Posts Tagged ‘Ronald Reagan’

Net Neutrality: Fascism By Any Other Name…

February 24, 2015

image

 

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help. – United States President Ronald Wilson Reagan

Now that the Obama Administration has successfully controlled the food which our children and grandchildren are fed in their school cafeterias, they now are attempting to seize control of World Wide Web.

TheHill.com reports that

A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.

Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.

It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself about backing tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes.  

Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a “telecommunications” service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.

Proponents of net neutrality have said that move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.

However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” which was created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways that companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.

Those deals, known as “interconnection” arrangements, became a point of contention last year, when Netflix accused Comcast and other companies of erecting “Internet tolls” before easily passing Web traffic from one network to another.

The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheetreleased by the FCC earlier this month.

Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said the FCC officials, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations. 

Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough powers to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.

Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules. 

The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.

So, what exactly does “Net Neutrality” mean to average Americans, like you and me?

Rush Limbaugh breaks it down for us, as only he can…

Do you own a website, do you operate a website?  If Obama gets his way, you’re gonna have to get a license for it just like radio and TV stations get licenses, because the Internet is gonna be subject to regulation under Title II like broadcast facilities are.  Cable is not, but over the air broadcast — But they can’t wait to regulate the Internet, folks, they just can’t wait. 

There’s too much freedom out there.  There’s too many people, quote, unquote, “out of control” on the Internet, and Obama and the Democrats have gotta get it controlled.  And the way they’re doing it is capitalizing on the stupidity of young people.  Maybe “stupidity” is the wrong word.  Ignorance and lack of information resulting from they haven’t lived long enough to know. 

The way net neutrality is being sold to Millennials is — and I read these tech bloggers, these little guys. I read ‘em, they hate their cable providers. They hate their web service providers, Internet service, they hate ‘em.  Just like you were made to hate Big Oil and just like you were made to hate Big Tobacco. Just like you’ve been oriented to hate Big Anything, Big Retail, big box retail like Walmart.  The Democrats’ enemies list now includes all of the telecommunications companies and the Internet service providers.

The way Obama is targeting support, gaining support from young people on this, is he’s got them confused that what he’s gonna do with net neutrality is punish the people they hate.  Does this sound familiar?  They’re gonna go after Comcast, Time Warner, any other telecommunications, cell provider, Internet service, they’re gonna really hammer ‘em, and they’re gonna make sure that they don’t overcharge.  Then they’re gonna make sure they provide equal access to high speed.  The big, rich people aren’t gonna get any more access to high speed than people who can’t afford it are, and the government’s gonna take care of it, and the government’s gonna punish, and government’s gonna make people behave right.

The government’s gonna make it all fair.  The government’s gonna make it all equal.  And that’s what they’ve been led to believe.  The same government that has, right in front of these little people, these young people’s faces, blown up the health care system. The same government that has made a mockery of HealthCare.gov. The same government that has messed up and on the verge of totally destroying, under the guise of transforming it, the best health care system in the world.

Liberals can not legitimately defend this suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

This is fascism, boys and girls, pure and simple.

Fascism, in any form, remains indefensible, especially when it’s done in the name of “making things fair.”

When Barack Hussein Obama assumed the position of President of the United States, the Far Left became empowered. Obama’s handlers saw the opportunity to “radically change” America into a Democratic Socialist Republic. You know, the kind of government that is currently failing over in Europe.

Every piece of legislation that Barack Hussein Obama has tried to get passed, has been designed to either overtly or covertly limit our freedom.

From the stimulus bill on up to this Thursday’s vote, every single piece of legislation and every overt and covert action by Obama and his Administration has been designed to further the Far Left’s agenda.

Alinsky and Marx would be proud.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s “Compromise” With Iran to Allow Bomb

February 23, 2015

image

Do you remember when you were a child, and your parents told you to pick your friends carefully because you are judged by the company that you keep?

Evidently, Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. never took young Barry aside and gave him that bit of advice.

Look at Barack Hussein Obama’s career, from his days as a community organizer to now, and look at the company he kept and is keeping.

Back in his days of community organizing, Obama hung out with the movers and shakers of Chicago politics, professional politicians who are known for their shady backroom dealing.

Then, he worked at the Annenberg Foundation with Former Weatherman, Bomber Bill Ayers

When he got into the Illinois Senate, he continued these relationships, and built new ones with fellow travelers. That is, politicians who thought the same way that he did and who never saw a situation that they could not take advantage of.

Then, when he came to the United States Senate, he and his handlers made sure that he was around the right sort of people who could further his political career. Of course, this took the seat of importance away from those whom he was supposed to be representing from his home district.

After his election to the highest office in this land, Obama has made poor choice after poor choice , in terms of whom to embrace as a friend among four and leadership, and whom to alienate.

As I have said many times, Obama alienates our friends and embraces our enemies.

There is a reason that the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, always advised to

Trust, but verify.

Reagan knew that in the game of world politics, those who wish to harm us, are masters at being duplicitous.

Our enemies will lie to us at every opportunity to gain an advantage over us, because they fear the kind of American Will and Courage, which freed the world in World War II.

Ronaldus Magnus’ warning continues to echo as loud as it ever did, some 30+ years later.

However, the individual who now sits behind the desk in the Oval Office, refuses to verify the intentions of those whom he remains so steadfast in attempting to befriend.

For example, the Radical Islamic Leadership in Iran.

Yahoo.com reports that

Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

Officials said there were still obstacles to overcome before a March 31 deadline, and any deal will face harsh opposition in both countries. It also would be sure to further strain already-tense U.S. relations with Israel, whose leaders oppose any agreement that doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to strongly criticize the deal in an address before Congress next week.

Still, a comprehensive pact could ease 35 years of U.S-Iranian enmity — and seems within reach for the first time in more than a decade of negotiations.

“We made progress,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides found “a better understanding” at the negotiating table.

Western officials familiar with the talks cited movement but also described the discussions as a moving target, meaning changes in any one area would have repercussions for other parts of the negotiation.

The core idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement, gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment and slowly easing economic sanctions.

Iran says it does not want nuclear arms and needs enrichment only for energy, medical and scientific purposes, but the U.S. fears Tehran could re-engineer the program to produce the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. initially sought restrictions lasting up to 20 years; Iran has pushed for less than a decade. The prospective deal appears to be somewhere in the middle.

One variation being discussed would place at least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran’s uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final five years.

One issue critics are certain to focus on: Once the deal expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted.

Experts say Iran already could produce the equivalent of one weapon’s worth of enriched uranium with its present operating 10,000 centrifuges. Several officials spoke of 6,500 centrifuges as a potential point of compromise, with the U.S. trying to restrict them to Iran’s mainstay IR-1 model instead of more advanced machines.

However, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last year that his country needed to increase its output equivalent to at least 190,000 of its present-day centrifuges.

Under a possible agreement, Iran also would be forced to ship out most of the enriched uranium it produced or change it to a form that would be difficult to convert for weapons use. It takes about one ton of low-enriched uranium to process into a nuclear weapon, and officials said that Tehran could be restricted to an enriched stockpile of no more than about 700 pounds.

The officials represent different countries among the six world powers negotiating with Iran — the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the negotiations.

Formal relations between the U.S. and Iran, severed during the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis in 1979, have progressively improved since moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office in 2013. Further reconciliation would help the West in a region where Iran holds considerable sway and the U.S. is increasingly involved in the struggle against Islamic extremists.

But even if the two sides agree to a preliminary deal in March and a follow-up pact in June, such a two-phase arrangement will face fierce criticism from Congress and Israel, both of which will argue it fails to significantly curb Tehran’s nuclear weapons potential.

Israel was already weighing in.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon warned that such a deal would represent “a great danger” to the Western world and said it “will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state.”

In Washington, President Barack Obama has been trying to keep Congress from passing new sanctions against Iran that he says could scuttle further diplomacy and rekindle the threat of a new Mideast war.

Iranian hardliners fearing a sellout of their country’s nuclear program may also pressure Rouhani, although he appears secure as long as a deal is supported by Khamenei.

The U.N’s International Atomic Energy Agency would have responsibility for monitoring, and any deal would depend on technical safeguards rather than Iranian guarantees.

Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

We’re screwed.

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Liars, Bald-Faced Liars, and Brian Williams

February 7, 2015

Brian Williams 1Lies, lies
I can’t believe
A word you say
Lies, lies
Are gonna make
You sad someday – The Knickerbockers, 1966

The New Orleans Advocate reports that

NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who apologized on the air Wednesday night for lying about an experience covering the Iraq War, is now facing scrutiny over his gripping accounts of Hurricane Katrina, the disaster that burnished his nightly news bona fides almost a decade ago.

Williams’ account of seeing a body float by in the French Quarter — which remained largely dry — and even a claim of catching dysentery from drinking Katrina floodwaters have raised eyebrows among bloggers and elsewhere since he took it on the chin this week over a claim that he rode in a helicopter that was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq.

“I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert,” Williams said Wednesday. He painted his earlier description as a “bungled attempt” to thank an Iraq War veteran.

The online feeding frenzy quickly turned to the 55-year-old anchor’s signature assignment: covering Katrina from before it made landfall, when he spent the night of the storm with refuge-seekers in the Superdome and then reported on the harrowing days that followed.

“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country,” Williams said in a 2006 interview.

And last year, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, the man he replaced in the anchor chair at NBC, Williams said:

“My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery, our hotel was overrun with gangs, I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer. We are friends to this day. And uh, it just was uh, I look back at total agony.”

But the French Quarter, the original high ground of New Orleans, was not impacted by the floodwaters that overwhelmed the vast majority of the city.

A spokesman for NBC did not immediately respond Thursday to questions about those comments, the hotel to which Williams referred, whether Williams stands by the claims or whether the network is reviewing them.

Williams has described his experiences during Katrina as personally transformative, and he has returned to the city and the topic numerous times since.

“I saw fear, I saw death, I saw depravity, I saw firearms being brandished, I saw looting,” he told the Los Angeles Times a year after Katrina made landfall.

He also recalled the danger of the moment in a 2007 interview on C-SPAN.

“We had to have men with guns behind me one night because I was the only source of light downtown, was the lights that were illuminating the broadcast,” Williams said. “We were told not to drink our bottled water in front of people because we could get killed for it.”

Other accounts have Williams curled up in the fetal position between his on-air reports from a bad bout with dysentery.

A spokeswoman from the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals said dysentery is not one of the reportable diseases the agency tracks but that contaminated water sources are possible “transmission points” for dysentery.

Dr. Brobson Lutz, a former city health director who manned an EMS trailer that was set up in the 900 block of Dumaine Street, a block from his house in the French Quarter, said he was a fan of Williams but dubious of his claims.

“We were never wet. It was never wet,” he remarked of the conditions in the city’s most historic neighborhood.

As for dysentery, “I saw a lot of people with cuts and bruises and such, but I don’t recall a single, solitary case of gastroenteritis during Katrina or in the whole month afterward,” Lutz said.

As for Williams saying he accidentally drank floodwaters, Lutz added, “I don’t know anybody that’s tried that to see, but my dogs drank it, and they didn’t have any problems.”

In his interview last year, Brokaw praised Williams, saying that with his reporting during Katrina, Williams “took ownership, if you will, of the anchor chair” following a longtime stint as Brokaw’s understudy.

Since then, Williams has become well known for his sharp-witted comic turns on the late-night talk show circuit. And he has continued to check in on a city that he has said “is always going to be a part of me.”

Questions about Williams’ recollections of his experience during Katrina weave into a larger tapestry of erratic, and sometimes downright erroneous, journalism that emerged from the chaos of the storm and its aftermath.

Why do members of the Main Stream Media, like Brian Williams,  feel so compelled to lie about their experiences, “embellishing their resumes”, and acting like a poor man’s Geraldo Rivera?

First, Let’s look at the make-up of our nation, in terms of political ideology.

Per gallup.com…

38% of Americans are Conservative.
34% of Americans are Moderate.
23% is Americans are Liberals.

These numbers prove that Conservatism remains the strongest political ideology in America, followed closely by Americans who consider themselves to be “Moderate”.

Liberalism remains the smallest (albeit most vocal) political ideology in America, still mired in the low 20s, in terms of that ideology’s percentage of our population.

The disconnect between CNN and MSNBC and the American Viewing Public occurs because the political ideology of the Main Stream Media is overwhelmingly Liberal.

A while back, the Media Research Center reported that:

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, “The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.” Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: “The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance — either liberal or conservative — is Fox News Channel,” Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

Since Pew conducted their research, 10 years ago in 2004, the Liberal Political Bias, present in America’s Newsrooms, has steadily become worse, to the point of being unwatchable, due to their slavish devotion to the “First Post-Racial President”and their decidedly Liberal slant to every single news story, including the shootings of Strong Arm Robbery Suspect Michael Brown, Earl Gardner in New York City, and all of the politically-funded “protests”.

The brilliant Conservative Economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell 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.

The Main Stream Media firmly believes that it is their job to serve as a Propaganda Arm for both the Democrats in Congress and President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration, no matter how costly their programs might be to the American People.

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.

Which explains the gross overestimation by “Broadcast Journalists”, such as Brian Williams, of their own intelligence and potential popularity through their subjective coverage, aimed at a Liberal audience.

In clear and concise terms (in deference to any Liberals who may be reading this), the reason that Fox News kicks CNN’s and MSNBC’s hindquarters week after week, and is actually more respected than the Broadcast News Operations, is because their programming and news-reporting philosophy more accurately reflects the political ideology of the average American.

When I was a Collegiate Radio News Director from 1978-1980, I made sure that all 21 students on my on-air staff, including myself, maintained our objectivity in our reporting.

In Main Stream Media Newsrooms now, 35 years later,  ideology has replaced objectivity.

And, that is why they fail.

…And, why Brian Williams felt compelled to lie…and lie….

Until He Comes,

KJ

Boehner Keeps Speakership. Starts “Paying Back” Conservatives.

January 6, 2015

AFBrancoNoBoehner162015Well, so far, it appears that the Republican Establishment has misread, or are intentionally ignoring, the results of the 2014 Mid-Term Elections.

Politico.com reports that

After he secured his third term as speaker Tuesday afternoon, losing 25 votes on the House floor to some relative-unknown members of the House Republican Conference, Boehner moved swiftly to boot Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Rich Nugent from the influential Rules Committee.

The reason was simple: Webster ran against Boehner for speaker, distributing fliers outlining his candidacy and talking about how he would better adhere to the House rules than the Ohio Republican. Nugent supported his fellow Floridian in the quixotic endeavor, which garnered the support of 12 lawmakers. Webster didn’t even give Boehner a heads-up that he was running, although leadership was aware early Tuesday morning that it could happen.

With Webster openly offering himself as an alternative to Boehner, the GOP leadership thought seats on the Rules Committee were a plum that the pair no longer deserved. It didn’t take more than a few hours for Webster – a legendary former Florida statehouse speaker and state Senate majority leader – and Nugent to find themselves on the outside of a power structure they were once very much a part of.

Members are already making noises about reversing any punitive action by Boehner and the leadership, although the speaker’s allies warn that further retaliation could be on the way. The removal of Webster and Nugent was meant to provide a clear demonstration that what Boehner and other party leaders accepted during the last Congress is no longer acceptable, not with the House’s biggest GOP majority in decades.

The House Republican leadership is carefully reviewing the list of members who voted against the speaker and those who opposed a procedural motion in December on the so-called “crominibus,” the $1.1 trillion spending package to keep the government open through to September.

Subcommittee chairmanships might be stripped and other perks could fall away, top Republican sources suggested, in a process that could take months to unfold.

On September 29, 2011, Rush Limbaugh made some very pertinent points concerning the difference in political ideology between the Conservative Base and the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club:

This is fascinating. I spoke earlier in the previous busy broadcast hour about Reagan’s campaign for governor in California in 1966. It is instructive because of this battle here between American conservatives and the Republican establishment, and believe me, they’re two different things. Now, George Will says there’s no Republican establishment and there hasn’t been since, what, 1966. But there is. The Republican establishment for all intents and purposes for the sake of our discussion here, is made up of what you would call RINOs.

The Republican establishment is northeastern Republican conservatives. They’re right on the fiscal side of things most of the time, but they don’t want any part of the social issues. They can’t stand it being part of the party platform. They don’t want to talk about it. They have no desire to be part of that discussion. They think it’s going to lose elections, all that kind of stuff, plus they do tend to believe Washington is the center of the universe. Republicans win elections. They’re in charge of the money. They like that. They tend to believe that an energetic, powerful executive wielding financial powers, spending money for the national good with conservative instincts is a good thing. So if government grows under that rubric, then it’s fine.

We, of course, as conservatives, don’t see things that way, and there is the divide. And the Republican establishment is made up of a lot of powerful people with a lot of money, and they want to win. Just like we do. They employ whatever muscle they have to see to it that they do. They want their candidates to be representative of what they want, all of which is understandable. So there’s this battle going on. The added intensity this time around is another point of disagreement. That is the Republican establishment doesn’t really think the country’s threatened. They don’t like Obama. They think Obama’s a disaster, but the country’s not in any danger here of real long-term damage. I mean, it’s just overblown, all this talk about saving the country, it’s not that bad. All we gotta do is get our people in there and put us back on the responsible fiscal track and everything will be fine.

They don’t see the Democrat Party the same way we do. They don’t see the Democrat Party as basically socialist liberal, and they cringe at such talk. And these people never really were enamored with Ronald Reagan. They never really liked him. They just lived on edge every day: What’s this guy going to do that’s going to embarrass us? What mistake is he going to make? What stupid thing is he going to say? They actually had this view. Tip O’Neill was not the only one who thought that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce. There were in the Republican establishment who thought that before Reagan ever ran for office and after he won the presidency. And they thought that back in 1966. After all, he was just an actor, introduced GE Theater.

…He was talking about the Goldwater campaign of two years past. This is ’66; the Goldwater campaign was ’64….Reagan said, “We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all,” and the traitors he was referring to were the Rhinos of his day who had undermined the Goldwater conservatives during the 1964 campaign. And Reagan was saying: Over my dead body is the Republican Party going to be turned over to those people. We’re only going places if we conservatives run this party, if we take it over and if we are unified.

Just as they underestimated Ronaldus Magnus, I truly believe that the Country Club Republicans underestimate their Conservative Base.

Reagan Conservatives are the bedrock of this nation. We pay these bozos’ salaries, and get shafted in return.

You know what I want for the 23% (soon to be 40%) of my hard-earned money, which I send to our nation’s capital to pay for Obama’s and Congress’ Revenue?

I want Conservative Leadership. I want somebody to stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama the way the cow ate the cabbage. I want someone to actually give a hoot ‘n holler about the average American, not the special interest groups, not the lobbyists, not “the smartest people in the room”…me.

I want an American President and competent American Congresspeople.

I want a dadblamed budget, first. I want them to be good stewards of MY money. Not their “revenue”. I want someone to stand up and be a MAN…or a WOMAN.

I am so dadgum tired of mealy-mouth squishes and political niceties and expediences, I could spit. Too many Americans are out of work and doing without, while the Three-Ring Circus performs unabated under the Big Top on Capital Hill.

The American people are tired of cleaning up after the donkeys and the elephants.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Says Oppressive Iran Could Become a “Very Successful Regional Power”

December 29, 2014

AFBrancoObamaCarterAward1092014Since the ouster of the Shah, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the Free World, and, especially, the United States of America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, now, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is encouraging the Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians to become a successful nation.

Reuters News – Canada reports the following…

Iran could become a “very successful regional power” if Tehran agrees to a long-term deal to curb its nuclear program, President Barack Obama said in an interview with NPR News.

“They’ve got a chance to get right with the world,” Obama said in the interview, which was taped at the White House on Dec. 18 and is set to air this week.

More than a year ago, Iran agreed to an interim plan to halt higher-level uranium enrichment in exchange for a limited easing in financial sanctions pending negotiations on a long-term deal. Those talks have now been extended to next June.

Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful energy use, but the United States and five other powers want to make sure that Tehran cannot quickly develop nuclear weapons.

Obama told NPR that Iran should seize the chance of a deal that could lift crippling sanctions.

“Because if they do, there’s incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of Iran and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules – and that would be good for everybody,” he said.

Obama insisted a nuclear deal was possible, although Vice President Joe Biden earlier this month said he thought there was a “less than even shot” of an agreement.

Obama said he recognized that Iran has “legitimate defense concerns” after it “suffered from a terrible war with Iraq” in the 1980s. But he criticized Tehran for its “adventurism, the support of organizations like Hizbollah, the threats they’ve directed at Israel.”

Asked whether he would use his last two years in office to help rebuild war-torn countries, Obama said it was up to countries like Libya, Syria and Iraq to take the lead.

“We can help, but we can’t do it for them,” Obama said. “I think the American people recognize that. There are times here in Washington where pundits don’t; they think you can just move chess pieces around the table.

“And whenever we have that kind of hubris, we tend to get burned,” he said.

Obama rejected the idea of “devoting another trillion dollars” to sending U.S. combat troops to fight Islamic State militants in Iraq.

“We need to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our schools, our roads, our basic science and research here in the United States,” he said.

Obama said he hoped to be able to work with Congress on shared economic goals. But he said he expected Republicans would pass some bills he will oppose, particularly on health care and the environment.

“I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office,” Obama said. “Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out.”

I reported, earlier this year, that President Obama had been sending secret letters to the Head Ayatollah in Iran, a country who sponsors Islamic Terrorism, with whom we have not had diplomatic relations since the Radical Muslims took over, after they revolted against the Moderate Government of the Shah in 1979.

Now, President Pantywaist continues to reach out to a nation run by Radical Muslims, who hate our ever-lovin’ guts?

Why doesn’t he just go ahead and help them with their “Nuclear Enhancement Program”, so they can launch one at us quicker, while he’s at it?

He negotiates with those who want to kill us, and gives ultimatums to his own countrymen.

Some observations…

1 The Iranian Government is not secular. It is the product of a fanatical political ideology, disguised as a “faith”. The Ayatollahs rule Iran. The President and “Secular Government” carry out their wishes, and are simply figureheads.

2. Nowhere in Obama’s Negotiations with Iran, has he or Secretary of State John Kerry called for the halt of Uranium Enrichment in Iran.

3. A Christian American Pastor, Saeed Abedini, has been held in jail by the Iranian Government, since the summer of 2012. Why does the Obama Administration care more about negotiating appeasement with a hostile, barbaric Foreign Government, than securing the freedom of an American Christian Pastor?

Wars have been started for less than that.

President Reagan advised to “Trust, but Verify”.

Evidently, Obama’s message is to “Trust Islam…Limit American Christianity”.

This has the potential of not ending well.

He truly is our first Anti-American President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Day After Christmas: Keeping That “Joy Like a Fountain”

December 26, 2014

American Christianity 2During the two days of celebrating the birthday of Jesus Christ, our Risen Savior, my family and I experienced a lot of joy and happiness.

Under the heading of “well, duh”, a story found over at The Drudge Report nails the reason for all that happiness.

Breitbart.com has the story.

A strong correlation exists between religiosity and personal happiness, according to a new study by the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture.
The study found that people who attend religious services on a weekly basis are nearly twice as likely to describe themselves as “very happy” (45%) than people who never attend (28%). Conversely, those who never worship are twice as likely to say they are “very unhappy” (4%) as those who attend services weekly (2%).

Building on prior research, this broad survey of American adults comprised a representative sample of 15,738 Americans between the ages of 18 and 60.

The study indicated that not only religious service attendance, but self-reported “religiosity” and religious “affiliation” are also linked with happiness levels. Yet of the three indicators, service attendance has the highest correlation to increased happiness. The study showed that higher levels of church attendance “predict higher life satisfaction,” even after accounting for how important religious faith is in people’s lives.

The correlation between religiosity and happiness is clear, but explanations of the connection and possible causal relationship are less clear. One theory suggests that the social support that religious communities can provide may be a key factor contributing to increased happiness, since “religious Americans are more apt to be involved in their communities.” Yet even here, the study found “that those who attend religious services often are happier than their peers with similar levels of involvement in the community.”

These statistics tying happiness to religiosity have held true over time. A similar survey conducted ten years ago generated similar results, leading to the same conclusions. When the General Social Survey asked a sample of Americans in 2004, “Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” religious people were more than twice as likely as the non-religious to say they were “very happy” (43%-21%). The secular people, or those who never attend worship services, were overwhelmingly more likely to say they were not too happy (21%-8%).

One could almost predict that many of those celebrating Christmas will be merry, those observing Hanukkah will be happy, but those only recognizing the “holidays” will have a little less cause for rejoicing.

A while back, I was asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

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

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

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

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

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

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

I pray that the strength  and joy of spirit, which you have experienced the past two days brings you peace throughout the rest of the year and 2015, as well.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

Senate Approves Nomination of Gun Control/Obamacare Advocate For Surgeon General

December 15, 2014

vivek murthyFor those who have not figured it out by now, let ol’ KJ clue you in: Everything that President Obama does has a political purpose. Political expediency always outweighs any concern he may have for the best thing to do for America.

The choosing of his latest cabinet member is not the exception to that rule, as Fox News reports…

The Senate on Monday approved President Obama’s nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to serve as U.S. surgeon general, despite opposition from Republicans and some Democrats over his support for gun control and past statements that gun violence is a public health issue.

Murthy, 37, a physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, won confirmation on a vote of 51-43. He’s a co-founder of Doctors for America, a group that has pushed for affordable health care and supports Obama’s health care law.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said most of Murthy’s career has been spent as an activist focused on gun control and other political issues, rather than on treating patients. “Americans don’t want a surgeon general who might use this position of trust to promote his own personal campaign against the Second Amendment of the Constitution,” Barrasso said.

Supporters said Murthy is well-qualified and noted his promise not to use the position as a bully pulpit for gun control.

The nation has been without a Senate-confirmed surgeon general since July 2013. The surgeon general does not set policy but is an advocate for the people’s health.

Murthy’s confirmation “makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home,” President Barack Obama said in a statement. Murthy “will also help us build on the progress we’ve made combatting Ebola, both in our country and at its source” in West Africa.

Murthy’s confirmation represented a rare defeat for the National Rifle Association, which told senators that a vote for Murthy would be scored against them when they rate lawmakers’ votes during election campaigns.

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Murthy has been “pilloried and excoriated” by the NRA and its supporters for his backing of stricter gun laws, including an assault weapons ban, and statements that gun violence is a public health issue.

Murthy has made clear he is not “aspiring to be the leading doctor in America to engage in a political debate, but rather to engage in public health debates about obesity and tobacco and things that make a dramatic difference to the lives of so many people who live in this country,” Durbin said.

Murthy expressed support for gun control in a letter to Congress after the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting.

His nomination was endorsed by more than 100 health organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association.

On February 28, 2014, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action posted the following information about Dr. Murthy on their website:

In 2008, Dr. Murthy co-founded the organization “Doctors for Obama” in order to support the presidential campaign of then-Senator Barack Obama and his plans for health care reform. A year later, the group changed its name to “Doctors for America.”

In his capacity as president of “Doctors for America,” Dr. Murthy has offered his support for a wide array of gun control policies that have been repeatedly rejected by the American people and their elected representatives.

A recent letter sent to Congress by “Doctors for America,” and signed by Dr. Murthy, urges mandatory licensing “for anyone purchasing guns and ammunition–including mandatory firearm safety training and testing.” Under Dr. Murthy’s scheme, further regulations would place “limits on the purchase of ammunition,” and establish a “mandatory waiting period of at least 48 hours.”

In the letter, Dr. Murthy also advocates for a “federal ban on the sale” of popular semi-automatic firearms and their ammunition, and proposes a “buyback” of these popular types of firearms to “reduce the number… that are currently in circulation.” Even some of the most ardent anti-gun researchers, along with the Department of Justice, have admitted the futility of gun “buyback” programs.

Another of Dr. Murthy’s proposals would strip vital privacy protections put in place to protect firearm owners and prevent the fracturing of physician-patient relationships. The letter, for example, calls for removing “the provision in the Affordable Care Act and other federal policies that prohibit physicians from documenting gun ownership.” While some advocates of the ACA had argued the provision prohibiting such documentation was unnecessary, given that the ACA had nothing to do with guns, Dr. Murthy obviously sees the ACA as playing a role in gun control.

And, in late 2012 and early 2013, Dr. Murthy took to his personal Twitter account to promote his gun control beliefs, including a statement on October 16, 2012, that “Guns are a health care issue.”

Under Dr. Murthy’s leadership, a 2013 Doctors for America petition urged Congress to “immediately” pass a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and their magazines. Doctors for America also signed on in support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s expansive “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The American people deserve a Surgeon General who will carry out the mission of the office unmotivated by political or ideological goals. Given Dr. Murthy’s lengthy history of hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, along with his calls for the full weight of the federal government’s health apparatus to be used to target lawful gun ownership, there is strong reason to believe that he would use the influence of the Surgeon General’s office to promote gun control. Simply put, confirmation of Dr. Murthy is a prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.

The NRA could very well be right.

While the Affordable Care Act does not require physicians to ask their patients if they own a gun, Liberal Doctors often do. In fact, Liberal Pediatricians ask children if their parents have firearms in the house.

Luckily, Americans are still well within their Constitutional Rights to tell these Liberal Doctors that it is none of their business. However, what’s going to happen, now that an anti-gun activist has become the Surgeon General of the United States of America?

The greatest United States President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said the following about Gun Control:

You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.

Unfortunately, we have a president who encourages riots and demonstrations on the behalf of fallen criminals.

So, that being said, why would a United States President push so hard for Gun Control?

…Unless his purpose was to control law-abiding citizens.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The “Cromnibus” Bill: Palin Reacts. Coburn Retires. “Vichy Republicans” Surrender…Again

December 13, 2014

palin-newsweekTo know how to reach a destination, you must first know where you are. Without oversight — effective, vigorous oversight — you’ll never solve anything. You cannot write a bill to fix an agency unless you have an understanding of the problem. And you can only know this by conducting oversight, asking the tough questions, holding the bureaucrats accountable, find out what works and what doesn’t and know what has already been done. Effective oversight is an effective tool to expose government overreach and wasteful spending, but it also markedly exposes where we lose our liberty and our essential freedoms. True debates about national priorities would come about if we did effective oversight. It is the senate, once hailed as the world’s greatest deliberative body, where these differences should be argued. Our differences should be resolved through civil discourse so they’re not settled in the street. Just as the constitution provides for majority rule in our democracy while protecting the rights of the individual, the senate must return to the principles to gain the trust of the electorate. And it can. – Retiring US Senator Dr. Tom Coburn

Breitbart News asked Former Alaska GovernorSarah Palin what she thought ofSpeaker of the House John Boehner’s recent actoions in facilitating the passage of the Government-Funding “Cromnibus” Bill

1. What do you think of Speaker Boehner having President Obama ‘whip votes’ from the White House in order to pass this bill?
It stinks to high heaven. Did arrogant politicians not get the memo that Obama’s agenda was decisively defeated in last month’s historic midterm landslide? Good Lord, America said loud and clear not just “no” but “hell no” to Obama’s failed policies. Americans who pay attention said absolutely no to Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens. 

We also said no to the mother-of-all unfunded mandates, Obamacare, and voters believed promises that they would ratchet down the $18 trillion debt. Well, our bad for apathetically trusting politicians. No, on second thought, it’s not “our bad.” Some of us warned and worked hard to elect candidates who would buck the status quo. Many conscientious Americans did all they could to open the eyes of low-information voters. It was tough going up against Obama’s lapdogs in the media and the power liberals have to play their politics of personal destruction against commonsense conservatives. 

But really how out-of-touch do these politicians have to be to misunderstand our recent mandate to stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the greatest nation on earth? 

2. Only 162 Republicans voted for this bill–a bill that will take decision making away from a Republican controlled Congress in 4 weeks–does that strike you as outrageous?

It’s baffling really. The Republican Leadership in the House just flipped American voters the bird by sidelining the new Congress we just elected. I want the names of all 162 yahoos who would squander the opportunity to respect the will of the people and get America on the right track. Please print their names so we can ask them, “What the heck are you thinking?!”

And thank you to the 67 House Republicans who did vote no. Let’s remind everyone of their names also.

3. Do you believe that the 162 Republicans that voted for the bill will face a backlash by conservatives?

Hope so! I’ll do my part and I call upon every citizen to do their civic duty to save our country. It’s easy; understand RINO season opens soon and don’t hold back. 

4. Do you believe that Speaker Boehner working with President Obama effectively tried to ‘nullify’ the sweeping Republican victory in the 2014 mid-terms?

That’s the result thus far, so yes. This is an example of the GOP establishment campaigning one way and then governing another. It’s quite nauseating. They promised they would do everything in their power to stop Obama’s executive amnesty – I heard their darn campaign speeches promising to do so! – and yet when they have the power to do so (power that we the voters just gave them) they tacitly endorse Obama’s failed agenda. They’re shining that boot that liberals have on the neck of our economy. They’re carrying Barack Obama’s water even more so than Nancy Pelosi if you can believe it. 

5. Do you think John Boehner should be re-elected Speaker of the House given his actions over the pass few days? 

Constitutional conservatives who understand government’s balance of power and the grave danger in Obama’s lawlessness, and those of us who want smart and principled leadership, should be perplexed and disappointed if stale leadership is re-elected, considering that the midterm election was all about “the status quo has got to go.” It’s time for new energy and steel-spined commitment to stop Obama’s bizarre behavior against this country! Surely there are more of us than not who know that our Founders’ memory, our vets, and our children deserve better that what we’re underneath today. Keep the faith that there are more of us than there are of them who think broken campaign promises and a broken government are just dandy. 

Boehner has to be the biggest blooming idiot of a Congressman that I have ever seen.

Boehner and his fellow Vichy Republicans believe that the American people want them to acquiesce to Obama and the Democrats, giving them everything they want, in the spirit of “compromise”.

That is NOT what Dr. Coburn was so eloquently speaking of, in his retirement speech on the Floor of the Senate.

The Vichy Republicans believe that, by presenting themselves as “Democrat-Life”, and possibly running Jeb Bush as their Presidential Candidate, they will be remembered fondly at the voting booth in November of 2016.

Oh, we will remember them all right. But not in the way they want us to. We will not remember them as leaders. Oh, no. Rather, Americans Conservatives will remember them with all of the fondness that the French Resistance remembered the Nazi collaborators, or Vichy French, after World War II.

What slays me is the fact that the Establishment Republicans seem to be quite content, in their moderately left-leaning stupor, to be totally oblivious and tone deaf of their Conservative Base, average hard working middle-class Americans like you and me, even after we left no doubt as to the way we feel about the direction which the country is taking, through the political tsunami, which was the 2014 Mid-Term Election.

They keep on making bad choices.

Moderate 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 friends, is the way to defeat those who oppose you.

It has been especially bad during the Obama Administration, as the House and Senate Republican Leadership apparently cherish their friendship with the Democrats more than they do the wishes of the folks back home. Yes, they talk 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 how we need to handle the Republican Party leadership, quite well.

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?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

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.

I believe that the “Moderate”, i.e. “Establishment” Wing of the Republican Party is stuck in a cycle in which their desire to protect their own hindquarters and cushy “jobs” have lead to a self-imposed isolation from the very American Citizens who were responsible for their having those cushy “jobs” in the first place.

I believe that average Americans, like you and me, exercised our power, a little over a month ago, to relieve them of the burden of such a stressful job, and send others to Washington, who will listen to their “bosses”.

Just as Ronaldus Magnus said those 39 years ago, it is time to “let them go their way”.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Community Organizer-In-Chief To Hold “Ferguson Beer Summit” Today

November 30, 2014

AFBrancoPants-Up-LA-600-578x420If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today. – Dr. Thomas Sowell

From 1985 – 1988, President Barack Hussein Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago. What does a Community Organizer do? I’m glad you asked.

Per Byron York in an article found at nationalreview.com:

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising.

Obama was hired by Jerry Kellman, a New Yorker who had gotten into organizing in the 1960s. Kellman was trying to help laid-off factory workers on the far South Side of Chicago, in a nearly 100% black community. He led a group, the Calumet Community Religious Conference, that had been created by several local Catholic churches in the industrial community. Kellman was advised to hire a black organizer for a new spinoff from CCRC. They called it the Developing Communities Project, designed to focus solely on the Chicago part of the area.

One of Obama’s projects while he was there, was to try to build an alliance of white and black churches and enlist them in the cause of social justice. Obama had a problem, though. He didn’t go to church himself. And that, brothers and sisters, is how Obama, drawn to the preaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and a political opportunity), joined Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street.

If you ask Obama’s fellow Community Organizers what his most significant accomplishments were, they’ll say two things: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects. Those were his biggest victories.

Remember all of that as you read this…

NBCNews.com reports that

President Barack Obama will meet with young civil rights leaders, politicians and law enforcement from around the country as protests continue over Ferguson in a bid to build trust among communities of color and police, the White House said Sunday.

Obama will welcome the civil rights activists in the Oval Office on Monday. He then will sit down with local leaders, elected officials and police, the White House said.

“Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri and around the country have shone a spotlight on the importance of strong, collaborative relationships between local police and the communities they protect and serve,” the White House said in a statement.

“As the country has witnessed, disintegration of trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve can destabilize communities, undermine the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, undermine public safety, create resentment in local communities, and make the job of delivering police services less safe and more difficult,” the White House added.

Protests have continued nationwide since a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown. Wilson resigned from the police force on Saturday.

As I have written before, Obama ascended to the throne of the Regime during a period when our nation was experiencing a period of economic recession, by appealing to the masses by promising that if he was elected, the oceans would rise and fall, the sun would come out tomorrow (Hey, that sounds like a song. Oh…never mind.) and everybody would receive a unicorn in their backyard. (Okay. He didn’t really promise that. But, heck, he promised everything else.)

Obama’s “speechifying” sounded great to the 47%, who have relied on Uncle Sugar’s largesse for generations.

Obama has always aimed his “soaring rhetoric” toward that audience, preaching not only economic class division, but racial division, as well.

The attention which he has paid to isolated racial incidents, like the shooting of the young thug, Michael Brown, blown up to national attention by the Democrat Party and their professional race-baiters, including Obama himself, diminishes the presidency.

When Ronald Reagan was president, he was in the Oval Office by 7:00 a.m. every morning, in a coat and tie, because he felt like his being in shirt sleeves was unseemly for the highest office in the land.

Obama saunters into the Oval Office every day about 10 a.m. or so, in shirt sleeves. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that he doesn’t wear his golf shorts and an Izod golf shirt.

Going to college, back in the day, one of the books I had to read for a Business Communications Course was “The Peter Principle”, which states that everyone, in their chosen profession, rises to their level of incompetence.

Unfortunately, for average hard-working Americans, Obama’s level of competence ended in 1988.

And, he’s been Community Organizing ever since.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: WWJD About “Social Justice”?

November 29, 2014

American Christianity 2Shortly after I began this blog in April of 2010, I posted the following article.

Over four years later, the content of it is still as timely as it was then, and the struggle to prevent Liberals from rewriting our nation’s history continues….

Friends have asked me if I believe that Christ would be in favor of this “Social Justice” movement that has consumed some churches in America, replacing Christian Doctrine with a Modern Liberal Political Agenda.

In order for you to understand how I and the overwhelming majority of Americans feel about that question, I believe you first need a working knowledge as to whom Jesus was. The following is taken from a blog I wrote on manlyrash.com during Christmas (2009), “The Reason for the Season”

As some of you know, I was born and raised in Memphis, Tennessee. I now reside in Northwest Mississippi.The following piece was written in 1912 by the editor of the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, Tennessee, C.P.J. Mooney. Since then, it has remained so popular, that the newspaper has published it on their Op Ed page every year at Christmas.

JESUS, THE PERFECT MAN

There is no other character in history like that of Jesus.

As a preacher, as a doer of things, and as a philosopher, no man ever had the sweep and the vision of Jesus.

A human analysis of the human actions of Jesus brings to view a rule of life that is amazing in its perfect detail.

The system of ethics Jesus taught during His Earthly sojourn 2,000 years ago was true then, has been true in every century since and will be true forever.

Plato was a great thinker and learned in his age, but his teachings did not stand the test of time. In big things and in little things time and human experience have shown that he erred.

Marcus Aurelius touched the reflective mind of the world, but he was as cold and austere as brown marble. …

Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ is a thing of rare beauty and sympathy, but it is, as its name indicates, only an imitation.

Sir Thomas More’s Utopia is yet a dream that cannot be realized.

Lord Bacon writing on chemistry and medicine under the glasses of the man working in a 20th century laboratory is puerile.

The world’s most learned doctors until 150 years ago gave dragon’s blood and ground tails of lizards and shells of eggs for certain ailments. The great surgeons a hundred years ago bled a man if he were wounded.

Napoleon had the world at his feet for four years, and when he died the world was going on its way as if he had never lived.

JESUS TAUGHT little as to property because He knew there were things of more importance than property. He measured property and life, the body and soul, at their exact relative value. He taught much more as to character, because character is of more importance than dollars.

Other men taught us to develop systems of government. Jesus taught so as to perfect the minds of men. Jesus looked to the soul, while other men dwelled on material things.

After the experience of 2,000 years no man can find a flaw in the governmental system outlined by Jesus.

Czar and kaiser, president and socialist, give to its complete merit their admiration.

No man today, no matter whether he follows the doctrine of Mill, Marx or George as to property, can find a false principle in Jesus’s theory of property.

In the duty of a man to his fellow, no sociologist has ever approximated the perfection of the doctrine laid down by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.

Not all the investigations of chemists, not all the discoveries of explorers, not all the experiences of rulers, not all the historical facts that go to make up the sum of human knowledge on this day in 1912 are in contradiction to one word uttered or one principle laid down by Jesus.

The human experiences of 2,000 years show that Jesus never made a mistake. Jesus never uttered a doctrine that was true at that time and then became obsolete.

Jesus spoke the truth, and the truth is eternal.

History has no record of any other man leading a perfect life or doing everything in logical order. Jesus is the only person whose every action and whose every utterance strike a true note in the heart and mind of every man born of woman. He never said a foolish thing, never did a foolish act and never dissembled.

No poet, no dreamer, no philosopher loved humanity with all the love that Jesus bore toward all men.

WHO, THEN, was Jesus?

He could not have been merely a man, for there never was a man who had two consecutive thoughts absolute in truthful perfection.

Jesus must have been what Christendom proclaims Him to be — a divine being — or He could not have been what He was. No mind but an infinite mind could have left behind those things which Jesus gave the world as a heritage.

No. I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the social justice movement. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

The following is courtesy of adherents.com:

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country’s political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates – individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 “slots” or “positions” in these groups which one can classify as “Founding Fathers” of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
– signed the Articles of Confederation
– attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
– signed the Constitution of the United States of America
– served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
– served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Courtesy adherents.com

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers

# of Founding Fathers/% of Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

The Founding Fathers were, I do not doubt, aware of the following passage:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. – 2 Corinthians 3:17

The Eight Per Centers (Atheists) who reply to my blogs on Facebook and other Internet Sites insist that Crosses and other Christian symbols have no place in the Public Square.  They wish for Christians to remain unseen and unheard from, worshiping in private, and for Christian Americans to  “compromise” our Faith (i.e., shut up about Homosexual Marriage and other sins,  being used as political expediencies to further an agenda to “radically change” America into something that it was never meant to be.

Well,  y’all can wish for a unicorn to magically appear in your backyard…but that ain’t gonna happen, either.

As a free nation, all you who are non-believers have every right to exercise your faith.

However, as Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center clearly explains:

[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored.

…Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe!

Is the Rabbi prophetic? I pray that he isn’t. 

I have, however, noticed in the last few years, a propensity among those who have not been raised in a Christian home, to be intolerant toward those who have….staring with the individual who sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

Americans’ Christian Faith, of which 76% of us, according to Gallup, still anchor our lives around, has been the Solid Rock upon which our nation was built. To deny that, is to deny reality, to re-write history, and, to, quite frankly, endanger “the Shining City on a Hill”.

As President Ronald Reagan said, 

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under. 

Isn’t it interesting that those among us who claim to be the most tolerant are actually the least tolerant of all?

And, those who claim to be champions of “personal freedom” are enemies of the religious freedom secured for us in the United States Constitution?Until He Comes,

KJ

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,633 other followers