Posts Tagged ‘San Bernadino’

Obama, Islam, and Christianity: “No Man Can Serve Two Masters” – Matthew 6:24

February 7, 2016

American Christianity 2Earlier this week, I reported on the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the mosque where President Barack Hussein Obama visted, this past Wednesday.

I informed you that the mosque had a past Imam, who is an active member of the Godfather of all Muslim Terrorist Groups, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seemingly oblivious to that fact, Obama, as is his wont, praised his audience at the mosque, like he did in July of 2009, in his “Speech to the Muslim World”, given at the University of Cairo, in Egypt.

Here is an excerpt of his speech, found at whitehouse.gov…

For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace.  And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.  The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you.  And like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity.  Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”  (Applause.)  For Christians like myself, I’m assuming that sounds familiar.  (Laughter.)The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are as diverse as humanity itself.  They are Arabs and Africans.  They’re from Latin America to Southeast Asia; Brazilians, Nigerians, Bangladeshis, Indonesians.  They are white and brown and black.  There’s a large African American Muslim community.  That diversity is represented here today.  A 14-year-old boy in Texas who’s Muslim spoke for many when he wrote to me and said, “We just want to live in peace.”

Here’s another fact:  Islam has always been part of America. Starting in colonial times, many of the slaves brought here from Africa were Muslim.  And even in their bondage, some kept their faith alive.  A few even won their freedom and became known to many Americans.  And when enshrining the freedom of religion in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, our Founders meant what they said when they said it applied to all religions.

Back then, Muslims were often called Mahometans.  And Thomas Jefferson explained that the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom he wrote was designed to protect all faiths — and I’m quoting Thomas Jefferson now — “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan.”  (Applause.)

Yes, it does. However, Jefferson had no illusions about what we now refer to as Radical Islam.

Jefferson’s introduction to “the Mahometans” came in 1786, when he and John Adams participated in negotiations with Tripoli’s ambassador to London, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.

The Barbary Pirates, who hailed from North Africa’s Islamic states, had been attacking merchant ships, and even small towns, all across the Mediterranean.  Any “infidel,” or non-Muslim, unfortunate enough to be caught in one of these raids would be carried off to a life of slavery.  Female captives were especially prized.

In their report to the American Congress, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote that when they asked the Ambassador how he justified these attacks he cited the Koran.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.

And. by the way, yes, Jefferson did own a Koran. He read it, so that he could further understand the Barbary Pirates’ motivations and strategy, in order to defeat them in war.

Last Thursday, during his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program, Rush Limbaugh asked a very profound question…

Folks, I have a question.  Barack Obama, he goes into this radical mosque in Baltimore yesterday, he talks about how Islam has always been part of the fabric of America, and I stopped. I said, “Really?” I didn’t know that.  I didn’t know that Islam had always been such a major, major part of America.  But, anyway, he’s constantly talking it up, is he not?  President Obama is routinely defending it, talking it up, promoting it. He talks about how awesome Islam is all the time, one of the most beautiful sounds he’s ever heard is the morning call to prayer in an Islamic country.  He says it’s the most peaceful, most giving religion out there, that the mosque called a prayer one of the most beautiful sounds in the world.  And, at the same time, he’s out there, and look what he says about Christians.  He says he is one. Look, he talks about ’em as bitter clingers and they hold on to their guns when they’re nervous.

And when they feel abandoned, they go out there and they cling to their religion, and they do all these other things that make the establishment nervous. My question is, given all this, why did he choose to become a Christian?  I’ve always wondered that.  He’s such a defender and promoter of Islam, and, on the other hand, he and his party are constantly denigrating Christians.  I don’t care what the issue is, whether it’s guns, whether it’s gay marriage, any cultural or social issue, or the bitter clinger comments.  I’ve always wondered about this. No, I’m not saying anything.  I’m just asking a question. 

How did he end up choosing Reverend Wright’s church, given his public statements on all this?  

How, indeed?

Reverend Wright is a former American Black Muslim, himself, so perhaps he and Obama found some common ground.

So, how can Obama still be calling for Americans to believe a false equivalency between Christian Americans and the followers of Mohammed?

The differences are startling…and absolute.

jesus-chart-1

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

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

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

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

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

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

However…

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

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

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

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

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

For President Obama to continue to deny the connection between Radical Islamic Terrorism and the Political Ideology, masquerading as a religion, that is Islam, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Thehill.com reported recently, that

The majority of Americans say the country is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, according to a new poll taken in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist attacks in France.

A survey by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports published Friday found that 60 percent of likely voters believe the country is at war, compared with 24 percent who say the U.S. is not at war.

“President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats refuse to say America is at war with ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for fear of insulting all Muslims, but voters beg to disagree,” the polling agency said.

Majorities from both major parties said the U.S. is engaged in a conflict with radical Islam: 56 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans, as well as 54 percent of independents.


Ninety-two percent of respondents also said they regard radical Islamic terrorism as a “serious” threat to national security, including 73 percent who said the threat is a “very serious” one, which is up from 50 percent inOctober of last year.



American attitudes toward the Islamic faith as a whole also appear to have shifted.

Although a plurality of Americans, 46 percent, still said terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) do not represent the true Muslim faith, that number is down from 58 percent in February. Thirty-five percent said ISIS does represent the Muslim faith.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attack last week in which at least 130 people were killed and hundreds were injured.

 The Rasmussen poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters Nov. 17–18. The margin of error for the poll is 3 percentage points.

Obama is engaging in a very dangerous naivete.

Christian Americans do not deserve Obama’s scorn and Radical Islamists certainly do not deserve his oblivious excuses.

Our country’s very survival is at stake.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Advertisements

Obama’s Gun Control EO: “The Tears of a Clown”

January 6, 2016

Salesman-600-nrd1President Barack Hussein Obama presented his Executive Order concerning Gun Control, yesterday, in a National Address, spotlighted by an emotional performance which hasn’t been seen since “Ol’ Yeller” died.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama’s executive action to expand gun sale background checks has opened up a legal can of worms, specifically the president’s bid to broaden the definition of who’s a dealer — and therefore must get a license and conduct background checks. 

Under current federal law passed by Congress, only federally licensed dealers must conduct background checks on buyers. The law does not specify whether this applies to online sales and other areas — so those selling or trading guns on websites or in informal settings such as flea markets often don’t register.

As the centerpiece of Obama’s new gun push, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Monday night issued updated guidance that now deems anyone “in the business” of selling guns a dealer, regardless of where they sell. 

All of which puts a constitutional spotlight on Obama’s actions, raising questions of interpretation that may have to be settled by the courts.

“Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an ‘occasional’ seller, will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an ‘occasional seller’ is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, said in a FoxNews.com opinion piece. 

Until the courts weigh in, it falls on the sellers to figure out who technically is “in the business” of dealing. 

It’s a tough question — and one with serious implications. As Obama noted during remarks at the White House Tuesday, failure to follow these rules can result in criminal prosecution. 

While the new guidance says collectors and gun hobbyists are largely exempt, the exact definition of who must register and conduct background checks is vague. Some officials suggested that selling just one or two firearms could subject a seller to these rules. 

Philip Dacey, president of the Pennsylvania Gun Collectors Association, told FoxNews.com that while he thinks the new orders will not have a huge impact on collectors, the devil is in the details.

“I think [to require a license for] one or two guns would be ridiculous, and how will you enforce it? If there’s no paperwork trail, how would you know when people are selling one or two guns to their neighbor?” Dacey said.

Dacey also noted that getting a federal license could take over three months and entail a complex process involving fingerprints, photographs and a visit by ATF agents. 

The guidance says determining whether someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing requires looking at “the specific facts and circumstances of your activities.”

“As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed,” the guidance says.

However, the document also notes the courts have deemed people dealers in some cases even if they only sell a couple guns.

“Note that while quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors were also present,” the guidance says.

In a conference call with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House Press Secretary Josh  Earnest, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sought to clarify, but risked making the confusion even greater.

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said, according to The Washington Free Beacon. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

On the question of the number of guns sold, Lynch said: “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun.” 

Adding to the questions, the background check provision rests in the murky realm of agency “guidelines,” which carry less weight than formally issued federal regulations and can easily be rescinded.

Republicans blasted the new guidance as a form of intimidation that would only target law-abiding citizens.

“[Obama] knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in a statement. “Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

After Obama’s soon-to-be-Golden Globe-Nominated Performance, Rush Limbaugh made the following observations on his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program…

I’m just sitting here thinking, CNN’s interviewing a gun owner, and where do you think the gun owner’s store is?  Georgia. (imitating Southern accent) “Yes, they’re gonna go find gun shops in the South and they gonna talk to gun shop owners in the South.”  Now, you might be thinking, “Rush, CNN is in Georgia.  It would makes sense they’d find them there.”  They are also in New York.  But they sent somebody out to find a gun shop in Georgia.  It fulfills the image that they have of Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, hunters and so forth, a bunch of hayseeds. 

You know, Obama, I mentioned this, he had a tear. He cried at the end of his show today in the White House.  And he said (imitating Obama), “I think, you know, I got nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year, and I really don’t — I don’t know why, uh, we have to impugn people’s motives.  I don’t know why we have to.”  Well, sir, I tell you, your motive is all that matters, because your motive tells us the why, obviously.  The motive is what’s crucial here.  The motive tells us how serious you are about this.  The motive and the objective are all we need to know. 

You know, they’ve tried this with alcohol, as you well know. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, they’ve tried to penalize, punish bartenders and bars for selling adult beverages to people who later had accidents or a DUI.  Don’t think that they’re not gonna go to doctors here.  You know, folks, who do you think might be, as far as the left is concerned, a prime target for somebody a family member could claim is mentally ill or a doctor could decide is unstable or not all there?  How about veterans returning from the theater of combat?  I mean, as far as many Americans are concerned, they’re all upset. 

How many movies have there been portraying returning veterans as incapable of adjusting to peacetime, posttraumatic stress disorder.  I would wager that many Americans think that your average returning soldier from Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere where there are hostilities comes back and cannot cope for some reason or other.  Insomnia, flashbacks, undiagnosed and diagnosed PTSD.  And, by definition, these returning vets need medical treatment, and so they go to doctors.  And now doctors are required to call the FBI, report to the FBI about any patients that might appear to be upset, mentally unstable, maladjusted, whatever term you want to use. 

And many of these veterans of course have firearms, do they not?  They have been trained in their usage.  The very people who are most familiar, trained and proficient with these weapons would be among the prime targets for having their guns taken away from them simply on the basis that they’re not mentally competent to possess them anymore.  And all it might take with Obama’s new regulations here is their doctor calling the FBI and saying, “Staff sergeant so-and-so Kowalsky just left my office, and I don’t know, FBI, I’m very, very concerned about the mental state of staff sergeant Kowalsky.” 

“Thank you, Doctor,” says the FBI, “we appreciate your call.  Leave it to us.  We’ll take it from here.”  Liberal members of your family who know that you have a gun and don’t particularly like it, might they now have avenues.  And you think the doctor might not cooperate.  Well, how many doctors can no longer afford malpractice insurance simply because of Obamacare?  And do you think the doctor is ever going to claim that any member of a minority group is unstable?  Can you imagine a doctor reporting, what’s her name, the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore, what’s her name?  Mosby, Marilyn Mosby goes to the doctor.  She’s obviously unstable. She goes to the doctor, do you think the doctor would report to the FBI that the DA was just here, and I don’t know, she doesn’t seem right. Or that Mahmoud Sahib Skyhook was just here, and Mahmoud didn’t seem to be all that right to me, you think that’s gonna happen? 

No, it isn’t, because the doctor is not gonna be accused of bigotry or religious prejudice or racial prejudice. So guess who’s gonna get reported on here?  At least the odds are.  And Obama’s crying.  “I have nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year.  I’m just doing what I think is right.”  Well, these leftists, folks, Obama’s quest to transform the country is not gonna end with him leaving office.  He’s not just gonna sit around idly in his post presidential days and watch people dismantle what he’s done.  He’s gonna try to preserve it.  We haven’t seen anything yet. 

I’m telling you, the next 12 months and then the aftermath when Obama’s out of office he’s still gonna have his media cadre on his side, whoever the incoming president is, Trump, Cruz, whoever it is, is gonna have Obama on their case and the media every day. And if there’s just the slightest shred of evidence that anything they’re doing is unraveling what Obama did, look out.  Don’t doubt me.  In fact, make a note of the prediction.  

The Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday concerning President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness. 

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

I thought, that when Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, that he was supposed to “heal the sick, raise the dead, make the oceans rise and fall, and restore our divided country”?

Instead, Obama’s tenure in office will leave in his wake an America more divided than ever before, thanks to his Domestic Policy, consisting of the Rhetoric of Class Warfare and Racial Animus, and his advocacy of the failed Marxist Economic Theory of Socialism, in a nation which runs on the engines of Capitalism.

Yesterday’s non sequitur of a response to the horrific massacre of American Citizens by Radical Islamic Terrorists in San Bernadino, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, was just another serving of cake to us unwashed masses by “King Louis Obama”…punctuated by his phony tear as the cherry on top of his cake of ineffectual leadership.

And, you know, the kicker? Per Gallup, only 2% of Americans even consider Gun Control to be an important National Issue!

Back in 2010, I wrote a series of articles titled “The Great Disconnect: The Whole Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”.

Just call me Nostradamus.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama to Issue Gun Control Executive Orders Next Week…What “Checks and Balances”?

January 2, 2016

1722924_1319321378127988_8942781069457189654_nFreedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. – Ronald Reagan

The Washington Post reports that

HONOLULU — President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week despite growing concerns in the United States over terrorism that have dampened some Americans’ enthusiasm for tighter firearms restrictions.

The president will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to finalize a series of new gun control measures and will announce his package of proposals soon after, according to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.

One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The change is aimed at occasional dealers, including some who sell online frequently or rent tables at gun shows but do not have a storefront.

Obama began examining how he could tighten the nation’s gun rules after October’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. Administration lawyers have spent months reviewing various proposals to make sure they can withstand legal challenges.

The idea of requiring informal gun dealers to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and of conducting background checks came up two years ago when White House officials drafted a proposal for dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually.

The idea was shelved because of legal concerns but gained new momentum after the Roseburg shooting. At that point, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would pursue such a requirement by executive action if elected. Administration officials gave the proposal another look and determined it could be done in a way that was legally defensible.

The White House review has been conducted in relative secrecy, soliciting input from gun safety groups without specifying which policies the administration might ultimately adopt. In the past month, Obama has met with former representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was gravely injured in a 2011 mass shooting, and her husband, Mark Kelly, and with former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, which Bloomberg helped start.

In Obama’s weekly radio address, released a day earlier than usual, the president said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.

“Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Obama continued. “I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”

In reviewing its options, the administration has shut out congressional Republicans, who joined with some Democrats in helping block legislation to expand background checks after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The administration has not communicated with us, and we have not been briefed,” Doug ­Andres, a spokesman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), said in an email. “We will consider options once we have information, but what seems apparent is none of these ideas would have prevented the recent atrocities. Our focus should be on the consistent causes of these acts — mental illnesses and terrorism — rather than infringing on law-abiding Americans’ constitutional rights.”

While most Republican presidential candidates did not provide immediate reaction to Obama’s announcement, they are expected to talk about it in the coming days. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to attend a gun show in Orlando on Sunday, where he will discuss the high marks he has received from the National Rifle Association.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), said that “President Obama is trying to distract Americans from his failure to address the true threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and instead going after the rights of law-abiding American citizens — it is complete lunacy. If Ted Cruz is elected president, the lawlessness will end on Day One, and Americans’ personal liberties will be restored and protected.”

Obama will make his case for additional gun restrictions in a number of forums in the coming month, according to aides, including during his Jan. 12 State of the Union address.

While beefing up background checks has strong support — a Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89 percent of Americans supported checks for purchases at gun shows and for online sales — Obama’s actions also come as Americans have grown more fearful about the prospect of terrorist strikes and are expressing an openness to having ordinary citizens carry guns.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted last month in the wake of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist shootings, for example, found that 53 percent of respondents opposed a ban on assault weapons ban, a record high. When asked which is the better reaction to terrorism, 47 percent said encouraging more people to carry guns legally, while 42 percent preferred enacting stricter gun control laws.

Why are Obama, his Administration, and their “fellow travelers” so intent over getting our guns?

If they cared so much about our nation’s children, their supposed reason for gun confiscation, they would not be pro-abortion, which has murdered 56 million children.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published on January 27, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Why, indeed? The Communist Leader, Vladimir Lenin ,answered that question very succinctly:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Now, I am not one prone to conspiracy theories, but I question the timing of the whole thing. I believe that all of this “solution” was already prepared, and Obama and his sycophants were just waiting for the appropriate trigger mechanism to begin their push for gun confiscation. Unfortunately, the Islamic Terrorist Attack in San Bernadino, California provided them the excuse that they were waiting for.

So now, even as I write this, there are Executive Orders, sitting on the president’s desk, waiting to be signed.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. He has stated, numerous times, that if Congress will not give him what he wants, he will go around them.

Yes, our Founding Fathers put in a System of Checks and Balances. However, that system relies on the willingness of politicians to enforce them.

Unfortunately, in 2016, we have a bunch of professional politicians, who are too afraid of being thrown off of the Gravy Train, to tell the Conductor he’s on the wrong track. When the new Speaker of the House just recently demonstrated his willingness to be a doppelganger of the previous Vichy Republican in that position, by getting the Omnibus Bill passed, he left no doubt as to the state of his intestinal fortitude.

Hurry up, November.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

The Aftermath of the San Bernadino Massacre: Should Mosques Be Monitored?

December 28, 2015

Say-It-NRD-600Investigators are still following the spider’s web of contacts and information, regarding the massacre in San Bernadino, California, perpetrated by Radical Islamists.

The trail has now led them to the local mosque.

The New York Post reports that

The cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook worshipped claims he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. But phone records and other evidence uncovered by federal investigators cast suspicion on his story.

The FBI has questioned the cleric, Roshan Zamir Abbassi, about his phone communications with Farook — including a flurry of at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

His other assertion that he never even saw Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, also strains credulity. Malik joined her husband in shooting 35 of his government co-workers at a Christmas party.

“No one knows anything about his wife,” assistant imam Mahmood Nadvi agreed. “She never came to prayer.”

But longtime mosque member Gasser Shehata, who claimed to have prayed “shoulder to shoulder” with Farook, said Dar-al-Uloom prepared a chicken-and-rice dinner to celebrate the couple’s wedding last year. Reportedly, hundreds of congregants attended the walima reception, including the mosque leadership.

Asked if Farook was radicalized at the mosque, Abbassi snapped, “Never.” He said the mosque teaches only peace, insisting no one has even an “extremist idea.”

“In Islam,” he said, “we are against innocent killing.”

Abbassi recently posted a message on Facebook condemning the United States and other Western nations for their Mideast policies, arguing they are equally guilty of violence to achieve political and religious goals. His mosque’s Web page features a video claiming that the San Bernardino shooting was carried out by the US government in a “false flag conspiracy,” and that Farook and Malik were “patsies” assassinated “by government-sponsored perpetrators.”

Another person of interest is Abbassi’s brother, Mohammad Sabir Abbassi, a Muslim activist who serves as a trustee and English teacher at the San Diego mosque once headed by the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

FBI Agent Joel Anderson said in court filings that Farook indicated he was a big fan of Awlaki and listened to a series of sermons about jihad and martyrdom called “The Hereafter.”

In his filing, Anderson says Farook studied the ultra-orthodox Islamic sect Tablighi Jamaat. US officials say the cult, with 50,000 members, is rife with jihadists, and jihadi groomers are recruiting at mosques in at least 10 states.

“We have significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States,” said Assistant FBI Director Michael Heimbach, “and we have found that al Qaeda used them for recruiting.”

Homeland Security Department veteran Philip Haney said Dar-al-Uloom was among the mosques his agency was investigating as part of a probe of the Tablighi movement.

“Individuals who were already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque,” Haney claimed in a Fox News interview.

He said he ID’d some 300 jihadists and terrorists tied to the movement in the United States before the Obama regime pulled the plug on the investigation in 2012. Known Tablighi alumni include the Lackwanna Six, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, shoe bomber Richard Reid, dirty bomber José Padilla and would-be Brooklyn Bridge bomber Iyman Faris.

“We have nothing to hide,” Roshan Abbassi asserted.

Investigators shouldn’t take his word for it.

So, given this, should American Mosques be monitored for Terrorist Activity?

One Congressman made an excellent case for it, yesterday.

CNSNews.com reports that

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday mosques in the United States should be placed under surveillance regardless of the complaints of civil libertarians since “the fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.”Fox News Sunday stand-in host Doug McKelway asked the chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterintelligence and terrorism about recent comments in favor of 24/7 monitoring of mosques.

“I can hear the cries of civil libertarians and constitutionalists right now, Congressman,” McKelway said.

“Yeah, listen, they can cry all they want,” King replied. “The fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.  And we can say that 98, 99 percent of the Muslims in this country are good people. (I’m actually swearing in the first elected Muslim on Long Island into office, she’s a good friend of mine.)

“So, this is nothing against Muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from,” he continued. “And we’re kidding ourselves. We have this blind political correctness which makes no sense.

King offered several examples of cases where radical sentiment aired in U.S. mosques had allegedly not been reported to law enforcement agencies.

One of the two Boston Marathon bombers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) had been asked to leave a mosque because of radical statements, he recalled, “but nobody in the mosque ever told the police, nobody ever told the FBI.”

King said there were incidents in his Long Island congressional district in which “we’ve had people in mosques who have spoken radically, who spoke of their intentions to be involved in jihad [and fight with al-Qaeda].

“It was never told to the police, never told to the police at all,” he said. “And when you talk to police off the record, they will tell you that they get very little cooperation from within the leaders of the Muslim community.”

Asked whether law enforcement agencies were being restricted in their ability to monitor mosques, King said Justice Department guidelines present difficulties.

“Local police, and again in New York, the NYPD, they do a phenomenal job,” he said. “The Civil Liberties Union, the New York Times have tried to cut back on that.  Mayor [Bill] de Blasio I think made too many concessions.”

“They’re still doing a great job – don’t get me wrong. But they are doing it in spite of a lot of the restraints that he’s sort of tried to put on them. But as far as the Feds, they are very limited. They basically cannot be infiltrating mosques. I think that has to be done.”

Longstanding calls for the monitoring of mosques in the U.S. grew louder following the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., the deadliest such attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

After President Obama delivered a prime-time Oval Office address four days later, King tweeted his disapproval: “Not one proposal would have prevented California attacks. Nothing about need for increased surveillance of Muslim community. Pitiful.”

During a Republican presidential debate the following week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said the argument that monitoring mosque sermons would violate U.S. Muslims’ First Amendment rights was “utter nonsense.”

“If Islam is as wonderful and peaceful as its adherents say, shouldn’t they be begging us to all come in and listen to these peaceful sermons?” Huckabee asked.

“If there’s something so secretive going on in there that somebody isn’t allowed to go and hear it, maybe we do need for sure to send somebody in there and gather the intelligence,” he said.

Gosh. I have no idea how Americans could have ever associated Islam with Radical Islamic Terrorism.

After all, those were Southern Baptists who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, weren’t they?

What does the Islamic Book of Faith, the Koran (Quran) say about “killing in the Name of the Prophet (Mohammed)”?

  • Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
  • Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
  • Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-”  This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
  • Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
  • Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
  • Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

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

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

Secondly, why are American liberals so naively defending these barbarians?

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

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

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

Recently, I have heard and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between an in-ground swimming pool and a garden hose.

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

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

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

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

What is lacking today in the Halls of Power is the Spiritual Gift of “Discernment”.

The safety of American Citizens should be the priority of our Political Leaders.

As Dr. Richard D. Land, noted Theologian and Executive Editor of The Christian Post, remarked in a recent op ed,

It should be remembered that being “compassionate” includes being compassionate to all concerned, both those who are here in the U.S. as well as those who want to come. Being compassionate does not require, or even allow us, to voluntarily expose our neighbors’ jugular veins to those who would do them harm without our neighbors’ prior expressed permission.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Sunday Morning Thoughts: Christian Americans, Modern Liberals, and the War That Dare Not Be Named (At Least By the President)

December 13, 2015

th1DXO5NI3As I sit down to write today’s blog, our country finds itself  under attack, by enemies foreign and domestic, with the responsible of protecting our very lives falling on the shoulders of a president, who it reticent to even properly identify those who was to destroy us.

President Barack Hussein Obama is in a trap of his own making. It started with his Speech to the Muslim World at the University of Cairo, shortly after his first Inauguration as President, in which he sounded like a subservient dhimmi.

In the years that followed, his genteel Foreign Policy toward the Barbarians of the Muslim World, known as “Smart Power!”, led to a never-ending Radical Islamic Revolution in the Middle East, known as Arab Spring, through which Moderate Muslim Dictators were replaced by Radical Muslim Dictators. It also led to the increased threat of the extermination of Israel, and the changing of NASA into a Muslim Outreach Program.

The sixth President of the United States of America, John Quincy Adams, wrote the following about the nature of Islam:

THE ESSENCE OF HIS [MUHAMMAD’S] DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adams’ capital letters]… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

In contrast, our present Petulant President Pantywaist will not even call Radical Islam by its name, as exhibited most recently by his reluctance to identify the San Bernadino Massacre as the work of Radical Islamists.

He has already proclaimed that we are not at war with Islam.

So, how can America win this war against Radical Islam, if the President of our country will not even admit that we are in one?

And, what are we, as Christian Americans, supposed to do?

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

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

Which is ironic, because the President of the United States of America is demonstrably Islam’s biggest supporter in this country, as so aptly proven by his refusal to participate in January’ssslast weekend’s March Against Radical Islam, led by 50 World Leaders, in Paris France.

Secondly, why are American liberals so naively defending these barbarians?

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

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

Then, these self-proclaimed “Biblical Pundits” attempt to tell you what the Bible says that you should do, as a Christian, misinterpreting scripture and drawing false equivalencies.

Frankly, the ignorance of these Pharisee-like Liberals blows my mind.

Richard D. Land, noted theologian, and Executive Editor of the Christian Post, authored the following op ed:

How do you balance Christian compassion for the very real suffering Syrian refugees with the God-ordained duty of the divinely ordained civil magistrate to protect the innocent and punish evil doers? (Romans 13: 1-7). 

Any decent person would want to help. Christians are mandated by their Savior to do something.

However, when it comes to welcoming Syrian refugees into the United States, it is also necessary to give attention to the obligations and responsibilities the government and citizenry have to demonstrate compassion for the innocent Americans who may be endangered by allowing possible terrorists into the U.S. disguised as refugees.

ISIS has acknowledged that they intend to do just that. And, having infiltrated into America, they will rapidly duplicate the dastardly deeds in our cities that they perpetrated in Paris.

We have an obligation, and a duty, to show compassion to every man, woman, and child in America by not putting them at needless risk or in harm’s way. Individual Christians may say that they are willing to take the risk to their personal safety in order to alleviate the suffering of these poor people. The problem is that you are not just putting your life at risk; you are putting your fellow Americans’ lives at risk without their consent.

The plight of the refugees is heartbreaking. However, so is the death of American children from terrorist attacks (remember the children killed and maimed in the Boston marathon bombing?).

Christians are certainly free, and may feel obligated, to disregard their own safety in order to minister to others in distress. However, they do not have the right to make the decision to endanger others without their permission.

An example that makes this point is the distinction I made several years ago in an article I was asked to write on whether Christians could practice agape love, i.e. the sacrificial, turn-the-other-cheek love that is a fruit of the Holy Spirit in redeemed people’s lives, in their business activities.

My conclusion was that they should if possible, but that they were more free morally and ethically to practice the heightened risks associated with agape love if it was their own business and the business and resources they were exposing to increased risk were their own and not their employer’s. They did not have the right to expose their employer’s business and resources to such increased risk without expressed permission to do so. Frankly, I think practicing an agape business ethic would be a great business model that would earn you great respect and repeat business. Nevertheless, you don’t have the right to make that decision while risking other people’s wellbeing rather than just your own without their expressed approval.

Fortunately, in the case of the Syrian refugees we don’t have to accept an “either/or” solution.

As a nation we can show compassion by providing the refugees a “safe zone” in their own homeland, guaranteed by American air and military power. We can also offer to reach into our national treasury, to help feed, clothe and house these unfortunate people in their safe zone, in refugee camps, or help relocate them in adjacent countries like Egypt and Turkey.

If someone feels led to show compassion more directly, they can make personal financial contributions and in other ways assist the refugees. They could work or volunteer for one of the private nonprofit organizations that provide humanitarian assistance. They could even volunteer to go overseas personally and minister directly to the refugees.

However, we cannot currently properly vet such people (according to the FBI director) to separate the good guys from the bad guys. It should also be remembered that at least a significant plurality of these refugees are young, unaccompanied men. In such a circumstance it would be criminally irresponsible for our federal government to ignore its duty to show compassion to its own citizens in order to extend the compassion of refugee status in the United States to the Syrian refugees.

It should be remembered that being “compassionate” includes being compassionate to all concerned, both those who are here in the U.S. as well as those who want to come. Being compassionate does not require, or even allow us, to voluntarily expose our neighbors’ jugular veins to those who would do them harm without our neighbors’ prior expressed permission.

Consequently, the Congress and the President must exercise their constitutional duty and suspend the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the U.S. until they can be properly and safely vetted, which will probably require the prior defeat of ISIS.

I hang out…a lot…on Facebook Political Pages.

To expound on what I said earlier,

I am fascinated by the fact, that thanks to the use of supposedly Facebook-illegal “sockpuppets” or Phony Profiles, self proclaimed Internet “Pundits” and Tough Guys, living in their Mom’s Basement, can be whoever and whatever they want to be.

During the last several weeks, I have come across several Liberals and self-described “Independents” (i.e., Liberals too embarrassed to be identified as such or who think that they are fooling Conservatives by not identifying themselves as Liberals), who, having never had any use for the God of Abraham and his Holy Scripture before, are now “Christian Pundits”, who insist that all of us Christian Americans, who are opposed to bringing ISIS into our midst, as a “bunch of hypocrites”.

My father led me to Christ. He landed on Normandy Beach, on D-Day, as a Master Sergeant of an Army Engineering Unit. He was the finest man I have ever known.

God’s Holy Word tells us

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: – Ecclesiastes 3:1

Regarding the so-called Syrian “Refugees”, the overwhelming majority of which are military-looking ultra-fit men with cell phones,…

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

The San Bernadino Massacre, Barack Hussein Obama, and Misplaced Priorities

December 12, 2015

O-Casino-600-LIAs the FBI continues its investigation of the horrible massacre, perpetrated by Radical Islamists in San Bernadino, California, some new and distressing information has been brought to light.

Foxnews.com reports that

The former neighbor of San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook reportedly spoke to regulars at his job about “sleeper cells just waiting” to attack the United States.

A frequent customer at Morgan’s Tavern, where Enrique Marquez worked, told The New York Times on Friday that nobody took Marquez seriously when he spoke of terror attacks and had no clue he was involved in the massacre at an Inland Regional Center office building that left 14 people dead.

“We took it as a joke. When you look at the kid and talk to him, no one would take him seriously about that,” Nick Rodriguez told The Times.

Federal authorities are expected to bring charges against Marquez, 24, who supplied Farook at least two of the weapons used in the attack. He legally purchased the AR-15 rifles Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik used on their killing spree on Dec. 2. He will likely be indicted after spending hours talking to investigators about Farook and Malik.

Authorities believe Farook and Marquez discussed executing an attack somewhere in the Los Angeles area in 2012, but decided not to go through with it after four people were arrested in nearby Riverside County in an unrelated terror case. Investigators believe Marquez bought the rifles and gave them or sold them to Farook in preparation for that planned attack. It’s unclear what the target of the attack would’ve been. 

It was not immediately clear what specific charges Marquez would face, but Fox News has learned that he is the only person expected to be indicted anytime soon in connection with the attack. However, authorities say that other subjects are being monitored.

Marquez began speaking with federal authorities after they raided his mother’s home over the weekend. Right after the shootings, Marquez called his mother to say he was safe, but that he wouldn’t be coming home, neighbor Lorena Aguirre told the Associated Press. He later checked into a mental health facility. It’s unclear where he is now.

Marquez is also related to Farook by marriage, having wed the sister-in-law of the gunman’s older brother, state records show. The Associated Press reported that Marquez and and his bride, Mariya Chernykh listed their address on the marriage license at the same Corona home where Syed Raheel and Tatiana Farook live. Viviana Ramirez, a friend of Marquez, told the Los Angeles Times that Marquez rarely spoke about his family or his marriage.

Azmi Hasan, the mosque’s facilities manager, said Wednesday that he understood Marquez had converted to Islam, but said he was not a member of that mosque. Marquez had only worshipped there three to four times over seven years, said Hasan, who hadn’t seen him in about four years.

Marquez had a security guard license in California for several years, but it expired last year. He had worked at Wal-Mart since May, but has since been fired, spokesman Brian Nick told the Associated Press.

He spoke of wanting to join the military, a fellow student at Riverside Community College told the Los Angeles Times. His brother-in-law, Raheel Farook, is a Navy veteran, serving from 2003 to 2007 and earning the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among other awards.

Investigators were also examining the digital footprint left by the shooters, who tried to destroy their computer hard drives and cell phones prior to carrying out the attack. Investigators tell Fox News the data that has been recovered shows that Farook posted multiple messages online expressing support for Islamist groups like Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, while also expressing hatred for Israel. Investigators have also expressed concern that Farook may have been in contact with other terror groups.

Authorities used dive teams to search a lake in San Bernardino on Thursday and Friday. Investigators apparently found something in the lake, but have not announced what the object was. Investigators are looking for a hard drive that may have been dumped in the lake, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told The Associated Press.

The FBI investigation into the mass shooting has been one of the most comprehensive in the bureau’s recent history. Law enforcement sources tell Fox News that more than 300 interviews related to the shooting have taken place in the U.S. An FBI team has also been dispatched to Europe as part of the investigation.

So, Terrorist “Sleeper Cells”, are standing by to perpetrate “Man-caused Disasters” on our Sovereign Nation” and its citizens.

Why is this happening?

It all starts at the top.

As we journey through this Quixotic Quest, known as our everyday lives, we come across windmills, which we must tilt with daily, known as “priorities”.

Priorities are unique, perplexing things, as they vary from individual to individual.

For those of us between employment, it is finding a meaningful, well-paying job, so that we may provide for our families. For other Americans, it could be the care of their elderly loved ones. For others, their priority may be to climb the Corporate Ladder at their place of employment.

For the parents of 30-year-old Liberals and “puff puff” “l”ibertarians, it may be that their priority is to get their slacker of a “kid” to move out of the basement.

But, I digress…

Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the 44th President of these United States, has a problem.

(No, I don’t mean his overbearing wife, Mooch, and her desire to build shopping carts, which will tell us what “healthy” foods to buy. That’s a subject for another blog. Besides, it takes that heifer two trips to haul a.. …well, you know.)

Obama’s problem is one of MISPLACED PRIORITIES.

This problem started the very first time he took the Oath of Office, which clearly outlines his duties as President of the United States of America…

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Let’s examine the President’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES by using the three words which I underlined in the Oath of Office as topic headings, shall we?

To begin with, let’s examine the word PRESERVE.

It is a conflict of interest to swear to “preserve” a country which you have already promised to “radically change”.

As we have discovered, since Obama’s First Inauguration, all those long years ago, Obama has no intention of “preserving” the Land of our Founding Fathers and of hard-working Patriotic Americans, who sacrificed so much, for this Shining City Upon a Hill.

That includes his on-going attempt to strip Americans of our Second Amendment Right, by implementing more “Gun Control Laws” by Executive Order.

Because, after all, Muslim Terrorists’ number one priority is to obey our laws.

Yes, Mrs. Obama. Those before us, sacrificed “All this for a flag.”

Then, there is Obama’s Domestic Policy, in keeping with his promise to “radically change” this country, which has resulted in over 92,000,000 Americans  “dropping out” of our Work Force, because they cannot find meaningful jobs in a stagnant economy, controlled by a huge all-powerful Central Government, who rewards the slackers, by giving them FREE STUFF from cradle to grave and punishes those Entrepreneurial Americans who actually hire Americans,with onerous tax burdens, slifling competitiveness and creativity, literally bringing to a halt America’s Engine of Economic Growth.

And, finally, under this “PRESERVE” heading, there is Obama and his Administration’s misplaced priority of establishing a “Tyranny of the Minority”, when it comes to imposing the immorality and situational ethics of a very small minority of Americans on the overwhelming majority of the rest of us, through the use of “Push Polls” perpetuated by the sycophantic Main Stream Media and Liberal Activist Judges, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America, whose sole purpose, seemingly, is to further Obama’s original promise to “radically change” our country, including the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for thousands of years.

Next, Obama swore an oath to PROTECT America.

Obama started his presidency by bowing in front of  America’s enemies, during his World Apology Tour.

No President of the United States has every effectively protected our nation from a POSITION OF WEAKNESS.

Ask Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, whose milksop endeavors in Foreign Policy led to increased attacks by the Radical Adherents of the “Religion of Peace’, otherwise known as Muslim Terrorism, or as Obama’s staff immediately renamed these wanton acts of violence, “Man-caused Disasters”, like the subject of this blog, which are increasing in frequency on our very shores.

Also, how can you “protect” a nation whose Southern Border is WIDE OPEN, presently allowing entrance to our Sovereign Nation by our enemies and virulent disease, alike?

By allowing the ongoing Illegal Alien Invasion and the resettlement of the Syrian “Refugees”, Obama is saying to the world,

Hey, C’mon in! Our Estados Unidos es tu Estados Unidos! Sit a spell. Unstrap your sidearm. Take us over.

And, that leads us to our final topic heading, DEFEND.

How can the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave be defended by a President and his Administration who are so naive that they actually believe that they can effectively defend our Soverien Nation by cutting down our Military to pre-World War II Levels?

Our soldiers have been, even as I write this, being handed, their “pink slips” in the field. (And, no, I am not talking about the repeal of DADT. Our Brightest and Best have been receiving “Termination Notices” while on Active Duty).

Brilliant, huh?

Former Congressman and retired Lt. Col. Allen B. West thought so, too. He wrote that

For Obama and [Secretary of Defense Chuck] Hagel to believe taking the US Army down to pre-World War II levels is a smart decision evidences their abject stupidity in comprehending the global conflagrations in which we are embroiled — the enemy has a vote. This whole inane statement about “pivoting to the Asian-Pacific rim” is more empty rhetoric as we decimate our US Naval strength while China builds theirs.

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

I realize that I could have grown this Blog exponentially, by listing all of Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES en masse.

However, I believe that simplicity in communication is the best way to get one’s point across.

The point I have been attempting to maker today, is a rather simplistic one, in deference to the Liberals whom I know read this blog on a daily basis, attempting to catch me in some sort of “lie”, which only they can see.

Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES have not only tarnished this Shining City Upon a Hill, but it has endangered the continued existence of America and her citizens, with every day this past week, bringing a new example of Obama’s deliberate ineptness and shallow behavior, in the poor fulfillment of his Oath of Office, to the degree to which average Americans are concerned about their children’s’ and grandchildren’ sfuture.

Obama has failed miserably in his sworn duties as President of the United States.

But, then again, perhaps the only promise he intended to keep, was to “radically change” America.

…for the worse.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The San Bernadino Massacre: Obama Blames OUR Guns

December 4, 2015

Blame-Wheel-600-LI1As further information about the San Bernandino Massacre and the Radical Islamist couple who murdered 14 people and injured 17, America’s Modern Liberals, including President Barack Hussein Obama, are experiencing a break with reality.

Obama is actually blaming law-abiding Americans and our Second Amendment Rights for the actions of Jihadists.

The Ultra-Liberal Los Angeles Times reports that

Early Wednesday morning, Syed Rizwan Farook asked his mother for the sort of favor grandmothers love to grant: A few hours of baby-sitting. Farook told her that he and his wife, Tashfeen, had a doctor’s appointment and didn’t want to take their 6-month-old daughter.In an account of the conversation provided by a relative through a local Islamic leader, the grandmother agreed. She was caring for the child at the couple’s Redlands home when news of a mass shooting in nearby San Bernardino broke.

Fearing her son and daughter-in-law were victims, “she started calling. No answer,” said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Los Angeles office. It was only after reporters started phoning her that she realized the couple were the assailants.

That Farook’s own mother had apparently sensed nothing wrong underscored a feeling among investigators and acquaintances Thursday that the couple responsible for the massacre at a holiday party inside the Inland Regional Center scrupulously concealed their views, plans and a cache of weapons and explosives.

Of particular interest to investigators is the relationship between Farook, a 28-year-old U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, a Pakistani national. While his upbringing and adult life in Riverside is chronicled in school files, work documents and other records, little is known publicly about her.

Authorities said Thursday that she was more than just an accomplice. At one point as the couple attempted to elude police, Malik fired an assault rifle out the back window of their sport utility vehicle at pursuing officers.

Nizaam Ali, who worshipped with Farook at a San Bernardino mosque, said he had met Malik on a few occasions, but she wore a head scarf that obscured her face.

“If you asked me how she looked, I couldn’t tell you,” Ali said.

The couple met online a few years ago and married last year in Islam’s holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, according to co-workers at the public health department and others who knew them. The Saudi Embassy in Washington confirmed that Farook spent nine days in the kingdom in summer 2014.

Authorities said that when he returned to the U.S. in July 2014, he brought Malik with him on a fiancee visa. After a background check by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, she was granted a conditional green card last summer.

The couple held a walima, a celebration after the wedding, at the Islamic Center of Riverside for people who couldn’t attend the Saudi ceremony. Ali said a few hundred people attended. The couple’s daughter was born in the spring and co-workers at the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, where Farook worked for five years as an inspector, said some of them had thrown him a baby shower.

An online baby registry in Malik’s name listed a large box of Pampers, Johnson’s safety swabs, a car seat and baby wash.

The idea of a new mother helping carry out a mass murder perplexed many. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who had a classified FBI briefing on the shooting Thursday, said leaving an infant for a suicide mission was “not something a woman would easily do.”

“So it’s going to be very interesting for me to see what her background was, what level of animus she had, because she had to have a considerable level,” Feinstein said.

Meanwhile, acquaintances and colleagues of Farook were struggling to reconcile the soft-spoken man they knew with the masked rampage killer who shot up a room filled with co-workers.

At the Islamic Center of Riverside, where Farook had worshipped until about two years ago, mosque director Mustapha Kuko described him as quiet, private and devoted to Koran study.

“He knows that we believe that to take one life is to take all life. So for him to do the opposite of what we as Muslims believe … I don’t know,” Kuko said.

One victim, who worked in the same department as Farook, was also a member of the congregation, he said.

“He shot her,” Kuko said. “Point blank.”

The victim’s husband reported she is in stable condition, he said.

Recently, Farook had worshipped at a San Bernardino mosque, Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamiyah of America. Farook was “a very nice person, very soft,” said Ali, a mosque regular. He said Farook had memorized the Koran, a rare accomplishment for even devout Muslims.

According to law enforcement, Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2013 during the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca that all Muslims who are able should perform at least once in their lives.

Another congregant saw Farook at the mosque a few weeks ago. Gasser Shehata said Farook had hurt not just his victims, but his own child.

“She will grow up knowing what her parents did,” Shehata said.

Farook was born in Chicago, the son of Pakistani immigrants. The family subsequently moved to Riverside, where his father worked as a truck driver and his mother as a clerk at Kaiser Permanente.

He and his siblings attended public schools. Yearbooks from La Sierra High School in Riverside show a smiling Farook during his sophomore and junior years. He was a member of the school’s Muslim club.

Farook loved fixing up old cars, neighbors said.

His mother, Rafia, portrayed family life as chaotic and sometimes violent in divorce papers she filed in 2006 to end her marriage of 24 years. She recounted an occasion when one of her two sons — it is unclear which — had to defend her from his father.

Farook got a bachelor’s degree in environmental health from Cal State San Bernardino in 2010. His older brother, Syed Raheel, who also attended La Sierra, joined the Navy immediately after high school. He served from 2003 to 2007 and was awarded two medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.”

In a profile on an Indian matrimonial site, Imilap.com, a user identified as “farooksyed49” described himself as a 22-year-old Muslim living in Riverside and working as a county health inspector.

“Enjoy working on vintage and modern cars, read religious books, enjoy eating out sometimes travel and just hang out in back yard doing target practice with younger sister and friends,” the profile read.

In May, Farook and his family moved into the Redlands home where authorities said he and his wife stashed the weapons. Judy Miller, his landlord, described Farook as a model tenant.

“He appeared as a very gentle person,” said Miller, 73.

She saw no signs of weapons when she visited. After Wednesday’s shootings, Miller said she immediately handed over a copy of Farook’s lease to FBI agents.

“I interviewed a whole bunch of people,” she said. “And he was the one I chose.”

Here is what President Obama said yesterday, courtesy of whitehouse.gov…

“It’s still an active situation. FBI is on the ground offering assistance to local officials as they need it. It does appear that there are going to be some casualties. And, obviously our hearts go out to the victims and the families. The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world. And there are some steps we could take not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently: common-sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks.And for those who are concerned about terrorism, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can’t get on planes, but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them. That’s a law that needs to be changed.

And so my hope is that we’re able to contain this particular shooting, and we don’t yet know what the motives of the shooters are, but what we do know is that there are steps we can take to make Americans safer, and that we should come together in a bipartisan basis at every level of government to make these rare as opposed to normal. We should never think that this is something that just happens in the ordinary course of events, because it doesn’t happen with the same frequency in other countries.”

Why are Obama, his Administration and their “fellow travelers” so intent on getting our guns?

Confiscation of our firearms will not deter Radical Islamists.

The fact that Americans have the right to own guns, is NOT the reason that Radical Islamists are attempting to slaughter us.

If they cared so much about our nation’s children, another supposed reason for gun confiscation, they would not be pro-abortion, which has murdered over 56 million children.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published January 12, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Why, indeed? The Communist Leader, Vladimir Lenin ,answered that question very succinctly:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

 

The San Bernadino Massacre: Innocent Lives Lost, Constitutional Rights Threatened, and a Prediction Horribly Fulfilled

December 3, 2015

wpid-fb_img_1435357963373.jpgYesterday, a nightmare, shared by the overwhelming majority of American Citizens, became a harsh, horrible, bloody reality.

The New York Daily News reports that

As California county workers mingled Wednesday morning at a holiday banquet, a pair of maniacs intent on murder barged in with guns blazing.The merciless masked killers, in matching military garb and body armor, executed 14 helpless victims and wounded 17 more at the Inland Regional Center in a lightning strike sparked by either a simple dispute — or terrorism, authorities said.

The mass murderers — a couple identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27,— were gunned down four hours later and 2 miles away when police pumped a fusillade of bullets into their fleeing SUV on a quiet residential San Bernardino street.

Cops said Farook and Malik were either married or dating.

One police officer was wounded in the wild gun battle that left the SUV shattered in the middle of the street. Its windshield was riddled with bullet holes, its tires shot out and its other windows blasted to pieces — a ghastly scene in a stunning day of violence.

A third person was captured as he fled from the scene of the afternoon gunfight, said San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan. But the chief could not say if that person was linked to the earlier killings.The suspects had escaped the blood-spattered murder scene without swapping a single gunshot with the horde of law enforcement descending on the center, a social services facility for people with developmental disabilities.

Farook, an American citizen, worked for the San Bernardino County Department of Health for the past few years and had a young daughter, his shocked father told the Daily News.

“I haven’t heard anything,” the elder Syed Farook told The News before his son’s name became public. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

The shellshocked dad said his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels and graduated from La Sierra High School in Riverside in 2003.

Farook’s brother-in-law said he was in “shock” over what happened.

“I have no idea why he would do that, why would he do something like this,” Farhad Kahn said during a press conference hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “I have absolutely no idea. I am in shock myself.”

Kahn said he last spoke to Farook about a week before the massacre.

The FBI later rammed down the door and searched a home in nearby Redlands where Farook was living.

Neighbor Andrea (Annie) Larsen said Farook lived at the home with his wife, mother and small child.“They sounded really happy. I did notice there were lots of packages being dropped off and he was in the garage working on stuff. But that seemed normal to me. It’s Christmas and people are getting packages dropped off,” she said.

Asked if she now suspected that some of the packages might have been ammunition or other material related to the attack, Larsen said it was a scary thought.

“If I think out it like that, absolutely, it’s terrifying. I have hope in the world and hope in people, and it’s hard when that hope is challenged in such a terrifying way,” she said.

Co-workers said Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he met online, according to reports. The couple had a baby and appeared to be “living the American dream,” Patrick Baccari, a food inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook, told the Los Angeles Times.The slaughter inside the center marked the worst American mass killing since 26 people were executed three years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“These are people who came prepared,” Burguan, the police chief, said about the killers. “They were dressed and equipped in a way to show they were prepared . . . They came in with an intent to do something.”

The attackers left behind some sort of explosive device as they drove off, terrifying scores of office workers cowering in their wake.

The two slain killers were wearing “assault-style” clothes and carrying assault rifles and handguns when their bodies were pulled from the black SUV, the chief said. At least two of the guns were purchased legally, according to officials.

David Bowdich, head of the FBI’s Los Angeles office, said there were indications that terrorism was the motive — but said it was too soon to say so for sure.

“I am not willing to go down that road just yet,” he said. “We will go where the evidence takes us.”

Police said that Farook bolted from the holiday bash after arguing with another attendee, and then returned a short time later with his accomplice.

The massacre took mere minutes, another sign that the killers — each toting an assault-style weapon — marched inside “with a purpose,” said Burguan.

The trio disappeared into the San Bernardino sunshine immediately after the 11 a.m. shooting spree.

Their freedom was short-lived. The pursuit that left the pair dead and a cop injured began at Farook’s home in Redlands, where cops went after receiving a tip, the chief said.

Cops exchanged gunfire with the pair in the SUV before the wild shootout ended, less than 2 miles from the Inland center.

The morning began with the San Bernardino County Department of Health holding a holiday banquet inside the building, said Inland CEO Marybeth Field.

Terrified workers hid behind locked doors, lying facedown on their office floors, or crouched inside closets until they were led out by police who conducted a painstaking search of the property.

“People shot,” one of the trapped employees texted her dad. “In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us.”

…The Inland Center, which opened in 1971, assists individuals with developmental disabilities in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Its staff of 670 people treats more than 30,000 clients.

Yesterday, while the majority of Americans watched, in abject horror, the story of this massacre unfold before their eyes, there were some among us, including the President of the United States, that were making their case for restricting our Constitutional rights, before the bodies were even cold.

Liberals, across the nation, as evidenced on the Internet, including, quite probably, the Dhimmi-in-Chief, himself, Barack Hussein Obama, were hoping that it was some sort of Right-wing Military Group.

However, it wasn’t.

This massacre was perpetrated by “devout adherents” to “the Religion of Peace”.

Why is it that Liberals are so dadgum naive about Islam? For example, let’s look for a moment at Barack Hussein Obama, President of these United States…

On October 21, 2014, Muslim Terrorists attacked the Canadian Parliament.

The next morning, I reported the following…

On September 24, 2014, Obama  spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s Breathtaking Naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

“He asked delegates from nations across the world to mull this “central question of our global age: Whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.”

His answer? “It’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.”

Simply believing something doesn’t make it so. The president’s desire for a world in which nations talk openly about their true feelings, perhaps share a good cry together, and sing kumbaya around the campfire, is the height of naivete.

So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”

But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.

Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, American or Canadian, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even Christianity, the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

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

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

However…

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

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

Like the Canadian Military and members of their Parliament, for example…

And, now the innocent victims of the massacre in San Bernadino, California.

Can what happened in Ottawa, Canada, happen in Washington, DC?

Well, aother idiot tried to bust into the White House, yesterday.

So, I would say, the answer is YES.”

Yesterday, at a “Holiday” (i.e., CHRISTMAS) Party for County Employees, the unthinkable became reality, as my prediction came true.

And, all President Obama can think to do, is take our guns away.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ