Gun Control = Citizen Control

guncontrolAlright, boys and girls, let’s play a little game called “Guess the Source”. Your choices are a) The Daily Beast b) MSNBC c) CNN d) Daily Kos e) None of the Above.

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

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

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

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

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 The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans.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

The answer is e) None of the Above.

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

And, they are positively jubilant over this announcement from their fellow travelers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC:

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday released three proposals to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was one of the 23 actions ordered by Obama last week to tackle gun violence.

The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI. The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act already requires federal background checks for gun purchases, but not every firearm sale is covered under the law.

Currently, law enforcement agencies cannot perform a NICS check when transferring, returning or selling weapons that have been confiscated, seized or recovered. The new rules would change that, allowing officials to perform a background check on people who receive those weapons to ensure that they are permitted to own a gun.

Obama ordered the rule change in a Jan. 16 memo that called for “rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

Holder is also proposing that the NICS hold on to records of denied weapon sales that are more than 10 years old. When the NICS was established, the Justice Department ordered that the records be moved to a storage facility after 10 years, which Holder says is no longer necessary.

“The FBI has therefore determined that for NICS’ own internal business operations, litigation and prosecution purposes, and proper administration of the system, NICS shall retain denied transaction records on site,” Holder wrote in a notice to be published in Monday’s Federal Register. “The retention of denied transaction information … will enhance the efficiency and operational capability of the NICS.”

The proposed rules would also give Native American tribes access to NICS. Currently, only federal, state, or local agencies can perform the checks, which leaves out “domestic dependent nations” recognized by the United States.

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 yesterday, 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

“What Difference Does it Make?”

Hillary2One month after being called to testify before a Senate Committee, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally graced them with her presence. To say she showed her hindquarters and prevaricated it off, at the same time,  is being kind.

(But then again, I am a Christian Southern Gentleman.)

James Taranto reports or The Wall Street Journal that

Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. “You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there,” remarks New York magazine’s Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

“The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

As I said, she was prevaricating her hindquarters off, because the truth condemns her, President Barack Hussein Obama, and the entire feckless, anti-American Administration.

On October 25th, 2012, contributor Peter Ferrara summarized what actually happened in an Op Ed for Forbes.com:

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

I was going to show the well-publicized picture of the blood stained wall of the American Consulate, but, that image is probably already seared in your mind, as it is in mine. 

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind as I sit here at my computer.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed.

Obama Puts Our Moms and Sisters on the Front Line

bettyboopfatiguesObama and his Liberal Administration are using our Brightest and Best as Lab Rats…again.

Fox News reports

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation’s wars.

Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama’s defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

“This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

Some front-line military roles may open to women as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.

A defense official told the Associated Press that the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta’s decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta’s move expands the Pentagon’s action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., said he supports Panetta’s decision.

“The fact is that American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces,” he said in a statement. “Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude.”

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.

Are the physical requirements the same for men and women in Boot Camp? Last June, The Washington Times told us that

To graduate from boot camp, soldiers must perform 35 pushups and 47 situps and run two miles in at least 16 minutes and 36 seconds — but that’s only for male soldiers.

Female troops are required to do 13 pushups and 43 situps and run two miles in 19 minutes and 42 seconds.

As the Army weighs integrating women into armor and infantry combat positions, the command in charge of soldier training is looking at requiring women to meet the same physical goals as men.

If wartime studies over the past decade are a guide, the Army can expect an increase in injuries and attrition among female soldiers as they seek to match men in strength and endurance.

The Pentagon bans women from direct combat roles, but this year opened 14,000 support jobs that can put female soldiers closer to the front lines on battlefields.

The Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is evaluating whether direct combat units should be open to women, and Army officials have talked of making a decision before the November elections.

The Washington Times asked the training command whether it plans to require women to meet the same physical standards as men if female soldiers begin infantry training at Fort Benning, Ga. The command basically said yes.

“In preparation for this potential future decision, TRADOC is starting the long-term process of gathering data to provide the Army decision-makers the information they need to determine the way forward,” the command stated. “That said, an example we currently have would be the Sapper Leader Course, where both female and male soldiers attend. The standards throughout the course are the same for all soldiers who attend.”

The Times earlier this month published a two-part series about two female officers who recently completed the 28-day Sapper combat engineering course.

Since June 2010, women, who make up 2.5 percent of Sapper students, have a graduation rate of 60 percent, compared with 52 percent for men, according to the training command.

The Army’s Ranger School, a 61-day combat leadership course, is still off-limits to female troops. (Ranger School is separate from the 75th Ranger Regiment, the combat special operations unit whose members are classified as Rangers.)

If women were to enter the all-male Ranger School — an option being weighed — they would have to meet physical standards more rigorous than those for men in boot camp.

Would-be Rangers must be able to do at least 49 pushups and 59 situps, run five miles in less than 40 minutes and do six pullups from a dead hang.

Ranger students then face a series of other tests, such as balancing on a beam, crawling across a rope and then dropping 30 feet into water.

The Army’s training command operates Ranger School as a skills-building exercise, and almost all students come from some branch of combat arms. Graduates get to wear a Ranger badge on their uniforms.

At a news conference in May, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno mentioned Ranger School as a possibility to make female soldiers “successful.”

Personally, I am against this. Not because I am a Male Chauvinist Pig (yay, Pigs …soooey!). Nor is it because I think women are inferior to men. Some of the smartest, most capable people I’ve known in my life, were and are  women.

My Southern “rearing” as a Christian Gentlemen causes the hackles on the back of my neck to stand straight up when I think about it.

Men and women are different. We are physically different. (Thank you, Lord)  We are psychologically different. (I have the gray hair to prove it.) And, we are emotionally different. (Men are from Bass Pro. Women are from Kohl’s.)

Women are blessed by God. They are the foundation of the human race. Each and every one of us came out of a woman.

That’s not to say women can’t serve. They are serving our country honorably right now, in every branch of service.

However, intentionally sending them to the Front Lines, where they can be killed or captured, raped, and tortured, just to make a political point, is insensitive and just plain stupid.

It will weaken our Armed Forces.

And, perhaps, that is what this Administration, which does not believe in American Exceptionalism, wants to do.

Obama: Abortion? “Good.” Gun Control? “It’s For The Children.”

fetus1I was born three days before my mother’s 40th birthday.  To say I was a surprise is an understatement.  As I recently wrote, I truly believe that they were going to name me “oops”.   That being said, I am grateful that God convicted them regarding the sanctity of the life that my mother was carrying within her.

Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances.  There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion.   Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.

For any low  information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

When you talk to Liberals about this stopping of a beathing heart, they will  claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”. 

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

I know that there are some of you that read my blog that are non-believers.  For you and for my Christian brothers and sisters, I add the following thought:

There is a curious unique enzyme found in the human body.   Laminin is defined by the Webster Medical Dictionary as a “glycoprotein that is a component of connective tissue basement membrane and that promotes cell adhesion.”  In other words,glue within the body.

laminin

Colossians 1:15-17 tells us:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Sarah Palin wrote the following words of wisdom in a post on the subject of the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, yesterday on Facebook:

…Our Founding Fathers declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, since 1973, millions of children have been denied the basic right upon which all the others hinge: the right to life.

Lately, President Obama has taken to boldly highlighting children in his speeches. Using kids as the backdrop for his gun control speech, the President claimed his commitment to young ones. “If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,” he said. He then outlined why gutting our Second Amendment is the means by which he believes we accomplish this. Every law-abiding citizen’s heart is broken when children are the target of men hell-bent on committing acts of evil, and we agree that the safety and protection of innocent life is paramount.

The hypocrisy of it all, however, is that while the President publicly acknowledges the value of “even one life” when it advances his own political agenda, he fails to acknowledge as much when it comes to protecting the lives of children soon to be born. In that same speech, he proclaimed that “when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now.” Well, who is more vulnerable than those who find themselves at the mercy of others to honor their existence and receive them into our world? Are these—the truly vulnerable—not worthy of the protection of which the President speaks? Why is it that their cause is never the subject of one of his lofty addresses to the nation? Has he ever even mentioned the March for Life that takes place in his own back yard and ought to be worthy of at least a scant mention? If indeed we have an obligation to save “even one life,” when will we hear our President rally Americans to stand alongside women who find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances to offer the support they need, to encourage parents to choose life, and to promote the option of adoption? Instead, he has committed himself to the most liberal of abortion agendas—so much so that as a Senator he couldn’t even bring himself to support the Born Alive Act that would save the lives of babies ALREADY BORN and needing medical aid. Further, he believes taxpayers should betray their consciences by paying for his abortion agenda. This same President has stated he didn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby,” and remarked that it was “above my pay grade” to answer a pastor’s question: “At what point does a baby get human rights?” Yet now we are to somehow believe that children are the priority in his current aggressive campaign against the Second Amendment?

 Confusing, Isn’t it? Perhaps some words from The Author of Life can help illuminate matters a bit:

Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)

Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb. (Psalm 22:9-10)

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalm 139:13-16)

Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

Why,  even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not;  you are of more value than many sparrows.”(Luke 12:7 )

It’s all very clear to me. I choose life. How about you?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Sworn In. Continues Campaigning.

obamakingInauguration Day is over. Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) is now President of these United States…again. But, is he Chief Executive…or Chief Campaigner?

Reuters.com reports that

Obama, who won a second term by defeating Republican Mitt Romney after a bitter campaign, will now face many of the same problems that dogged his first four years: persistently high unemployment, crushing government debt and a deep partisan divide. The war in Afghanistan, which Obama is winding down, has dragged on for over a decade.

He won an end-of-year fiscal battle against Republicans, whose poll numbers have continued to sag, and appears to have gotten them to back down, at least temporarily, from resisting an increase in the national debt ceiling.

And Obama faces a less-dire outlook than he did when he took office in 2009 at the height of a deep U.S. recession and world economic crisis. The economy is growing again, though slowly.

But he still faces a daunting array of challenges.

Among them is a fierce gun-control debate inspired by a school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, last month, a tragedy he invoked in his speech.

He said America must not rest until “all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Obama’s appeals for bipartisan cooperation will remind many Americans of his own failure to meet a key promise when he came to power – to act as a transformational leader who would fix a dysfunctional Washington.

His speech was light on foreign policy, with no mention of the West’s nuclear standoff with Iran, the civil war in Syria, dealings with an increasingly powerful China or confronting al Qaeda’s continued threat as exemplified by the recent deadly hostage crisis in Algeria.

But Obama said: “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully … We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who had declared in 2010 that his top goal was to deny Obama re-election, congratulated the president and expressed a willingness to work together, saying a second term “represents a fresh start.”

But some Republicans responded skeptically. “It was a very, very progressive speech, to put it in the best possible light,” said Republican strategist Rich Galen. “He’s not running for election anymore.”

But, Rich…what if that is all he knows how to do?

Back n November 28, 2012, as the fight over the Fiscal Cliff and Debt Ceiling was heating up, mediaite .com published the following insight:

Campaigning is comfortable territory for politicians and it is an especially cozy place for President Obama to occupy – he is an extraordinary campaigner and has spent the majority of his political career on the trail seeking one or the other public office. But is this an effective tool for governing? One need only look at Obama’s accomplishments in his first term to determine that it is not.

The president did not need to campaign to pass the stimulus act – his party’s electoral mandate after the 2008 elections was broad enough and the financial crisis so dire that virtually any measure the president advocated for would have been passed. The president did, however, need to push hard to pass his health care reform law – a program which remains deeply unpopular and whose future is forever in doubt.

The only reassurance that Democrats who support the Affordable Care Act have that the law will not be repealed (more likely, dramatically amended) by a future Republican administration or GOP-dominated Congress is that broad entitlement programs is rarely repealed after it is fully enacted because vulnerable members of the public become dependent on those programs. Those who hold this view cite the legislative accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” to support this thesis. But Democrats who idolize Johnson and seek parallels between the 36th president and the 44th have few to choose from.

Johnson was a famously passionate negotiator and a dogged pursuer of legislative compromise – so long as ultimate goals were agreed to at the end of the day. The tails of his tireless efforts to strike deals between members of his party and Republicans in Congress (some of whom he had better relationships with) remain legendary.

Numerous accounts, notably those of reporter Bob Woodward in The Price of Politics, suggest that Obama is more likely to alienate his opponents in a tense negotiation than to win them over. Woodward noted that Vice President Joe Biden was the administration’s link to Republican members of Congress when several debt reduction commissions were convened in Obama’s first term. Given the vice president’s demeanor during the 2012 campaign, and his concerns for his own political future, it is unlikely that Biden can serve in such a role in Obama’s second term.

An executive in the White House would not attempt to strike compromise by directing his supporters to harangue his Congressional opposition through Facebook posts and Twitter-based guilt trips. Such tactics are impediments to real compromise, but these are the tools of Obama’s first resort.

Republicans have signaled their willingness to compromise by increasing tax rates on high earners and Democrats have begun to see the light on the need for dramatic reforms to entitlement programs. But the willingness to compromise does not automatically translate into a forthcoming bargain. The president seems set on making the political environment toxic and to make compromise less likely in order to secure the notion that he won a mandate in November.

It was announced recently that Obama for America was regrouping as Organizing for America, Obama’s very own bunch of Brown Shirts, who would provide”feet on the ground”  in an effort to intimidate and garner public support for Obama’s pet projects.

To recap…America has a divisive leader who has substituted perpetual campaigning for effective governance of our country, assisted by his own personal army of sycophantic supporters.

While the GOP Establishment are sounding like Neville Chamberlain.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Inauguration Day 2013: “So Help Me, Me.”

obamabillofrightsToday is Martin Luther King, Jr Day and the day for the public ceremony commemorating America’s 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) Inauguration as America’s 45th President.

Second term, same as the first? …to paraphrase Herman’s Hermits “I’m Henry the 8th, I am”.

Obama will be sworn in using two Bibles, one belonging to Dr. King, and one belonging to Abraham Lincoln.

As far as Dr. King is concerned, this day and that Bible, are all that Obama has in common with Dr. King.

Concerning Lincoln, the London Daily Telegraph attempts to compare the Manchurian President to the Great Emanicpator:

Mr Obama has often been mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln. Not as his equal, but the symmetry of America’s first black president starting his political journey from the same place, Springfield, Illinois, as the man who emancipated the slaves, is lost on no-one.

Lincoln’s magisterial second inaugural address, uncontestably the greatest of all inaugurals, still contains the recipe for a great speech come Monday at noon, says Dr Ronald White, a Lincoln historian and author of Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural.

Firstly, Mr Obama must avoid the pitfalls of almost all second inaugurals by not making it longer than his first. “Lincoln learned that lesson,” said Dr White, “The Gettysburg Address was 272 words. The second inaugural was 701 words. Lincoln delivered it in just six or seven minutes and people were still arriving when he was finishing.”

Secondly, Lincoln dared to be honest. He confronted the American people frankly about the issue of slavery, an institution that cost the nation four devastating years of civil war. “People expected Lincoln to talk about the Confederacy – the guilty and innocent – but he understood this was the moment to give something short, inspirational and from the heart,” said Dr White, “He confronted the evils of slavery and avoided the usual exercise in self-congratulation, and talk about ‘this great nation of America’. It was a great risk, but Lincoln took it.”

And lastly, Lincoln succeeded because, unlike many a re-elected president, he didn’t fall for his own publicity. “In the Gettysburg address, there is not one personal pronoun and in the second inaugural, only two,” Dr White concludes, “Lincoln didn’t talk about his ‘mandate’ – a phrase you hear now from Mr Obama – but directed all the attention away from himself to the values of the great democratic experiment. He understood that he was a spokesperson for something larger than himself.”

Brevity. Honesty. Humility. If Mr Obama dares to dream of even coming close to matching his hero, these must be his watchwords.

Fat chance of that. As long as Scooter has himself, he’ll never be alone.

So, what’s on his  Machiavellian agenda for the next four years? And, what is the First Mooch going to be up to?

According to the New York Times:

What Mr. Obama wants to achieve this term is pretty clear: a fiscal deal and overhauls of gun and immigration laws, steps to address climate change and less restrictive voter identification laws. But what Mrs. Obama wants is more of a mystery. In almost every appearance, she sounds warm, unpretentious notes; on Friday, she continued her Twitter banter with Ellen DeGeneres over who could do more push-ups.

That informal tone can mask how disciplined she is. Though many surrounding the Obamas say she has changed far more than her husband, mastering a role she initially found uncomfortable, she still treats the job of first lady like a dangerous country through which she must navigate safe passage. The woman who never wanted to live in the bubble now uses it to protect herself, according to friends and former aides, preparing her public activities in 6- and 12-month strategic plans, rarely saying anything unscripted. First ladies are often figures of comfort, but she did not address the Newtown tragedy, beyond two brief letters she published, even though some of her fans were clamoring for the self-described “mom in chief” to do more.

In recent weeks, Mrs. Obama and her advisers have been discussing whether to expand her work beyond childhood obesity and military families and how to capitalize on her popularity. On Friday, she threw herself into her husband’s new effort to organize supporters, introducing the group, Organizing for Action, in an announcement video. (The effort did not seem to garner as much attention as her new hairstyle, which set off headlines like “Michelle Obama’s Bangs Are a Total Shock to the System.”)

Mrs. Obama cannot wait too long to set out on a new course: the Obamas will soon have more time behind them in the White House than in front of them. The rituals they introduced are now matters of tradition instead of innovation. At their White House Seder, the small group of mostly African-American and Jewish attendees reads the Emancipation Proclamation right before welcoming Elijah, just as the year before. The president played basketball on Election Day 2012, as he did on most of the voting days in 2008. But this time it felt different: the men older, the action slower, a reunion game with everyone talking about the old days, said John Rogers Jr., a longtime friend who joined in.

Mr. Obama’s entire career has been about getting to the next stage: if he could only become a lawyer, and then a public official, and then a United States senator, and then president, he could create real change. But soon there will be no higher job to reach for, and aides say there is an all-business quality to the Obamas now, a contrast with the sense of possibility that hung over the first inauguration. Early in the presidency, Mr. Obama would sometimes spend hours polishing ceremonial speeches, like one for Abraham Lincoln’s bicentennial; now, the president has a more finely honed sense of how to use his precious time, said Adam Frankel, a former speechwriter.

In other words, while confident in the power he wields, Obama also knows that he is a lame duck….and that makes him all the more uninhibited…and dangerous.

As we have been experiencing since his re-election, the gloves are off, and he is going to do whatever he can to “radically change” our country into a socialist nation.

The only things that will save us are: 

1. Our system of Checks and Balances, which our founders so brilliantly put in place.

2. The independence-fueled resistance of the American people.

3. The Grace of God.

We are never defeated unless we give up on God.- Ronald Reagan

Until He Comes,

KJ

One Nation Under God, Being Divided

American ChristianityThe primary focus of the nation for the last couple of weeks has been the efforts of Obama and his sycophants to, literally, restrict the Second Amendment rights of average, law-Abiding Americans.

But, what about the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Americans are concerend about those rights as well, under the Second Regime of the Manchurian President.

The Christian Post reports…

Millions of American adults, particularly Protestants and evangelicals, feel religious freedoms have grown worse in the last decade in the United States, and foresee further restrictions in the years to come, according to the results of a new study.

Slightly more than half of adults say they are very (29 percent) or somewhat (22 percent) concerned that religious freedom in the U.S. will become more restricted in the next five years, shows the research conducted by Calif.-based Barna Group in partnership with Clapham Group.

The study, released Friday and which included 1,008 adults from across the religious spectrum, representing the nation’s population from the most active to the most skeptical, shows that those who are religious are more concerned than those who aren’t.

Looking at religious groups separately, the survey found that 71 percent of evangelicals, 46 percent of practicing Protestants, and 30 percent of practicing Catholics are “very concerned” about this prospect.

Concerns are not only over the future of religious freedom, but also about the current level of restraints, the study shows. Among practicing Protestants, 48 percent say they perceive freedom of religion to have grown worse in recent years, while 60 percent of evangelicals perceive religious freedoms to have grown worse.

“The simple fact is that America is becoming more religiously diverse,” said David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group.

“This trend includes growth of faiths other than Christianity, increasing expressions of Christianity beyond white Protestantism, and the growth of the no-faith segment – the so-called religiously unaffiliated,” he added. “These social changes create increasing tension about how something everyone essentially agrees on – freedom of religion – ought to work itself out in the real world where people find themselves disagreeing on important matters.”

The study suggests there is widespread agreement on what “religious freedom” means. About 90 percent of Americans agreed with the statement, “True religious freedom means all citizens must have freedom of conscience, which means being able to believe and practice the core commitments and values of your faith.”

Yet, many controversial aspects of religious liberty are emerging, with most Americans subscribing to “us-versus-them narratives.”

More than half of Americans (57 percent) believe “religious freedom has become more restricted in the U.S. because some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values.” This opinion is more common among practicing Catholics (62 percent) and Protestants (76 percent) and is nearly a universal perception among evangelicals (97 percent).

Slightly more than 31 percent of Americans believe “the gay and lesbian community is the most active group trying to remove Christian values from the country.” Those who believe so include practicing Protestants (42 percent), practicing Catholics (32 percent), and evangelicals (72 percent).On values that should dominate America’s vision for the future, there is a substantial difference of opinion, the study found.

In fact, an accomplished Man of God was bounced from Obama’s Second Inauguration tomorrow, because he was not politically correct enough. Karen Gushta, in an Op Ed for the Christian Post, writes that

Pastor Louie Giglio, known for his work on human trafficking, had been tapped to deliver the benediction. But whenThinkProgress.com, a media outlet for the George Soros funded Center for American Progress, reported that Giglio had preached a “rabidly anti-LGBT” sermon in the mid-1990s, the inaugural committee quickly distanced itself, stating that it wasn’t aware of Giglio’s past comments when they invited him.

Giglio immediately withdrew from the inauguration, noting in his letter to the White House that “the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.” The spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee said, “As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

The question Christians are now asking is whether that “inclusion and acceptance” will include them.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on his blog (AlbertMohler.com 1/10/2013):Louie Giglio was cast out of the circle of the acceptable simply because a liberal watchdog group found one sermon he preached almost twenty years ago. If a preacher has ever taken a stand on biblical conviction, he risks being exposed decades after the fact. Anyone who teaches at any time, to any degree, that homosexual behavior is a sin is now to be cast out….The Presidential Inaugural Committee and the White House have now declared historic, biblical Christianity to be out of bounds, casting it off the inaugural program as an embarrassment.

In discussing Giglio’s withdrawal with OneNewsNow (1/12/2013) Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins said that it is shocking how intolerant the administration is in forcing acceptance of homosexuality. “This isn’t the inauguration of another four years,” said Perkins. “I’m afraid this is the inauguration of a new era of religious intolerance in America.”

Four years ago, Pastor Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at President Obama’s first inaugurationignited “fury from same-sex marriage advocates and progressives.” (Christianity Today, 12/23/2008).Nevertheless, he gave the invocation as planned.

A lot has changed in four years.

Warren himself recently spoke out on the issue of religious freedom in a statement for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is handling seven of the cases against the Health and Human Services Department mandate requiring abortifacients and contraceptives to be included in insurance coverage:

Today, the government has tried to reinterpret the First Amendment from freedom to PRACTICE your religion, to a more narrow freedom to worship, which would limit your freedom to the hour a week you are at a house of worship. This is not only a subversion of the Constitution, it is nonsense. Any religion that cannot be lived out … at home and work, is nothing but a meaningless ritual.”

On January 16, President Obama began his presidential proclamation for Religious Freedom Day with the following:

Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose. Today, we celebrate one of our Nation’s first laws to protect that right – the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Later the proclamation states:

Because of the protections guaranteed by our Constitution, each of us has the right to practice our faith openly and as we choose. [emphasis added]

What are you saying, Mr. President? Is our “practice” of our faith going to be limited to freedom to worship inside our churches and houses of worship, as you punish us for holding to our religious beliefs on Monday through Saturday at our places of work and as we speak out on public forums?

We pray that God will open your heart and mind to see that unless freedom of religion includes freedom of conscience and freedom to speak the truth as we understand it, there is no freedom of religion in this land. Next Sunday, as you solemnly swear to “faithfully execute the office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” may you acknowledge this truth and act accordingly.

What Liberals, Moderates, and even “Libertarians” (the legalize dope kind) don’t seem to understand, is that Christians do not and will not leave our faith at the church door. We carry it with us wherever we go. And, when prompted by the Holy Spirit, knowingly or unknowingly, we act upon it.

John Adams, writing to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798 said

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Judging by the attack on it and us by this current president and his sycophants, I would said President Adams was spot on.

Until he comes, 

KJ

Hostage Crisis Deja Vu

obamacarter Yesterday’s failed attempt to rescue the Hostages in Algeria gave me a sense of deja vu…all over again.

To the Wayback Machine, Sherman!

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

…President Jimmy Carter immediately imposed economic sanctions and applied diplomatic pressure to expedite negotiations for the release of the hostages. First, Carter cancelled oil imports from Iran, then he expelled a number of Iranians from the U.S., followed by freezing about $8 billion of Iranian assets in the U.S.

At first, the Iranian government denied responsibility for the incident, but its failure to take action against the hostage-takers belied the denial. The Carter administration could do little other at that point than be patient and persistent.

In February 1980, Iran issued a list of demands for the hostages’ release. They included the Shah’s return to Iran, a demand for an apology for American involvement in Iran, including the coup in 1953, and a promise to steer clear of Iranian affairs in the future. From the president’s perspective, those demands could not be met.

In late April, Carter decided upon an ultra-secret mission to rescue the hostages. The operation, dubbed “Eagle Claw,” seemed hastily thrown together by some, doomed to failure by others. Teheran was surrounded by 700 miles of desert on all sides; the city itself was crammed with four million people, and the embassy was huge and well guarded. It was to have been a two-night process requiring a minimum of six helicopters and a handful of C-130 cargo aircraft. To be on the safe side, eight copters were prepared for the mission.

Once inside Iranian borders and advancing under cloak of night to a predetermined staging area 50 miles outside Teheran in the Great Salt Desert, one “helo” had to turn back with operating problems. Another helo and then another succumbed to a swirling dust storm, known in that area as a “haboob.” The mission was aborted.

Upon attempting their retreat, a miscommunication gave one helo the okay to lift off. The storm slammed the helo into a C-130, causing a gigantic fireball, killing three in the chopper and five in the airplane.

The aftermath, as Iranians eventually found and mockingly paraded the wreckage on worldwide television, was total humiliation for the United States, and spurred an onslaught of investigations and congressional hearings. Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state who had objected to the plan, resigned in protest. Back to square one.

Yesterday…

An American worker at a natural gas complex in Algeria has been found dead, U.S. officials said Friday, as the U.S. sought to secure the release of Americans still being held by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists on the third day of a hostage standoff.

Frederick Buttaccio, a Texas resident, died of a heart attach during a raid by the Algerian military to end the standoff, Fox News confirms. The general manager of the complex, Mark Cobb, also of Texas, was able to escape with members of his Algerian staff and is safe.

A spokesman for the Buttaccio family in the Houston suburb of Katy, Texas, declined to comment.

“We can confirm the death of U.S. citizen Frederick Buttaccio in the hostage situation in Algeria,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. “We express our deepest condolences to his family and friends. Out of respect for the family’s privacy, we have no further comment.”

It was not immediately clear whether Buttaccio was the only American killed in the hostage standoff.

U.S. officials told The Associated Press that Buttaccio’s remains were recovered Friday. Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she spoke by telephone with Algerian Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal to get an update on Americans and others in danger at the sprawling Ain Amenas refinery 800 miles south of Algiers. She said the “utmost care must be taken to preserve innocent life.”

Clinton talked to reporters after the Obama administration confirmed that Americans were still being held hostage, even as some U.S. citizens were being flown out of the country for recovery in Europe. The Algerian state news agency reported that 12 hostages had been killed since Wednesday’s start of an Algerian rescue operation, and world leaders steadily increased their criticism of the North African country’s handling of the attack.

Clinton, however, defended Algeria’s action. “Let’s not forget: This is an act of terror,” she told reporters in Washington. “The perpetrators are the terrorists. They are the ones who have assaulted this facility, have taken hostage Algerians and others from around the world as they were going about their daily business.”

 For years now, I’ve been telling you that Obama is Carter on steroids. 

He’s worse.

At least, President Carter failed in his rescue attempt while using our own Armed Forces.

Obama farmed it out, because he does not believe in American Exceptionalism.

How can he lead a country he has no respect for?

Until He Comes,

KJ

KJ Update: ALL THE HOSTAGES ARE DEAD.

Algerian special forces stormed a natural gas complex in the middle of the Sahara desert on Saturday in a “final assault” that ended a four-day-old hostage crisis, according to the state news agency and two foreign governments. At least 19 hostages and 29 Islamist militants have been killed.

The report, quoting a security source, didn’t say whether any hostages or militants remained alive, and it didn’t give the nationalities of the dead.

It said the army was forced to intervene after a fire broke out in the plant and said the militants killed the hostages. It wasn’t immediately possible to verify who killed the captives.

Dear God in Heaven, I wish we had an American President.

Obama’s Gun Control Announcement: Some Republicans Come Out Swinging.Others Bow Down.

gun-controlBy now, some of y’all are saying: “KJ, give it a rest. Why are you continuing to write about this? It’s over.”

No, it isn’t. As the late Senator John Blutarsky said,

It’s not over until we say it’s over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

But, I digress…

The Republican Party seems to be split in this fight. However, it appears that there are some of our public servants, who are actually ready to fight on behalf of us “bitter clingers”.

Like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,

Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas said Thursday that Barack Obama is “high on his own power” with regard to the president’s announced efforts on gun control. Speaking on Laura Ingraham’s radio talk show, Cruz, who was just elected to the Senate last November, said “this is a president who has drunk the Kool-Aid.”

“He is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns,” Cruz said. “And I think it’s really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children and using it to push his own extreme, anti-gun agenda. I think what the president is proposing and the gun control proposals that are coming from Democrats in the Senate are, number one, unconstitutional, and number two, they don’t work. They’re bad policy.”

Cruz told Ingraham that he does not believe Obama will be successful in passing gun control legislation and that the political ramifications of pursuing such laws could be bad for Democrats.

“I think he’s going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that’s going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014, in some red states,” Cruz said. “And there have got to be some Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 who are very, very nervous right now that President Obama is picking this fight.”

But, then, there are the Vichy Republicans, like New Jersey’s own “Governor Zeppelin”, Chris Christie,

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is labeling “reprehensible” the National Rifle Association ad that brought President Barack Obama’s daughters into the gun-control debate.

The NRA ad accused the president of being a hypocrite for allowing his daughters to be protected by armed Secret Service agents but not embracing armed guards for schools.

The Republican governor and father of four said at a briefing Thursday in Trenton that the children of public figures should be off-limits to political attacks.

Christie again refused to take a position on Obama’s call for a federal assault weapons ban. The governor says he has no influence over what Congress and the president decide.

Christie has said he supports New Jersey’s current gun laws. They include an assault weapons ban in place for 21 years.

What a Tower of Jello. 

Coincidentally, what “Useless” said, actually happens to be what the President’s mouthpiece, Jay Carney, said.

So, what is The Regime going to do about the NRA? Their membership is skyrocketing, thanks to their brave, level-headed stand against Obama’s blatant attempt at gun confiscation.

Ben Shapiro, reporting for Breitbart.com, tells us the Administration’s plan:

The Obama administration puzzled many observers by leaving its campaign infrastructure largely in place in the aftermath of President Obama’s re-election win. Now we know why. According to Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s former deputy campaign manager on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC program:

President Obama’s network across this country, grassroots individuals, who organize, volunteered with their time to get the president reelected are much more powerful than the NRA lobby. And I think that you can expect to see that network activated, very soon. And for good reason.

Cutter’s words should frighten Americans accustomed to the usual ins-and-outs of politics. Unlike prior presidents, who leveraged their campaign into power, then got down to the business of governing, Obama is running a permanent campaign intended to destroy his political opposition completely.

This has been his agenda for years – only now, the administration is pursuing full-scale opposition openly from within the White House. In the past, the President relied on his allies in the 501(c)3 charitable world to do his dirty work.

Last year, for example, President Obama set his lackeys at Media Matters and Color of Change on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was then pushing voter ID laws. After George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, Obama quickly inserted himself into the proceedings, declaring that Trayvon looked like his fictional son. In doing so, he lent air to the mainstream media narrative that Zimmerman had shot Martin in cold blood, and used Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law as cover – and ALEC had pushed for “stand your ground.” In reality, nobody at the Sanford Police Department ever cited “stand your ground” as the rationale for Zimmerman’s release, and Zimmerman never said “stand your ground.” This was all an attempt to gin up public indignation at “stand your ground” laws, and by extension, ALEC. The Obama-generated assault on ALEC ended with ALEC disassociating from its more controversial political positions, as organizations like Coca-Cola, seeking to avoid scrutiny, cut ties.

That wasn’t the first time Obama had used his allies outside the administration to attempt to destroy political opposition. After Rush Limbaugh called media moth Sandra Fluke a “slut,” Obama jumped in to call her with his condolences – though he was nowhere to be found when the media was labeling Gov. Sarah Palin a “c***” (actually, Obama’s super PAC took $1 million from Bill Maher, the cretin who said that). Obama then helped push a Media Matters-led boycott on Rush’s advertisers.

Now it’s the NRA. The NRA was always the target of the Sandy Hook-exploiting media. The NRA receives no public funding, and writes no laws. Yet the media immediately suggested that the NRA abandon its positions and those of its members or face public wrath. No such suggestion was ever made with regard to the ACLU’s defense of ultra-violent video games. That’s because the NRA is a serious opponent to the left’s public sway. And so it must be destroyed.

To summarize, the Republicans are hardly unified in their opposition to Obama’s attempt at “gun confiscation”. There are some who are taking a pro-gun stance, some who are taking a stance in favor of gun control, and finally, there is the Republican Leadership, who are standing in the shadows.

Thank the Lord for the National Rifle Association. At least, they have the testi…err… intestinal fortitude to stand up to the tyrannical despot occupying OUR House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

They’re doing the Republican Establishment’s job for them. All we’re hearing from the Moderate Elite is **crickets**.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s Gun Control Announcement: Blowback

Obamaguncontrol11613Yesterday, flanked by children, in an effort to make the unconstitutionality of his actions bearable to the American public, President Barack Hussein Obama announced that he was circumventing both the Constitution and Congress, and issuing 23 Executive Orders, designed to make him look good to low information voters, while at the same time provoking all of us  “Bitter Clingers”, living  in the Heartland.

Rush Limbaugh, himself a product of America’s Heartland, also believes that the president was deliberately provoking Americans:

I’ve got a story here about how the Democrats think — and this is what I mean when I ask, “Why is Obama doing this?” There’s nowhere near popular support for this. Nowhere near it. The actions of the American people indicate that. You don’t need me to tell you. And yet he is continually doing things, deliberately making people upset, deliberately driving people batty, attacking people’s sanity. They are scratching their heads, “Why is he doing this? Why is the president doing this? Why is the president so against us? Why is the president blaming us?”

People are asking this, and they are taking action, because the question they’re asking perplexes them. They don’t understand this. They’re running out and buying guns. They don’t know what to do. And the NRA’s got this ad that the left is just fit to be tied over. The NRA doesn’t back down like the Republican Party does. The NRA doesn’t back down at the first sign of criticism like most Republican and conservative institutions do. And I think they’re surprised. I think the regime thought the NRA would back down. Instead the NRA’s got an ad where they talk about the hypocrisy of Obama making sure that his kids are protected by armed guards everywhere they go, but that your kids can’t be.

The NRA is calling Obama an elitist, and the left and the media are up in arms over this and they’re asking, “Does everybody think that they’re in the same situation as the president? Of course the president needs to be protected. Of course the president’s kids need to be protected.” I got a column here from a leftist blog asking the people of the country, “Do you really think you’re in the same situation of the president?” Let me tell this leftist blogger something. As many kids are being shot on school campuses today, and as much senseless law is being passed about guns, I mean, if you actually proclaim a gun-free zone, you are providing a road map to somebody with a gun to go and take action. You’re telling somebody where to go, where they can’t be stopped.

Here is a list of all 23 Executive Orders:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Believe it or not, some Republicans are not backing down:

Per The Daily Caller, Sen. Rand Paul (R, KY) announced on “Hannity” last night that he plans to fight this bunch of garbage in the Senate:

Appearing on Hannity, Paul said he’ll introduce the bill early next week. “In this bill, we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation. And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen.”

“I’m afraid that President Obama may have this king complex sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure that doesn’t happen,” Paul said.

Several state Governors, like ours here in Mississippi, Phil Bryant, have already issued letters to their State Legislatures, requesting that laws be passed to block Obama’s unconstitutional EOs.

And, I have some additional bad news for our imperial president: If he thinks America’s doctors are going to be his personal spies he’s got another thing coming.

My doctor reads this blog…and feels the same way about the Manchurian President as the rest of us Conservatives here in the Heartland.

He’s not impressed….to say the least.

Obama made a lot of Americans very angry yesterday….except gun shop owners.

They are selling out of all of their stock.

Obama was not raised like an average American.

Before you start arguing with the monitor, think about this: Would you have used innocent children as props to further a political agenda?

Until He Comes,

KJ