidentially appointed bureaucrat god-like powers over America’s immigration system was the answer to border security, this as other Republicans are fighting corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats in agencies like the IRS and Secret Service, not to mention the unlawful policies on immigration enforcement enacted by the current President. Rather than being touted as the toughest border security and enforcement plan in history, it could more accurately be touted as the worst.

BNN: Sen. Rubio pledged his bill would provide enforcement first, do you believe this was an honest representation the bill?

CRANE: No, I don’t believe it was an honest representation. Protection from deportation, a type of de facto amnesty, came almost immediately as the first step in a much broader amnesty like process provided in the bill. There was no real promise of border security in the bill, and the bill provided nothing for interior enforcement, but instead made legalization of criminal aliens and gang members a priority. People need to understand that this bill was written by pro-amnesty and open borders groups that have no concern for America’s borders or the safety of its communities. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the bill was such a lopsided mess.

BNN: Sen. Rubio’s bill legalized sex offenders, drunk drivers, and others with criminal records. From an ICE officer’s perspective, how do you feel about his decision to legalize illegal immigrants with criminal convictions?

CRANE: Under the Obama Administration, ICE released estimates stating that approximately 2 million criminal aliens resided in the U.S. That’s 10 times the size the U.S. Marine Corps, at least when I was in. And I think ICE’s estimates are low.

People need to wake up. We can’t continue to keep taking millions of the world’s criminals without expecting serious repercussions to public safety and expense and burden to our legal system. Local and state jurisdictions are already overwhelmed by the criminal alien problem in our country. To turn this around and get things back under control, the U.S. must take the opposite approach. We must send criminals back to their countries. Especially sex offenders. I can’t understand why any lawmaker or special interest group would support legalizing sex offenders, but it shows how out of control the bill really was.

BNN: In your letter, you specifically protested that the bill would legalize gang members. As an ICE officer, how do you feel that this provision was left in the bill?

CRANE: It disgusts me. Violent street gangs were literally able to lobby Sen. Rubio and the Gang of Eight more effectively than law enforcement, they had more influence on the bill than we did. Gangs were able to get provisions in the law to protect themselves. It’s absolutely insane. What on earth are our lawmakers thinking? I think it’s this type of utterly stupid lawmaking that has caused most Americans to lose faith in Congress.

BNN: Sen. Rubio was on television and radio constantly promoting his bill, which was backed by powerful special interests. What did you learn about Sen. Rubio’s character during that time?

CRANE: In my opinion, Sen. Rubio absolutely knowingly mislead the American people regarding the bill. He was not telling the American public the truth about what that bill contained.

I realize that was a lengthy excerpt. However, I felt that it was important to keep as much of Crane’s remarks intact, as possible.

Marco Rubio , judging by his Campaign Appearances and Stump Speeches, appears to be in the throes of a “mea culpa” as regards his sucking up to the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans…and the Democrats…during his tenure as a card-carrying member of “The Gang of Eight”.

My question to you: DO YOU BELIEVE HIM?

History records that, “The Gang of Eight Bill” came up for a final Senate vote on June 27, 2013. Rubio, as a key author of the legislation, voted for its passage. Cruz voted against it.

Back in January, before the Iowa Caucus, The Washington Examiner filed the following report,

Following his rapid-fire assault on Sen. Ted Cruz’s record during Thursday evening’s debate, Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign in Iowa kept up his line of attack by calling out Cruz as a follower of the political winds.Rep. Kristi Noem, a South Dakota Republican and Rubio supporter, told reporters after the debate that Cruz is nothing more than a political opportunist who supports “whatever’s popular that day,” continuing Rubio’s line of attack that the Texas senator engages in “political calculation” and not “consistent conservatism.”

“From what I heard come from Donald Trump, from what I’ve seen of actions coming from Ted Cruz, they’re not the right people for the job,” Noem told reporters after a Rubio watch party. “Ted Cruz says whatever’s popular that day. He votes one way, and then a month later will vote another way. He’ll take a position, write an op-ed on something as critical as our economic future and trade with foreign countries, and he’ll change his mind because the political winds are blowing a different direction.”

“I don’t want another president like that. I don’t want a president like the one that we have that knows how to talk, but doesn’t walk the walk,” Noem continued. I want one that will actually follow through on what he says he will do.”

Irony is embarrassed.

There are no angels in the 2016 Presidential Primaries, on either side.

For each and every candidate, including Donald J. Trump, unlike the Syrian Refugees, who Obama is attempting to force on us, there is an abundance of information out there, which shows their past thoughts, words, and deeds (or, lack thereof).

In Rubio’s Case, just as in the case of the current “Political” Pope’s insult of Donald J. Trump, as regards to calling Ted Cruz as “opportunist”, Marcio forgot that

People in Glass Houses should not throw stones.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Pope Attacks Trump for Promise to Build Wall to Protect Our Sovereignty. Vatican Wall Still Stands.

February 19, 2016

Vatican-wall8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say? 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” – John 8: 1-11

In a related story…

Foxnews.com reports that

Pope Francis questioned Donald Trump’s Christianity Thursday over the Republican presidential hopeful’s plan to build a wall on the Mexican border, but the pontiff himself lives behind massive stone walls.

Speaking from Mexico as he departed from a weeklong tour in which he spoke before millions, His Holiness took a direct shot at Trump, who has made his plan to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it a centerpiece of his campaign.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Pope Francis said. “This is not in the Gospel.”

Trump supporters quickly took to the Internet, noting the irony of the pope’s comment.

One tweet read: ‘”People who build walls are not Christians,” said Pope Francis, who lives in Vatican City, which is essentially a giant fortress.”

The pope said he’d “give the benefit of the doubt” since he hasn’t heard Trump’s plan himself, according to AP, adding, “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”

Trump has proposed the border wall to combat illegal immigration. The developer, who is Presbyterian, shot back at the pope after having his faith questioned.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” Trump said in a statement. “I am proud to be a Christian and, as president, I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current president.”

The Vatican’s walls, which do not completely surround the enclave, date back more than 1,000 years, to the time of Pope Leo IV, who commissioned the construction of what is known as the Leonine Wall following the sacking of Old St. Peter’s Basilica by Islamic Saracens in 846.

Regarding his comments concerning building a wall to keep out “immigrants”, the Pope left out a very important word: ILLEGAL.

The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform happened during President ill “Bubba” Clinton’s tenure. Bubba appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:

Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Do you want to have access to the blessings of American Citizenship, such as the right to attend our schools? Fine. Become an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

According to the website, churchauthority.org, the Pope has three main duties:

He is the Supreme Pastor.

That means that he represents Christ’s love and concern for every single individual. That is why the Pope’s priority lies in getting to know people, understanding how they live, listening to their interests and sharing their sufferings and their joys. On no account should the Pope allow his contact with ordinary people to be obstructed by a multitude of administrative duties.

He is the Unifier of the People of God.

Because of the international character of the Church, this will create many demands. The good of the world-wide Church and the autonomy of local Churches need to be balanced. That is why the Pope should guide and inspire the Central Synod of Bishops so that it can efficiently work out agreements and general Church policies.

He is the Prime Witness to Faith.

This includes both preaching [= announcing the message to non-Christians] and teaching [= explaining an element of Christ’s message in today’s context]. On very rare occasions the Pope is the main exponent of the infallible understanding of faith [=inerrancy] that is carried by the whole people of God. The Pope can only do so after listening to the People of God and discerning the faith they carry in their hearts.

Nowhere in his Job Description, does it say that the Pontiff gets to interfere in the Elections held in any nation, much less, those held in the Greatest Country on the Face of the Earth.

Pope Francis is the first Pope who represents the Far Left Political Viewpoint, which encompasses Modern Liberalism and the failed Marxist Political Ideology of Socialism.

He also comes from Latin America. It is not a coincidence that the recent invasion of underage illegal “immigrants” comes from that area, as well.

I had a poster on a Facebook Political Page scold me yesterday for pointing out Il Papa’s Political Ideology. I informed them that the Pope, while being “Christ’s Representative” on Earth, is not himself, the Son of God, and, is therefore, an imperfect man, like the rest of us.

I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the Social Justice Movement, which is so popular among Liberal Churches, today. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

The Pope is the Leader of the Catholic Church.

No disrespect meant, but shouldn’t he be more concerned about winning individual souls for God, than “saving the Collective” and advancing the Political Ideology of Marx?

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Death of Justice Antonin Scalia: Time to Start “Borking”

February 14, 2016

Pendulum-NRD-600Last night, President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation concerning the passing of Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As he showed during a State of the Union Address, several years back, to say that he did not care for this Judicial Giant, would be putting it mildly.

In fact, as his remarks, courtesy of whitehouse.gov reveal, ol’ Scooter is positively chomping at the bit to replace him with a Far left Extremist Judicial Activist of his own choosing.

Good evening, everybody.  For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.     He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape.  He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy:  The rule of law.  Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.

     Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey to an Italian immigrant family.  After graduating from Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, he worked at a law firm and taught law before entering a life of public service.  He rose from Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court, to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

     A devout Catholic, he was the proud father of nine children and grandfather to many loving grandchildren.  Justice Scalia was both an avid hunter and an opera lover — a passion for music that he shared with his dear colleague and friend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  Michelle and I were proud to welcome him to the White House, including in 2012 for a State Dinner for Prime Minister David Cameron.  And tonight, we join his fellow justices in mourning this remarkable man.

     Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy.  I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.  There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.  These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.  They’re bigger than any one party.  They are about our democracy.  They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned.

     But at this moment, we most of all want to think about his family, and Michelle and I join the nation in sending our deepest sympathies to Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, and their loving family — a beautiful symbol of a life well lived.  We thank them for sharing Justice Scalia with our country. 

God bless them all, and God bless the United States of America.

The Liebrals, over at The Washington Post elaborated on the situation facing our nation and Obama’s possible choices.

President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”

But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Obama has nominated two justices to the court in the past, and he has expressed the desire for jurists with empathy. He did not discuss his thinking about that on Saturday night. Instead, he used the moment to pay tribute to Scalia, whom he described as an “extraordinary judicial thinker.”

In selecting Supreme Court nominees, Obama has relied heavily on the advice of Vice President Biden, a former Senate Judiciary chairman. Biden has demonstrated again and again a strong working relationship with McConnell, having previously negotiated several tax and budget deals. The court nomination may hinge on Biden’s ability to reach a deal with McConnell again.

But the fate of the nomination would clearly be in Republican hands. While Democrats were able to change the rules in 2013 to make it easier to approve lower court judges with a simple majority, Supreme Court nominations still require 60 votes to advance past an opposition filibuster. To derail or delay the nomination, McConnell could simply not schedule a vote, but even if he allows Senate consideration of the nomination, Democrats do not have the numbers to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Although the Republican-controlled Congress could easily thwart an Obama nominee, such a decision could reverberate across the presidential campaign and into in the November elections, in which several GOP senators face tough, competitive races.

The most immediate outcome of the Scalia vacancy is that it offers Obama the chance to draw sharper battle lines with Republicans during an increasingly acrimonious presidential election.

The administration now faces a chaotic political and legal environment in which the president must prepare for a bitter confirmation fight or embrace the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court divided evenly between liberals and conservatives.

Scalia’s death also throws into doubt the outcome of some of the most controversial issues facing the nation in cases before the court this term: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

A deadlocked court could leave appellate decisions in place without setting a precedent. That would please the administration on a case involving union membership, for instance, but would keep Obama’s executive action on deportation from being implemented.

White House officials would not comment Saturday evening on their deliberations about a potential nominee, but the administration has an extensive list of possible candidates to choose from, including some who would change the face of the court by virtue of their race or sexual orientation.

“Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”

One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.

Among the leading candidates would be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was confirmed to seat in a 97-to-0 Senate vote in May 2013. Srinivasan would be the first South Asian American on the court. He worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office under both Obama and President George W. Bush, and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Other contenders from that same court include its chief judge, Merrick Garland, who is well liked by conservatives and was a finalist for such a nomination when Obama selected Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. Patricia Ann Millett, who won confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in December 2013, may also be considered.

Obama could also look to current or former administration officials, said those familiar with the president’s thinking, or even to the Senate. Among those officials are Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder, the former attorney general.

Other potential choices could include Deval Patrick (D), the former governor of Massachusetts, or Paul Smith, who chairs the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block and, if confirmed, would be the first openly gay justice.

Beyond the D.C. Circuit, there are many other appellate judges the president could look to in selecting a nominee. Those include Paul Watford and Mary H. Murguia of the 9th Circuit; Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the 1st Circuit.

Regardless of whom Obama selects, the combination of the timing of the opening, the stark division on the court and deeply partisan passion being evoked in both presidential primaries would make this confirmation battle unlike any of the past 40 years.

The last confirmation in the eighth year of a presidency was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose 97-to-0 vote in February 1988 came after two failed nomination efforts by President Reagan in the face of a Democratic-controlled Senate in late 1987. Kennedy is seen as a traitor among conservative activists, who view his rulings on abortion and gay rights with the liberal bloc as an example of GOP leaders choosing political expediency over ideological rigidity.

The only other attempt to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. The Senate blocked Fortas. Subsequently, the other nomination to fill Fortas’s spot as associate justice was withdrawn during the final months of Johnson’s presidency.

Under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Typically, the panel does not consider judicial nominees after mid-May, under a tradition established by the late Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). While chairing the Judiciary Committee, Thurmond declared that he would not take up new judicial nominations within a few months of a presidential election.

Filling the post of Scalia, however, will be anything but normal. He was the outspoken champion for the court’s conservative wing and had many admirers in the Senate, including McConnell. Obama’s first two appointments to the court were relatively easy because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan were replacing liberal-leaning justices.

Senate conservatives, already predisposed to not approve of Obama’s choice, might be loath to allow him to replace their judicial hero with a liberal jurist who would tip the court in a left-leaning direction. As of now, Sotomayor and Kagan often sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the most ideologically driven cases, with Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the tie-breaking votes.

If Republicans leave the Scalia seat vacant for any lengthy time, that sets up the chance of a series of 4-to-4 votes in which the ruling of the lower federal court would stand as the law of that particular region of the country.

That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.

So, what now? I will tell you “What Now”.

Time for McConnell and the Senate Republicans to grow a spine and do some “Borking”.

What do I mean by “Borking”?

On October 23, 1987, The New York Times printed the following article…

One of the fiercest battles ever waged over a Supreme Court nominee ended today as the Senate decisively rejected the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork.The vote was 58 against confirmation and 42 in favor, the biggest margin by which the Senate has ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination. [ Roll call, page 10. ] Judge Bork’s was the 27th Supreme Court nomination to fail in the country’s history, the sixth in this century, and the first since 1970, when the Senate rejected President Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell by a vote of 51 to 45. There have been 104 Supreme Court justices in the nation’s history.

The vote came two weeks after Judge Bork, in the face of expected defeat, said he would not withdraw his name and wanted the full Senate to vote on his nomination. In a statement issued from his chambers at the Federal courthouse here, where he still serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Bork said he was ”glad the debate took place.”

”There is now a full and permanent record by which the future may judge not only me but the proper nature of a confirmation proceeding,” the 60-year-old judge said.

President Reagan, in a statement released by the White House, said, ”I am saddened and disappointed that the Senate has bowed today to a campaign of political pressure.” The Next Nominee? In the final hours of the three-day debate on the Senate floor, senators turned their attention to the next nominee for the vacancy on the court. The White House is not expected to name a new candidate before the middle of next week.

The President has publicly vowed to find a nominee who will upset Judge Bork’s opponents ”just as much” as Judge Bork himself. Mr. Reagan said today, ”My next nominee for the Court will share Judge Bork’s belief in judicial restraint – that a judge is bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them.”

Meanwhile, senators on both sides of the debate urged the President to adopt a less confrontational tone.

Now, in the last year of the Obama Presidency (Praise God), it is imperative for the United States Senate to adopt president Reagan’s “confrontational tone”.

Why? Well, here is a quote for you…

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?

Who said that?  Karl Marx?  Vladimir Lenin?  Danny Glover?  George Clooney?  Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)?  Nope.  It was the Obama-appointed and Senate-ratified, Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan.  The quote was a part of her senior thesis, written almost thirty years ago while an undergraduate at Princeton. The title of the thesis: “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”.

The Senate must “Bork” every single Supreme Court Nomination of this Lame Duck President.

He has done enough damage to our country, already.

Until He Comes,

KJ