Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

Unbridled Desperation: Democrats Attempting to Launch a Plan to Remove Trump For Being “Unfit to Serve”

July 1, 2017

dems-after-trump-speech

The smell of Democrat Desperation is wafting down from Capitol Hill.

And, its smell is stronger than that of the Ft. Worth Stockyards.

As we say when we begin to tell a fairy tale in Dixie…

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this sh!t…

According to the UK Daily Mail

A Democratic congressman has proposed convening a special committee of psychiatrists and other doctors whose job would be to determine if President Donald Trump is fit to serve in the Oval Office.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who also teaches constitutional law at American University, has predictably failed to attract any Republicans to his banner.

But the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment does allow for a majority of the president’s cabinet, or ‘such other body as Congress may by law provide,’ to decide if an Oval Office occupant is unable to carry out his duties – and then to put it to a full congressional vote.

Vice President Mike Pence would also have to agree, which could slow down the process – or speed it up if he wanted the levers of power for himself.

The 25th Amendment has been around since shortly after the John F. Kennedy assassination, but Congress has never formed its own committee in case it’s needed to judge a president’s mental health.

Raskin’s bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president. 

The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee’s chairman.

Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president ‘to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,’ according to the Raskin bill.

And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that ‘shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.’

Under the 25th Amendment, such a committee – or the president’s cabinet – can notify Congress in writing that a sitting president is unfit. In either case the vice president must concur, and he would immediately become ‘acting president.’

Presidents have voluntarily transferred their powers to vice presidents in the past, including when they are put under anesthesia for medical procedures.

Raskin’s bill would allow the four Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to each choose a psychiatrist and another doctor. Then each party would add a former statesman – like a retired president or vice president. 

The final group of 10 would meet and choose an 11th member, who would become the committee’s chairman.

Once the group is officially seated, the House and Senate could direct it through a joint resolution to conduct an actual examination of the president ‘to determine whether the president is incapacitated, either mentally or physically,’ according to the Raskin bill.

And if the president refuses to participate, the bill dictates, that ‘shall be taken into consideration by the commission in reaching a conclusion.’

Under the 25th Amendment, such a committee – or the president’s cabinet – can notify Congress in writing that a sitting president is unfit. In either case the vice president must concur, and he would immediately become ‘acting president.’

Presidents have voluntarily transferred their powers to vice presidents in the past, including when they are put under anesthesia for medical procedures.

In the case of Raskin’s plan, the Constitution holds that both houses of Congress would hold a vote within three weeks.

If two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate agreed that the president couldn’t discharge his duties, he would be dismissed.

Raskin’s plan could have a fatal flaw, however: Legal scholars tend to agree that when the Constitution’s framers first provided for the replacement of a president with an ‘inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office,’ they weren’t talking about mere eccentricities.

And when the 25th Amendment was sent to the states for ratification in 1965, the Senate agreed that ‘inability’ meant that a president was ‘unable to make or communicate his decisions’ and suffered from a ‘mental debility’ rendering him ‘unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.’

So far two dozen members of the House, all Democrats, have signed on to cosponsor the bill. 

Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a far-left liberal Democrat, claimed Friday in a Fox Business Channel interview that Congress can remove ‘incompetent’ presidents.

‘The 25th Amendment is utilized when a president is perceived to be incompetent or unable to do his or her job,’ she said.

The Democrats’ Desperation has been building ever since the night that their dream to change the “Shining City Upon the Hill” into a Socialist Paradise was shattered…when America’s Heartland elected Donald J. Trump as our 45th President.

The fact that average Americans stood up on our hind legs and thwarted the planned ascension of Hillary Clinton to the “throne”, caused a mass break from reality among the Democrats that this country has never witnessed  before.

Once it settled in to the deep dark recesses of the Hive-Mind that is the Far Left of America’s Political Spectrum that there was a new sheriff in town, the Washington Elite immediately started hurling bodily waste at the American people, like Gorillas throwing it at zoo visitors, in the form of Fake News Stories being broadcast and published incessantly, specifically designed to end the Presidency of Donald J. Trump before he would be able to fulfill his Campaign Promises.

For you see, boys and girls, if President Trump is able to accomplish all that he has promised, America will be able to dig itself out of the hole that the poor stewardship of a Democrat Socialist President and a Special interest-Controlled Democrat-led Congress has left our country in.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, as the past couple of weeks have shown, the problem with trying to convince people to help you remove a sitting President through the use of Fake News is that, in this age of New Technology, pretty soon you will be captured in the act of making up an “exclusive” or just like Lonesome Rhodes (Andy Griffith) in “A Face in the Crowd”, your mask will slip and your true nature will be revealed to the public.

By calling for President Trump to be removed from office because he is “unfit to serve”, the Democrats have overplayed their hand, dropping their masks to reveal an image of Rosie O’Donnell nekkid [that’s when you have no clothes on and you’re up to sumpin’] and having a bad hair day.

Ugly isn’t the word for it.

The Democratic Party and their minions in the MSM and on Social Media, have allowed their out-of-control desperation to ruin any credibility they had left.

At this point, they have as much chance of gaining control of Congress and the White House, as Miley Cyrus does of regaining her virginity.

Their words and actions have guaranteed that they will remain the minority Political Party and Political Ideology in America for a long time.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Advertisements

What the Dems Need to Do to Win an Election and Why They Won’t Do It (A KJ Analysis)

June 26, 2017

Heavy-Wt-Pelosi-NRD-600

Contrary to what we learn from progressives in education and the media, the history of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century is a virtually uninterrupted history of thievery, corruption, and bigotry.  – Dinesh D’Souza 

Yahoo News reports that

Frozen out of power in Washington and having lost a string of congressional races this year, Democrats are struggling to craft winning strategies to convert disillusionment with President Donald Trump into victory in 2018’s midterm elections. The party fielded a hodgepodge of candidates in four special elections in recent months, including a banjo-strumming cowboy poet in Montana. Most recently Democrats nominated a young novice in Georgia, where the party, judging it had its best pick-up opportunity, threw millions of dollars into the race.

Yet each time, Republicans beat back the advances. And Democratic lawmakers, strategists and party officials have been left scratching their heads about how to turn it around and launch a viable bid to reclaim Congress next year.

“They’re definitely licking their wounds,” Kerwin Swint, professor and chair of the political science department at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University, told AFP.

Debate has swirled among Democrats about what strategy to deploy: going all in with a nationwide anti-Trump agenda, or tailoring individual races to local economic issues in a bid to repair fraying connections between the Democratic Party and the common voter.

The Georgia race showed “the effectiveness of Trump’s staying power” despite the scandals rocking the White House, Swint said.

“Democrats should not focus their campaigns about him, they should be about jobs,” he added. “They need a much more focused economic pitch.”

At the same time, Zac Petkanas, who directed Hillary Clinton’s rapid-response operation during her 2016 presidential campaign, said Republicans should not see their four congressional victories as a sign all is well in Trumpworld.

In a normal political environment, the races in Georgia, Kansas, Montana and South Carolina — to fill seats vacated by congressmen who joined Trump’s cabinet — would be blowouts for Republicans, given the overwhelming, ruby-red nature of the districts, Petkanas said in a telephone interview.

Instead, they were all within seven percentage points.

Trump and Republican lawmakers have gloated over the wins, “but I think in private they’re actually very scared,” he said.

“They are in for the races of their lives, and they know it.”

– ‘Unique opportunity’ –

As Democrats seek to regroup, they are hobbled by a glaring omission: no clear party protagonist has emerged as a potential challenger to Trump in 2020.

Absent such a standard-bearer, some Democrats have begun urging House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the icon atop the party’s hierarchy, to step aside and allow new blood into leadership.

“I don’t think people in the Beltway are realizing just how toxic the Democratic Party brand is in so much of the country,” congressman Tim Ryan, who unsuccessfully challenged Pelosi for the leadership position last year, told CNN in a blunt postmortem after the June 20 loss in Georgia.

The California congresswoman pushed back tensely against her party’s rebels, insisting she has brought unity to the Democrats.

“My decision about how long I stay is not up to them,” Pelosi, who is 77, told reporters.

Asked about the Democrats’ doldrums and Pelosi’s future role, Trump quipped that it would be “very sad for Republicans” if the congresswoman — a favorite target of Republicans — stepped down.

“I’d like to keep her right where she is, because our record is extraordinary against her,” he told Fox on Friday.

The party in presidential power traditionally fares poorly during US midterm elections. In 2010, two years into Barack Obama’s first term as president, Democrats got hammered, losing 63 seats and control of the 435-member House of Representatives.

Democrats now need to gain 24 seats to reclaim the House, and analysts say there are several dozen Republican-held seats in play.

In a memo this past week, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Ben Ray Lujan described at least 71 districts that are more competitive than the four contested so far this year.

“We have a unique opportunity to flip control of the House of Representatives in 2018,” he wrote.

One reason Lujan is banking on victory: the Republican health care bill.

Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled their plan, which would repeal much of Obama’s signature health care reforms.

It has had a frosty reception. Democrats are counting on voters revolting against any lawmaker who supports legislation that could leave millions of Americans without health insurance.

“A lot will depend on where Trump’s approval rating is next year, and health care will obviously mold that climate,” Professor Swint said.

I disagree.

(I know. You’re shocked.)

The Democrats are now the “The Minority Party” in Congress and are out of the White House for a very logical reason:

Their Far Left Political ideology is repugnant to the majority of Average American Voters.

The Modern Liberals in the Democratic Party attempting to position themselves, as they did in the Georgia Congressional Race, as Fiscal and Social “Moderates”, are as believable as their last Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, claiming that she was “in the best of health”.

American Voters did not buy that lie, either.

For the Democratic Party to begin winning elections again, they are going to have to abandon the Far Left Political Ideology, inspired by Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky, which they have bitterly clung to as their “religion” for the past several decades.

The absurdness and downright anti-Americanism of their “Tenets of Faith” has been anathema to Americans living in America’s Heartland, the ones responsible for an American Businessman and Entrepreneur being elected our 45th President.

Those who sit in judgment of us average Americans like the Pharisees in the ancient Holy Land are going to have to climb down from their barstools at the Washington Capitol Hill Country Club, and come home to visit us “common” people, attend ballgames, picnics, charitable public events, and even…GASP!…attend church with us, if they wish to represent average Americans in our Sovereign Nation’s Halls of Power again.

However, realistically, I do not see any of my suggestions coming to pass.

Democrats are too ensconced is their own belief system which states that…

  1. Americans are “jingoistic”.
  2. America is responsible for all of the world’s ills.
  3. The evils of American Capitalism are responsible for the world’s climate, not the God of Abraham.
  4. Perversion is perfectly normal.
  5. We ARE “The Smartest People in the Room”.

There are many more “Tenets of Faith” that the Democrats believe. However, for the sake of brevity, I will move on.

Years ago, the Democratic Party and reality took divergent paths.

Unless they can find their way back to reality, their political party will go the way of the Whigs.

Considering their fondness for relative morality, situational ethics, and purposeful obtuseness, perhaps they should keep traveling the path that they are presently on.

Their party’s slow, painful demise will be great for the Popcorn Industry.

Pass the salt and butter, please.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Democrats Seeking Election in 2018 Begin to Disguise Themselves as “Conservatives” to Get Votes

June 12, 2017

ossoff-tuesday-speech-701x393

If you can’t beat ’em…”join” em.
 

According to The New York Times,

Democrats are facing an open breach between the demands of their political base and the strict limits of their power, as liberal activists dream of transforming the health care system and impeaching President Trump, while candidates in hard-fought elections ask wary independent voters merely for a fresh chance at governing.

The growing tension between the party’s ascendant militant wing and Democrats in conservative-leaning terrain, where the party must compete to win power in Congress, was on vivid, split-screen display over the weekend: in Chicago, where Senator Bernie Sanders led a revival-style meeting of his progressive devotees, and in Atlanta, where Democrats are spending colossal sums of money in hopes of seizing a traditionally Republican congressional district.

It may be essential for Democrats to reconcile the party’s two clashing impulses if they are to retake the House of Representatives in 2018. In a promising political environment, a drawn-out struggle over Democratic strategy and ideology could spill into primary elections and disrupt the party’s path to a majority.

On the one hand, progressives are more emboldened than they have been in decades, galvanized by Mr. Sanders’s unexpected successes in 2016 and empowered by the surge of grass-roots energy dedicated to confronting an unpopular president and pushing the party leftward.

Mr. Sanders rallied his youthful, often-raucous coalition Saturday night at a gathering named the “People’s Summit,” where supporters hailed him in worshipful language. One Colorado couple hauled a small banner through the hangar-size McCormick Place, pleading with Mr. Sanders, a still-independent Vermont senator, to create a new “People’s Party.”

Mr. Sanders and many attendees enthused over the surprise showing of the British Labour Party, under the left-wing leader Jeremy Corbyn, in last week’s election. Democrats can electrify voters, they warned, only by embracing the Sanders agenda of universal health care, free college tuition and full employment.

Speaking for just under an hour, Mr. Sanders — who was met with chants of “Bernie, Bernie” and pleas of “2020!” — crowed that while he may have lost the 2016 primary, “we have won the battle of ideas and we are continuing to win that battle.”

He assailed President Trump in blistering terms, but earned some of his loudest cheers for attacking the party whose nomination he sought last year. “The current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure,” Mr. Sanders said to booming applause, arguing that Democrats need “fundamental change.”

“The Democratic Party must finally understand which side it is on,” he said.

Yet the party’s elected leaders, and many of its candidates, are far more dispassionate, sharing a cold-eyed recognition of the need to scrounge for votes in forbidding precincts. They have taken as a model the Democratic campaign of 2006, when the party won control of Congress in part by competing for conservative corners of the country and recruiting challengers who broke with liberal orthodoxy.

Outside Atlanta on Friday, Jon Ossoff offered a decidedly un-Sanders-like vision of the future in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District, a conservative-leaning patchwork of office plazas and upscale malls, where voters attended his campaign events wearing golf shirts and designer eyewear.

In a special election that has become the most expensive House race in history, Mr. Ossoff, a 30-year-old former congressional aide, presented himself as essentially anti-ideological. Greeting suburban parents near a playground and giving a pep talk to volunteers, he stressed broadly popular policies like fighting air and water pollution and preserving insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Bucking the left, Mr. Ossoff said in an interview that he would not support raising income taxes, even for the wealthy, and opposed “any move” toward a single-payer health care system. Attacked by Republicans for his ties to national liberals, Mr. Ossoff said he had not yet given “an ounce of thought” to whether he would vote for Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, in a future ballot for speaker.

His own race, Mr. Ossoff told supporters, was about “sending a message to Washington.” But that message, he said, was about “decency and respect and unity, rather than division.”

“There’s a coalition of folks here in Georgia who want representation that’s focused on local economic development and on accountability,” Mr. Ossoff said in the interview, “and not on the partisan circus in Washington.”

The tension between Mr. Ossoff’s message and the appetites of the national Democratic base has not appeared to hinder his bid for Congress. He has raised more than $23 million, an astonishing sum, largely in small online donations from Democrats seeking to put a dent in the Republicans’ House majority. Several polls over the last week showed Mr. Ossoff leading his Republican opponent, Karen Handel, though both parties agree that the race remains a tossup.

So, in order for the Democrats to get elected in the Mid-Term Elections, they are going to have to embrace Conservatism and to act like Republicans.

Six months into the Presidency of Donald J. Trump, I do not see that happening.

Like a less-than-noble version of Don Quixote, the Democrat Leadership, its Paid Activists, and its Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, continue to push “Russia, Russia, Russia!”, in an effort to drive Trump out of office,

Even though Obama Henchman and Former FBI Director under Trump, James Comey, stated during the Hearings last week that Trump was never under investigation for any sort of collusion with Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government.

Now, they are feebly attempting to sound a battle cry of “Obstruction!”.

Americans aren’t buying that BS either.

The garbage which began during the 8 long years of the Obama Administration, even now, after average Americans stood up on our hind legs and elected Donald J. Trump as President, still threatens to tear our Sovereign Nation asunder.

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

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

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

All this massive effort by the Democrats to oust President Trump shows American Voters is that they still assume that, after reading their own press clippings, all Americans somehow still want the Progressive/Marxist Political Ideology and style of governance which Barack Hussein Obama practiced during his time as President.

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

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

While the French long ago used “Madame Guillotine” to make a drastic change in their government, Americans used voting booths.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe as those in power at the Democratic Party do.

That is why, as we are witnessing in the battle for the Sixth Congressional District, some Democrats, like Jon Ossoff, are trying to divorce themselves from their own Party’s “Ruling Class”

They are embarrassed to be associated with them because they know how the average Americans back home feel about them and their present disruption of this Sovereign Nation.

The problem with electing one of these “enlightened” Democrats is the fact that, after they are sent to Washington, they will join up with their fellow Democrats in their Quixotic Crusade to either impede or impeach President Donald J. Trump on the grounds that the Queen of Mean, Hillary Clinton, should have been President, because they are smarter than us average Americans in the heartland and in was, after all, “her time”.

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

Americans must be extra careful not to be fooled by any Democrat Politicians who will be running for Congress in the 2018 Elections claiming to be a “Conservative”.

They will lie to get your vote, caucus with their fellow Democrats when they get to Washington, and advance the Democrats’ Far Left Agenda to turn America into “just another country.”

Like the scorpion…

It’s just their nature.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

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

February 28, 2017

fine-tuned-600-li

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

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heatstreet.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You’re in the big leagues, now.”

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

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

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

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

How in the world did Reagan do it? Experience.

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

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

Somehow Reagan had to build a coalition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a completely different Democratic Party.

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

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

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

President Ronald Reagan once famously said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let them stay there.

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

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

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

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

We are ready to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump to Sign EOs Today to Restrict Potential Islamic Terrorists From Entering Our Country and to Begin Building the Southern Border Wall

January 25, 2017

new-women-nrd-600-a

Before we get to the post itself, for all those who are crying about Trump writing so many Executive Orders, allow me to remind you that speed is of the essence in this situation. And, with the rate that Congress is going in the confirming  of his Cabinet Picks, it would take way too long for President Trump to wade through their self-aggrandizing BS and get what he wants to accomplish done.

Reuters.com reports that

President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders starting on Wednesday that include a temporary ban on most refugees and a suspension of visas for citizens of Syria and six other Middle Eastern and African countries, according to several congressional aides and immigration experts briefed on the matter.

Trump is expected to order a multi-month ban on allowing refugees into the United States except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place.

Another order will block visas being issued to anyone from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, said the aides and experts, who asked not to be identified.

The sources have said the first of the orders will be signed on Wednesday. But Trump is also considering measures to tighten border security and could turn his attention to the refugee issue later this week.

The border security measures could include directing the construction of a border wall with Mexico and other actions to reduce the number of illegal immigrants living inside the United States.

Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration, said the president had the authority to limit refugee admissions and the issuance of visas to specific countries if the administration determined it was in the public’s interest.

“From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights,” said Legomsky, a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. “But from a policy standpoint, it would be terrible idea because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees.”

The Republican president, who took office last Friday, was expected to sign the first of the orders at the Department of Homeland Security, whose responsibilities include immigration and border security.

On the campaign trail, Trump initially proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, which he said would protect Americans from jihadist attacks.

Both Trump and his nominee for attorney general, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, have since said they would focus the restrictions on countries whose migrants could pose a threat, rather than placing a ban on people who follow a specific religion.

Many Trump supporters decried former President Barack Obama’s decision to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States over fears that those fleeing the country’s civil war would carry out attacks.

LEGAL CHALLENGES POSSIBLE

Detractors could launch legal challenges to the moves if all the countries subject to the ban are Muslim-majority nations, said immigration expert Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA School of Law. Legal arguments could claim the executive orders discriminate against a particular religion, which would be unconstitutional, he said.

“His comments during the campaign and a number of people on his team focused very much on religion as the target,” Motomura said.

To block entry from the designated countries, Trump is likely to instruct the State Department to stop issuing visas to people from those nations, according to sources familiar with the visa process. He could also instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop any current visa holders from those countries from entering the United States.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the State and Homeland Security Departments would work on the vetting process once Trump’s nominee to head the State Department, Rex Tillerson, is installed.

Other measures may include directing all agencies to finish work on a biometric identification system for non-citizens entering and exiting the United States and a crackdown on immigrants fraudulently receiving government benefits, according to the congressional aides and immigration experts.

To restrict illegal immigration, Trump has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and to deport illegal migrants living inside the United States.

Trump is also expected to take part in a ceremony installing his new secretary of homeland security, retired Marine General John Kelly, on Wednesday.

The wailing that you hear tomorrow will not be America’s Civil Defense Early Warning System. It will be hysterical Liberals like little girls over mean ol’ President Donald J. Trump restricting the flow of these un-vetted Muslim “Pilgrims” into our Sovereign Nation.

Point of Order, Pajama boys and hairy-legged girls…:

The Pilgrims were Christians, not Muslims.

BIG difference.

The Pilgrims did not include a population made up of 70% of ultra-fit Military-looking young men with cell phones.

And, they did not riot their way across Europe before the Government of this country brought them here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what is the actual current vetting process for these “Refugees” from the Middle East ?

In November of 2015, the Ultra-Liberal BBC.com reported on the process.

After intense criticism that the United States was not doing its part to help with the migrant crisis afflicting Europe, the Obama administration announced in September that it wanted to resettle about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the US by the same time next year.

The decision was met with some fear that militants could exploit the refugee programme to gain entry into the US to carry out attacks.

After the attacks in Paris, which left 129 dead, and the news that one of the attackers may have entered Europe as a refugee, those fears have become amplified and spread to governors’ mansions across the country as well as the corridors of Congress.

Newly elected Speaker of the US House of Representatives Paul Ryan has now called for a “pause” in the US refugee program. He tweeted, “Our nation has always been welcoming, but we can’t let terrorists take advantage of our compassion.”

The process for a Syrian refugee to resettle in the US is long and arduous, involving numerous federal agencies and intense background checks.

Compared to Europe, where fingerprints and simple information are taken and migrants can resettle with little difficulty, US processes look very different and are much stricter.

It is a long road for a Syrian refugee coming to the US – so where does it start?

Step 1: Leaving home & arrival at UNHCR refugee camp
As cities, town and villages have been overrun, millions of Syrian people have become displaced both internally and externally.

But to be eligible for permanent resettlement in another country, displaced persons have to leave Syria and find a camp run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in a neighbouring country.

Many of these camps offer only the most basic living conditions.

Upon arrival at the camp, the displaced person registers as a refugee and is given the option to apply for resettlement.

Nothing is guaranteed at this point. Not every refugee will be referred by the UNHCR for resettlement.

Refugees are allowed to express an interest in particular countries, but the decision on resettlement is ultimately at the UNHCR’s discretion.

Step 2: UNHCR referral for resettlement
The UNHCR then determines which refugees for whom resettlement makes sense, a senior administration official said.

Certain refugees get recommended to the programme in the US.

The State Department takes over after a referral is made from the UNHCR, and the Department of Homeland Security decides whether an individual application is approved.

Certain indicators for why a refugee may be recommended for the US programme include: if he or she has a relative in the US or whether it is likely he or she will be welcomed by a certain community.

“With Syrians, we’ve benefitted from years of experience in vetting Iraqi refugee applicants,” one senior Obama administration official said. The screening is “robust since large-scale Iraqi processing in 2007.”

Step 3: Vetting process with US begins
If a refugee is cleared to be considered by the US, the process for approval is lengthy – 18-24 months, said one senior administration official.

Refugees are admitted at about a 50% acceptance rate after being subjected to “the most rigorous screening of any traveller to the US,” an official told reporters in a conference call.

That involves extensive in-person interviews about their experiences with conflict, as well as the collection of both biometric and biographic information that is cross-checked with the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and in some cases, the Department of Defense.

Step 4: Resettlement
Ten thousand people have been referred for resettlement in the US, but the US has not processed their applications yet.

After 18-24 months, a refugee may then be sent to his or her new community.

The BBC spoke with one young man who resettled with his family outside of Louisville, Kentucky in September.

A local church organisation funded by the US government helped him land a job at a car factory. He wants to attend university in the US someday.

Like the organisation that helped this man, there are nine organisations that work with the federal government to place refugees across the US.

Funny how Obama and his Administration never EVER told us “dumb rubes” in America’s Heartland that the United Nations is playing in this whole “vetting” process, huh?

Considering their track record, I trust the U.N. Security Council’s judgment about as much as I do Miley Cyrus’.

Trump’s planned issuance of an E.O. Regarding the wall across our Southern Border is connected to our concern as Americans in regards to Muslim Terrorism.

You see, boys and girls, agents of Islamic State (ISIS) have been entering from our Southern Border for quite a while now.

The following information is from a blog I posted on August 29, 2014, titled “ISIS Gathering At Our Southern Border. No Strategy = No America.”:

Former Congressman, Lt. Col. Allen B. West, reported the following on July 11th on his website…

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) told CBS’s local Dallas Fort Worth affiliate he believes that ISIS will use Texas’s southern border to enter the United States. “Of course the way they would come to the United States would be through the porous border with Mexico. The drug cartels will bring people into the country no matter who they are — for money,” says Poe.

The U.S. Border Patrol has a specific classification for those caught illegally entering America called OTMs (Other than Mexicans) which denotes those not of Hispanic descent. It is well known that drug cartels are assisting Islamic terrorists in gaining entrance and crossing the border. In fact it’s been going on for some time.

According to Breitbart.com, Human Events reported in 2010 that Iranian currency and prayer rugs were regularly found near the southern border.

A November 2012 House Committee on Homeland Security report from the Oversight Sub-Committee stated:

“U.S. Government officials who are directly responsible for our national security continue to affirm the vulnerability. In August 2007 former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell stated that not only have terrorists used the Southwest border to enter the United States but that they will inevitably continue to do so as long as it is an available possibility. In a July 2012 hearing before the full U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that terrorists have crossed the Southwest border with the intent to harm the American people. Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol regularly apprehends aliens from the 35 “special interest countries” designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” From Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, there were 1,918 apprehensions of these Special Interest Aliens at our Southwest border.”

An independent security contractor told Breitbart News last week that six Special Interest Aliens (SIA’s) from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen were picked up by U.S. border patrol near Laredo, Texas. Each one had 60,000 Iraqi Dinars ($51.00) apiece on them.

Last week  [the second week in July] in Arizona, a Muslim prayer rug was found.

Wrap your heads around that information for a while, gentle readers.

Thanks to Obama’s Open Border Policy, the Radical Islamic Terrorists known as ISIS, have been coming into America, with the rest of the Illegal Aliens, via our Southern Border.

How many are already here, living among us, plotting attacks against us?

Obama’s willful and arrogant obtuseness, concerning the danger of a wide open Southern Border, exacerbated the now apparent critical situation which our nation finds itself in, concerning these barbarians, who slaughter innocent people in the name of Islam, a political ideology masquerading as a faith.

…Whose Call to Prayer, as our Former (All Praises to the God of Abraham) President once stated, was“one of the most beautiful sounds on the face of the Earth”.

Obama did absolutely nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens entering our Sovereign Nation  because he and his political party envisioned them as future Democrat Voters.

In fact, Petulant President Pantywaist encouraged it.

By granting amnesty to these people who have broken into our country, as a burglar breaks into a home, as well as to their offspring, Obama and those who handle him, believed that they were strengthening the Democrat voter base, replenishing those ex-sycophants who figured out for themselves that Obama’s promise of Hope and Change, was not one of personal prosperity.

Hence, the illogical statement, heard time and again from Obama, that:

The most significant step we can take now to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place.

A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the Sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now.  Thank you, President Trump , for not playing political games.

As your yourself have stated, the safety of America is at stake .

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump Makes Presence Felt on First Day of New Congress…Simply by Tweeting His Displeasure

January 4, 2017

u-s-capitol-4-snow-1000x550As my bride and I were settling down to watch an episode of “Walker Texas Ranger” last night, the words of the show’s theme song rang out,

The eyes of the ranger are upon you…any wrong you do he’s gonna see…

Yesterday, Newly Re-elected Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the rest of the Members of the House of Representatives found out that “the eyes of the President-elect” were upon them.

The Washington Post reports that

The Trump effect has landed forcefully on Capitol Hill.

Less than two hours after President-elect Donald Trump criticized House Republicans — in a tweet, of course — for trying to gut an ethics investigative unit on the first day of business in the new Congress, those plans lay in shambles in the Republican conference’s meeting room.

The immediate outcome was to keep intact the independent Office of Congressional Ethics — exactly the status quo that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and his leadership team had hoped to protect. That result, however, appeared largely to be the result of Trump’s intervention rather than Ryan’s maneuvering.

There was a broader outcome, too: The unruly Republican caucus that has wreaked havoc in the House for the entirety of Ryan’s tenure fell in line. And there were signs, judging from Tuesday’s drama, that they might continue doing so this year.

House leaders attributed the reversal of the ethics decision to many factors, not the least of which was a rough period of media coverage highlighting how the lawmakers were abandoning Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” of Washington of corruption.

But lurking behind it all was the prospect that Trump’s political power, now aimed at Capitol Hill, can instill fear and force action. By aiming his social-media fire hose on fellow Republicans — even as he assembles a Cabinet filled with billionaires and insiders — Trump made clear that he intends to continue giving voice to the anti-establishment outsiders who propelled him through the Republican primaries against much more seasoned politicians and to an electoral-college win against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

That may give Trump leverage over those members of the Republican conference who have claimed the “outsider” mantle for the past six years, a period when the most conservative Republicans have gained stature back home by flouting leadership, whether it was John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) as speaker or Ryan for the past 15 months.

These Republicans regularly turned their backs on party leadership and claimed ideological purity in their carefully crafted districts that were bastions of like-minded conservatives. They operated on the assumption that the only likely political penalty was a primary challenge from the right.

Now, their party’s leader wields a Twitter account with 18.5 million followers. As he prepares to enter the Oval Office in little more than two weeks, Trump is far more popular in their districts than they are. He employs as his chief strategist the former leader of Breitbart News, a conservative media outlet that has included among its top targets the skewering of Republicans not deemed suitably conservative.

As a result, the first day of the 115th Congress served as a sort of beta test of how some Republicans will react when Trump sics his media power on them. If the most conservative flank tries to buck Trump on a pricey infrastructure deal, how will they handle the heat from Trump’s Twitter feed? If moderate Republicans try to block his moves on health care, will they withstand the heat if Trump goes to Breitbart to attack them by name?

On Tuesday the answer came fast: Run for cover.

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog . . . their number one act and priority,” Trump asked in a pair of tweets just after 10 a.m., adding that there were “so many other things of far greater importance.”

By 11:50 a.m., literally 10 minutes before the constitutionally mandated start of the new Congress, Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called an emergency meeting. Some Republicans piled into the meeting with their children in tow, there to see their mother or father sworn into another term in Congress.

The night before, by a large margin, House Republicans had approved an amendment to their new rules package for the 115th Congress that would have substantially impaled the investigative capabilities of the Office of Congressional Ethics — an independent body that was formed almost a decade ago after a raft of mostly Republican corruption cases landed in federal courthouses.

The OCE, as it is known, was meant to serve as a quasi-grand jury that would handle complaints from the public and tipsters, as well as reviewing media stories of potentially corrupt acts. If there’s a high likelihood an infraction occurred, it gets referred to the House Ethics Committee, which is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and has full subpoena power and can mete out punishment.

Lawmakers in both parties have seen the OCE as overly zealous at times, and there have been previous calls to rein in the team of former federal prosecutors who have overseen it the past nine years.

But the Monday night massacre of OCE, on a federal holiday, with almost 50 Republicans still not back in Washington, came with little warning or debate. It was an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the House Judiciary Committee chairman, and Ryan and McCarthy tried to tell their rank and file they would look foolish if they blew up the ethics process in this manner.

The leaders were steamrolled, with Goodlatte winning 119 to 74.

At the same time Tuesday morning that Trump was tweeting his displeasure, Ryan’s office issued a wordy statement that tried to explain what had happened, and McCarthy held a media briefing. Neither could clearly explain what would come next.

Then the leaders brought in the rank and file for another meeting. Many arguments were made about appearances and how the issue was dominating media coverage.

Oh, and someone brought up Trump.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a recent chairman of the Ethics Committee, said that members of the House GOP leadership mentioned Trump’s opposition to the OCE changes at the brief closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement, giving weight to reversing Monday night’s decision.

“That should be a consideration,” Dent said, explaining how leaders framed the thinking.

Within minutes, lawmakers rolled out of their meeting, having completely reversed course. Nothing would change for the OCE.

Instead, the normally fractious House GOP marched upstairs and displayed the most unity it has shown in the vote for speaker in six years: All but one Republican supported Ryan, who lost 10 Republican votes in his initial vote in October 2015.

“We will deliver,” Ryan told the House in his valedictory speech.

What slays me about this whole “incident”  is the fact that the Establishment Republicans seem to be quite content, in their moderately left-leaning stupor, even after the mandate that We The People delivered to them on November 8th, 2016, to be totally oblivious and tone deaf of their Base, average hard working middle-class Americans like you and me.

You know, the people who actually put them into office.

They keep on making bad choices.

Spineless Vichy Republicans have been a barrier to Republican victory for as long as I can remember. Like Quakers, Establishment Republicans seem to believe that passive resistance and reaching out to their sworn enemies as “friends”, is the way to defeat those who oppose you.

It has been especially bad during Obama’s reign, as the House and Senate Republican Leadership apparently cherished their friendship with the Democrats more than they did the wishes of the folks back home. Yes, they talked a good game, but so did Jon Lovitz in those “Liar Sketches” during the old days of Saturday Night Live, back when they were actually funny.

Yeah,  my wife Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!

In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and average Americans’ visceral disdain for the Professional Politicians, who value the Washingtonian Status Quo, above US.

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Note to the GOP Elite:

You guys are now facing the same situation that faced Victor von Frankenstein, in the classic movie: You have created this “monster”.

…a pi$$ed-off base who voted for an “outsider”, a non-professional politician talking directly to the people…

And, you have lost control.

Your only hope is to catch this lighting in a bottle and to ride this lightning bolt all the way through Donald J. Trump’s tenure as President of the United States of America, supporting him and passing legislation in accordance with the wishes of the American Voters who made him the “Leader of your Political Party”.

Your phony boloney jobs are at stake.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Congress Grows a Spine, Stands Up to Obama and Overrides Saudi Lawsuit Bill Veto. Dhimmi President Upset.

September 29, 2016

obama-bows

“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” -Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), on the Floor of the Senate, 9/28/2016

The moment that Americans have been longing for the past 8 years finally happened yesterday.

Congress grew a spine.

The New York Times reports that

Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.

The override comes at an already freighted moment in America’s relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it had any part in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the plot found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda, the terror group that carried out the attacks. But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.

Mr. Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a “dangerous precedent” with implications they did not understand and never debated.

“I think it was a mistake, and I understand why it happened,” Mr. Obama said at a CNN town hall-style meeting with military personnel in Fort Lee, Va. “It’s an example of why sometimes, you have to do what’s hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard. I didn’t expect it, because if you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do.”

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future, although there was general pessimism on Wednesday that Congress would agree to any changes. “You got to find consensus,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, after the vote. “Then you need a vehicle.”

It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy than America’s.

But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.

The law allows families of the Sept. 11 victims to alter lawsuits already underway — or file new suits — to directly sue Saudi Arabia and to demand documents and other evidence. It amends a 1976 law that grants foreign countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. Now nations can be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.

“From there, the ball goes squarely into the Obama administration’s court,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

As Mr. Vladeck noted, a little-discussed provision of the bill allows the attorney general to intervene in the lawsuits and get a judge to stay any settlement as long as there are continuing discussions with the Saudis about a possible resolution.

The provision was added earlier this year to soften the legislation — preserving the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving family members a path to sue.

But the prospects of such discussions ever beginning are uncertain. The Saudi government has long denied any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and any negotiation with the United States could be viewed as acknowledging culpability.

At the same time, lawyers for the families will no doubt push for judges to carefully scrutinize any attempt by the attorney general to delay court proceedings.

“The families would of course expect that in the event the provision is invoked, that the courts exercise their inherent authority to assure good faith negotiations are in fact taking place and that the courts not simply rubber stamp executive branch requests for delay in resolution of their claims,” said Allan Gerson, who is part of a team representing many of the Sept. 11 families.

Mr. Gerson filed a lawsuit against Libya on behalf of families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was brought down by a bomb as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.

What happened here is that the professional politicians in the Senate and the House of Representatives saw their chances of holding on to their phony baloney jobs greatly diminished if they sided with the dhimmi President against the families of the victims of those Saudi Nationals, who committed the worst act of Terrorism ever seen on American Soil, when they slaughtered over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

Obama said,

It’s an example of why sometimes, you have to do what’s hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard.

So, let’s talk about “doing what’s hard”.

You know what is “hard”, Mr. President?

Hard is burying a child…or a grandchild.

Step back from your incessant pandering to the Followers of Mohammed for a moment and attempt to feel the pain, which is still as real as that horrible day over 15 years ago, when over 3,00 American lives were mercilessly ended and, exponentially, tens of thousands of other American Lives irreversibly and helplessly changed forever.

Someone should be held responsible for the tremendous pain that is now an intrinsic part of the daily lives of so many American Families, don’t you think?

Now, I don’t expect a lot to happen out of these potential lawsuits.

However, if it makes those Saudis who funded those al Qaeda Members who savagely murdered all of those Americans on that fateful day, worry about losing some of their vast fortunes and makes them understand that they cannot sponsor Islamic Terrorist Acts with impunity, expecting to pay no consequences, then it is undoubtedly worth the effort.

And, you know something, President Obama?

If you had put America First during your poorly managed and executed Presidency, you might not be so worried about “potential repercussions” from these lawsuits.

Instead of delivering a “Message to the Muslim World” at the University of Cairo in July of 2009, perhaps you should have delivered a “Message to Americans” extoling OUR Country and the Faith which founded it.

Then, perhaps, this “mistake” as your Administration has referred to it, may have never happened.

But, that would have required a President who actually loves American and all of its citizens.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Touching a Nerve: Obama Attacks Trump. Defends His Refusal to Identify Radical Islam as America’s Enemy.

June 15, 2016

untitled (73)This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. – Admiral Josh Painter (Fred Thompson), “The Hunt For Red October”

Yesterday, America…and the rest of the world, saw a sitting President of the United States of America, attempt to defend his weak leadership, which has led to Radical Islamic Terrorist murdering Americans on our soil.

According to Foxnews.com,

After years of brushing off criticism for avoiding the term “radical Islam,” President Obama fired a point-blank broadside Tuesday at his critics, calling the debate a “political distraction” that will do nothing to combat terrorism.

Speaking from the White House during what was expected to be an update for the public on the fight against the Islamic State, Obama lit into his critics and specifically presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Their criticism has mounted in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, which Obama declined to publicly link to radical Islam.

“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.” 

Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans swiftly pushed back on the president’s remarks.

Trump said Obama “claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.”

He also said: “When I am president, it will always be America first.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said earlier: “With all due respect Mr. President, you’re wrong. … Telling the truth about violent Islam is a prerequisite to a strategy — a strategy you admitted you don’t have. It is the commander-in-chief’s duty to actually identify our enemies and to help the American people understand the challenge of violent Islam.”

Obama, though, went on to warn of a slippery slope in this debate, citing Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration – a proposal many in Trump’s party do not support, including House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“We don’t have religious tests here,” Obama said, without attacking Trump by name. But answering one of Trump’s most frequent accusations, the president said his reluctance to use the phrase “radical Islam” has “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”

He said groups like ISIS “want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims … who reject their crazy notions,” and a move to single out Muslims in America “betrays the very values America stands for.”

A day earlier, during a speech in New Hampshire, Trump had doubled down on his call for a Muslim immigration ban.

“It we don’t get tough, and we don’t get smart — and fast — we’re not going to have a country anymore. There will be nothing left,” Trump said.

Ryan, however, said Tuesday he does not support that proposal. “I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest,” Ryan said. “I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country.” 

Before tackling the “radical Islam” debate, Obama was speaking at the White House Tuesday to deliver a status report to the public on the fight against the Islamic State, after meeting with his National Security Council.

He claimed that campaign is making gains and ISIS is “on defense.”

A day earlier, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton also claimed ISIS is losing ground in Iraq and Syria — but addressed other concerns about the group’s reach.

“As ISIS loses actual ground in Iraq and Syria, it will seek to stage more attacks and gain stronger footholds wherever it can, from Afghanistan, to Libya, to Europe,” Clinton said. “The threat is metastasizing.”

Further, Clinton referred openly in a TV interview to the threat from “radical Islamism.”

Obama, though, joined Clinton Tuesday in pushing for gun control measures to thwart terror attacks including renewing the assault-weapons ban.

“Make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us,” Obama said. 

On that point, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, “We should not make it harder for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves when radical Islamic terrorists are successfully launching attacks on U.S. soil.”

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration, said Tuesday that Obama’s remarks were like a “lecture” and urged Clinton to break with the president on the terminology issue.

“It shows the president to be a small man,” Bolton told Fox News. 

So, why doesn’t the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, identify our enemy?

When Barack Obama, Jr. was 3-years-old, his parents divorced.  Obama only saw his father one time after that.  Dad moved to Kenya and his mother married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro.  From ages six to 10, Barack Obama, Jr., attended a private school for well-off Islamic families in Jakarta.

Obama once said in a New York Times article posted March 3, 2007:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are found on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

On October2. 2008, Rick Moran wrote the following article for americanthinker.org…

Just  how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a “criminal investigation” and would impact the coming election.

The anonymous investigator (who won’t reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler writes:

The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign’s fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. “Without formal approval, I can’t get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking.” And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system.

“The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?” says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. “There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.

Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign’s website – a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East – not surprising given Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light.

Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans.

There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn’t even taking into account Obama’s strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.

There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign.

And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won’t do a damn thing about it until after the election.

They never did.

In September of 2010, pewforum.org, published the following…

A substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.

A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama’s recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.

The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. But even among many of his supporters and allies, less than half now say Obama is a Christian. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).

When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.

So, why do Liberals, who, unlike, Obama, having not been educated in Islam, still refuse to admit that America is at WAR with Radical Islam?

On April 20, 2013, in the aftermath of the bombing of the Boston Marathon by two Radical Islamic Brothers, who were “Refugees” from  Chechnya, I wrote

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

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

We’ve all been a victim of it. And, it’s not just the Liberals who practice it.

A short time back, a young Libertarian lady, who just happens to be Black, had posted an article in a Facebook Page for Conservatives and Libertarians, featuring Patti Davis, the Liberal (and crazy) daughter of Former President Ronald Reagan. Davis had come out as the moral arbiter of some issue, and I pointed out that she was not fit to be the “moral arbiter” in any situation, as, to torque off her Dad, and make a political statement, she had posed topless for the cover of Playboy in 1994 with a Black guy, standing behind her, cupping her…umm…chest.

Both the young lady and her husband, who happens to be White, jumped on me, like I was some sort of RAAACIIIST, because I stated the obvious.

archiesammyTimes were different, back in ’94. Just as they were different back in the 70s, when Bud Yorkin and Norman Lear created All in the Family, starring the great American actor, Carroll O’Connor. The misadventures of Archie Bunker and his family could not be a hit today. Our tolerant American Liberals (and others) would not allow it. And, the lessons learned from that ground-breaking television series would be lost.

Perhaps, the reticence by the Media to identify the religious/political ideology of the two brothers is something else: loyalty to President Barack Hussein Obama.

They have a lot invested in The Lightbringer. They have campaigned endlessly for him, and the majority of “Broadcast Journalists” share his vision for a Socialist Utopia America. Additionally, the White House has been known to send e-mails and make telephone calls to these bastions of journalistic integrity, when they want something swept under the Oval Office rug.

The fact that these murdering terrorists are Muslims, does not reflect well on our dhimmi President. In fact, it proves that Smart Power! is anything, but.

Additionally, the fact that these two got into our sovereign land in the first place, shows the folly of relaxing our already-porous Immigration Laws (Sorry, Sen. Rubio.).

With the resounding defeat of Obama’s Gun Confiscation Bill, and now, in the aftermath of the New Boston Massacre, the Obama Administration and their Main Stream Media lackeys are bailing, just as fast as they can, in order to save Obama’s sinking Ship of State.

Oh, but, just wait. You ain’t seen nothin’, yet.”

And now, in 2016, I have been proven to be a prophet as we watch the Main Stream Media continue to protect the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama and now, the Candidacy of Hillary Clinton, by their reticence to identify Radical Islamists for who they are.

Dear Lord, I hate it when I’m right.

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

Obama “Fired Up”, to Hold Gun Control Pep Rally on CNN

January 4, 2016

Party-Pooper-600-nrdHis (Obama’s) first impulse always is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong. And to use executive powers he doesn’t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. – Republican Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush, Fox News Sunday, 1/3/2016

ABC News reports that

Hawaiian vacation over, President Barack Obama says he is energized for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business, turning immediate attention to the issue of gun violence. Obama scheduled a meeting Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss a three-month review of what steps he could take to help reduce gun violence. The president is expected to use executive action to strengthen background checks required for gun purchases.

Republicans strongly oppose any moves Obama may make, and legal fights seem likely over what critics would view as infringing on their Second Amendment rights. But Obama is committed to an aggressive agenda in 2016 even as public attention shifts to the presidential election.

Obama spent much of his winter vacation out of the public eye, playing golf with friends and dining out with his family. He returned to the White House about noon Sunday.

“I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us. That’s because of what we’ve accomplished together over the past seven,” Obama said his weekly radio and Internet address.

While in Hawaii, he also worked on his final State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12. The prime-time speech will give the president another chance to try to reassure the public about his national security stewardship after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Congressional Republicans have outlined a competing agenda for January, saying they will spend the first days of 2016 taking another crack at eliminating keys parts of the president’s health insurance law and ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation is unlikely to become law, but it is popular with the GOP base in an election year.

The debate about what Obama may do on gun violence already has spilled over into the presidential campaign.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, and rival Bernie Sanders said he would support Obama’s expected move.

The Vermont senator told ABC’s “This Week” that he believes “there is a wide consensus” that “we should expand and strengthen the instant background check.” He added: “I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.”

Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.

“This president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator,” unable to persuade Congress and forcing an “illegal executive action” on the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also on Fox, said Obama’s “first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong.”

In the radio address, Obama said tens of thousands of people have died from gun violence since background check legislation stalled three years ago.

“Each time, we’re told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

Obama plans to participate in a town hall Thursday night at George Mason University in Virginia on reducing gun violence. The president will take questions from the audience at the event moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its inmates.

An Executive Order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive Orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke Civil Rights.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Obama realizes that even though he “has a pen”, that does not mean that he has the national approval for his coming dictatorial action, which he claims that he has.

Therefore, he and his Administration have arranged for a “National Townhall Meeting”, to be held live on CNN, this Thursday night.

During this upcoming “Pep Rally”, I can guarantee you the following:

  1. The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
  2. Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
  3. Anderson Cooper will fawn over him, lobbing softball questions that Steve Urkel himself could hit out of the park.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of  the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

KJ