Category: Politics

While Being Ignored By Putin, Obama Seeks to Lecture Netanyahu

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

americanisraelilapelpinAs if Putin’s “unwanted excursion” into the Ukraine wasn’t enough for Obama to bungle, today he meets with Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu concerning Obama’s wishes that Israel give have of its country to the nomadic tribe known as the Palestinians, returning Israel to where it was before the 1967 War, and to attempt to assure Netanyahu that Obama’s “deal” with Iran, will not result in the nuclear annihilation of Israel.

Fox News reports that

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet Monday with the major topics expected to be a potential Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and international efforts to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

The leaders will meet on the sidelines of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington.

Ahead of the meeting, Obama had some tough words for the Israeli leader, saying that if Netanyhau “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Bloomberg News reported.

Before leaving for the United States, Netanyahu said the two leaders would discuss the Iranian issue and the diplomatic process for mapping out a peace agreement, but said he’d be “steadfast” in defending Israel.

“I will stand steadfast on the State of Israel’s vital interests, especially the security of Israel’s citizens,” he said.

Netanyahu has for years appealed to the U.S. and other allies to stop Iran’s purported efforts to build a nuclear weapon — arguing that achieving that goal is within the grasps of the neighboring, rival country.

Iran has agreed to a deal, opposed by Netanyahu, to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for some easing of international sanctions.

Republicans have led a congressional effort to enact more sanctions — against the wishes of the Obama administration — should Iran fail to fulfill its end of the deal.

APAIC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, had supported the sanctions but now opposes them.

The group recently backed efforts by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to halt the largely GOP Senate effort, saying the timing isn’t right for the upper chamber to vote on the sanctions. The bipartisan bill is co-sponsored by Menendez.

Netanyahu is also scheduled to meet this week with Secretary of State John Kerry and congressional leaders and deliver the APAIC keynote address Tuesday.

Obama is expected to ask Netanyahu to agree to a framework for the so-called “final status” peace agreement.

Kerry has set a goal of April 29 for getting the sides to agree on the final deal, after getting them back to the negotiating table this past summer. However, the Obama administration says such an agreement could take nine more months.

Back in November, when Obama’s “historic deal”,  it was met with less than thunderous applause.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06. He says that it is nothing but “abject surrender”.  He posted this article at the Weekly Standard:

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.

Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree? The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?

Most importantly, the deal leaves the basic strategic realities unchanged. Iran’s nuclear program was, from its inception, a weapons program, and it remains one today. Even modest constraints, easily and rapidly reversible, do not change that fundamental political and operational reality. And while some already-known aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are returned to enhanced scrutiny, the undeclared and likely unknown military work will continue to expand, thus recalling the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because of the better lighting.

…Undoubtedly, an Israeli strike during the interim deal would be greeted with outrage from all the expected circles. But that same outrage, or more, would also come further down the road. In short, measured against the expected reaction even in friendly capitals, there is never a “good” time for an Israeli strike, only bad and worse times. Accordingly, the Geneva deal does not change Israel’s strategic calculus even slightly, unless the Netanyahu government itself falls prey to the psychological warfare successfully waged so far by the ayatollahs. That we will know only as the days unfold.

Israel still must make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic situation while still making progress on the nuclear front, perhaps less progress on some aspects of its nuclear work than before the deal, but more on others.

And what can critics of the Geneva deal, in Washington and other Western capitals, do? They can try to advance the sanctions legislation pending in the Senate over administration objections, for the political symbolism if nothing else. Unfortunately, they’re unlikely to succeed over the administration’s near-certain opposition. Tehran judges correctly that they have Obama obediently moving in their direction, with the European Union straining at the bit for still-more relaxation of the sanctions regimes.

Instead, those opposing Obama’s “Munich moment” in Geneva (to borrow a Kerry phrase from the Syrian crisis), should focus on the larger and more permanent strategic problem: A terrorist, nuclear Iran still threatens American interests and allies, and almost certainly means widespread nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. A nuclear Iran would also be essentially invulnerable, providing a refuge that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Afghan and Pakistani caves could only dream of.

So in truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow. Making the case for Israel’s exercise of its legitimate right of self-defense has therefore never been more politically important. Whether they are celebrating in Tehran or in Jerusalem a year from now may well depend on how the opponents of the deal in Washington conduct themselves.

Given the disastrous track record of Obama and Kerry’s “Smart Power!”, with the ongoing Middle East Bonfire known as “Arab Spring”, Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, and Obama’s undeserved and dangerous trust of the Rogue Nation of Iran, I don’t blame Prime Minister Netanyahu one bit.

I would not trust President Barack Hussein Obama on anything, much less Foreign Policy, any further than I can throw him.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be more concerned about America’s Enemies than our Allies…and, more concerned about reaching out to Muslim Radicals than demanding the release of Christian American Pastor Saeed Abedina, who has been held captive by Iran since the summer of 2012.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal has shown where their loyalties unequivocally lie, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal”. 

And, they are not with our allies nor the safety of the citizens of the United States.

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

Putin Steps Across Obama’s “Red Line”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

obamaputinIn an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

– President Obama , United Nations General Assembly, September 23, 2009

Meanwhile, 4 and 1/2 years later, here in Realityville…

The Washington Post reports that

For much of his time in office, President Obama has been accused by a mix of conservative hawks and liberal interventionists of overseeing a dangerous retreat from the world at a time when American influence is needed most.

The once-hopeful Arab Spring has staggered into civil war and military coup. China is stepping up territorial claims in the waters off East Asia. Longtime allies in Europe and in the Persian Gulf are worried by the inconsistency of a president who came to office promising the end of the United States’ post-Sept. 11 wars.

The international response to protests in Ukraine intensified Saturday as Russia’s parliament approved the use of the military to protect Russian interests in the politically-divided country.

Now Ukraine has emerged as a test of Obama’s argument that, far from weakening American power, he has enhanced it through smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances and a realism untainted by the ideology that guided his predecessor.

It will be a hard argument for him to make, analysts say.

A president who has made clear to the American public that the “tide of war is receding” has also made clear to foreign leaders, including opportunists in Russia, that he has no appetite for a new one. What is left is a vacuum once filled, at least in part, by the possibility of American force.

“If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” said Andrew C. Kuchins, who heads the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.”

Rarely has a threat from a U.S. president been dismissed as quickly — and comprehensively — as Obama’s warning Friday night to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. The former community organizer and the former Cold Warrior share the barest of common interests, and their relationship has been defined far more by the vastly different ways they see everything from gay rights to history’s legacy.

Obama called Putin on Saturday and expressed “deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” the White House said.

During a speech on March 8, 983, now known as the “Evil Empire” Speech, President Ronald Reagan said,

During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas–that’s their name for religion–or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

This doesn’t mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now pr-proposes 50 percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles. [Applause]At the same time, however, they must be made to understand: we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God.

…But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.

Meanwhile, in 2014, with the “Evil Empire” invading the Ukraine, our present occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue skipped a National Security Council Meeting on the subject yesterday. Benghazigate Video Prevaricator Susan Rice “briefed him” later.

We are so screwed.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Putin Invades Ukraine. Obama Wags Finger. Palin Says, “I Told You So!”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

palin-newsweekAs I was traveling home from work yesterday, I tuned the car radio to Sirius XM 114 to catch “The Five” on the Fox News Channel. Instead, I heard Bret Baier telling me that President Pantywaist…err…Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was about to address the nation on the subject of Russia Invasion of the Ukraine.

And, sho’ nuff’, our Petulant President came on, and preceded to warn Russian Leader Vladimir Putin not to do what he had already done.

In other words, Obama told him,

Stop! Or, I’ll say “Stop!” again!

Political Pundit Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains, per national review.com…

As reports are coming in that Russia has placed 2,000 troops in Crimea, within the borders of Ukraine, President Obama said that “the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.”

Charles Krauthammer responded on Special Report tonight saying, “The Ukrainians, and I think everybody, is shocked by the weakness of Obama’s statement. I find it rather staggering.”

Krauthammer thinks Obama’s statement is about “three levels removed” from actual action. He explained: Obama said “we will stand with the international community — meaning we are going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement — in affirming that there will be costs — meaning in making a statement not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost — for any military intervention.”

“What he’s saying is we’re not really going to do anything and we’re telling the world,” Krauthammer said.

Over in the UK, The Guardian summarizes Putin’s reaction to Obama’s “stern warning”…

Fears of conflict in Crimea have intensified after Ukraine accused Russia of taking over two airports there, the day after gunmen seized the local parliament buildings. Here is a summary of the latest developments:

• Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Russian forces have taken over two airports in Crimea, accusing them of “an armed invasion and occupation in violation of all international agreements and norms”.

• About 50 armed men in military uniform, without signs of identification, took over Simferopol airport in the early hours of Friday. Interfax Ukraine reported that a group of people with Russian navy ensigns also gathered at the airport’s building.

• Armed men, described by Avakov as Russian naval forces, have also taken over a military airport near the port of Sevastopol where the Russian Black Sea fleet has a base.

• The airport seizures come the day after pro-Russian gunmen took over the Crimean parliament.

• Russia has continued military drills in the west of the country and said more than 80 helicopters More than were being re-deployed to emergency airfields. A Russian defence ministry spokesman told Interfax the move was “part of a continuing inspection of the combat readiness of forces deployed in the western and central military districts.

• Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered his government to continue talks with Ukraine on economic and trade relations and to consult foreign partners including the IMF and the G8 on financial aid, a statement on the Kremlin’s website said.

Allow me to translate President Putin’s actions for you, boys and girls…

Oh, yeah? Come over and MAKE ME!

And, with that, Obama will pull his pants up to his chest, a la Steve Urkel, and stomp away.

In an article posted on April 10, 2009, columnist Gerald Warner of telegraph.co.uk coined the title President Pantywaist for Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).  He gave him this nickname after Obama:

…recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you’d notice. 

Given the way America’s enemies, such as Vladimir Putin, are laughing at America and spitting in our face, the way that Obama has arrogantly alienated our foreign allies, and the President’s Steve Urkel-esque naiveté as exhibited by his Smart Power Foreign Policy, I would say Mr. Warner hit the nail on the head.

Back in 2008, a certain Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate warned that, given Senator Obama’s indecision and moral equivalence, Putin might decide to go ahead and invade Ukraine, as he did Georgia.

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.

According to Tony Lee at Breitbart.com,

For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.

In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.

Hounshell wrote then that Palin’s comments were “strange” and “this is an extremely far-fetched scenario.”

“And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel,” Hounshell dismissively wrote.

Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama’s running mate Joe Biden warned Obama supporters to “gird your loins” if Obama is elected because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.

Y’know, given the Liberals’ penchant from labeling Sarah Palin as a “chillbilly”, I would wpould say the not-so-“smartest people in the room” owe the Arctic Fox a huge apology.

But, I’m not holding my breath, waiting on it.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Judicial Activism Vs. Freedom of Religion: Using Judges to Overturn the Will of the People

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

American ChristianityIf you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to striking down Popular Votes by American Citizens.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in this Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with another Government branch, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-control Administration, is to carry out the re-engineering of American Society, under the guise of “equality”?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations. If the Constitution does not enact Herbert Spencer’s “”A Theory of Justice”.

As any American with half a brain has figured out by now, the purpose of using the Judiciary to overthrow the will of the American People who voted against “Gay Marriage” is to reinforce the notion that the average American is prejudicial is nature and, that allowing homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” is a matter of “Civil Rights”, not social re-engineering brought about by the desire of the Gay Mafia and their Progressive Supporters to redefine the American Family Unit. 

Because the overwhelming majority of Americans still profess a belief in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, there was no way that Gay Activists would ever win a popular vote in the majority of American States, and fulfill their quest to have same-sex relationships classified as normal through the use of the word signifying the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

Therefore, through the usurpation of the People’s will by Activist Judges, they are succeeding in realizing the overturning of popular votes against “gay marriage” in several states.

However, if I am any judge as to the reaction of average Christian Americans, they will continue to fail in their quest for “acceptance” of their sexually deviant behavior.

Christian Americans, as shown through our overwhelming support of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, are still clinging to our traditional American Faith and Values, and no Liberal Judge, backed by a Progressive (i.e., Liberal) Government will push us off of the Solid Rock on which we stand.

We’ve read The Book. We know how all of this ends.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Putin Docks Russian Warship in Havana

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

atomic blastI remember the classic ABC Production  titled “The Missiles of October”, starring the great William Devane as President John F. Kennedy and a young Martin Sheen as his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

It involved a time in our nation’s history, when we were threatened by Russian Aggressors, who had parked missiles in Cuba, a scant 90 miles away from Florida’s coast.

That time has come again.

Yahoo News reports that

A Russian warship was docked in Havana Wednesday, without explanation from Communist Cuba or its state media.

The Viktor Leonov CCB-175 boat, measuring 91.5 meters (300 feet) long and 14.5 meters wide, was docked at the port of Havana’s cruise ship area, near the Russian Orthodox Cathedral.

The Vishnya, or Meridian-class intelligence ship, which has a crew of around 200, went into service in the Black Sea in 1988 before it was transferred seven years later to the northern fleet, Russian media sources said.

Neither Cuban authorities nor state media have mentioned the ship’s visit, unlike on previous tours by Russian warships.

The former Soviet Union was Cuba’s sponsor state through three decades of Cold War. After a period of some distancing under former Russian president Boris Yeltsin, the countries renewed their political, economic and military cooperation.

The ship is reportedly armed with 30mm guns and anti-aircraft missiles.

Its visit comes as isolated Havana’s current economic and political patron, Venezuela, is facing unprecedented violent protests against President Nicolas Maduro’s government.

Cuban President Raul Castro’s Communist government is the Americas’ only one-party regime.

Back in 1962, there was a major cold war confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which we know today as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As a response to the Bay of Pigs Invasion and other American actions against Cuba, as well as to President Kennedy’s build-up in Italy and Turkey of U.S. strategic nuclear forces with first-strike capability aimed at the Soviet Union, the USSR decided to dangerously increase its support of Fidel Castro’s Cuban regime.

In the summer of 1962, Nikita Khrushchev secretly made plans to install nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Cuba. When U.S. reconnaissance flights revealed the clandestine construction of missile launching sites, President Kennedy publicly denounced (Oct. 22, 1962) the Soviet actions. He put in place a naval blockade on Cuba, declaring that any missile launched from Cuba would warrant a full-scale retaliatory attack by the United States against the Soviet Union.

On Oct. 24, Russian ships carrying missiles to Cuba turned back, and when Khrushchev agreed (Oct. 28) to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the missile sites, the crisis ended as suddenly as it had begun.

The United States ended its blockade on Nov. 20, and by the end of the year the missiles and bombers were removed from Cuba. The United States, in return, pledged not to invade Cuba, and subsequently, in fulfillment of a secret agreement with Khrushchev, removed the ballistic missiles placed in Turkey.

Back then, America was the “Big Dog” in the World Kennel. Khrushchev was a bellicose old Russian Bear, who decided to see what “Young Lion”, United States President John F. Kennedy, was made of.

Even with an actual AMERICAN President in place, we escaped a nuclear attack by the skin of our teeth.

Now, almost 52 years later, we may not be so lucky.

Boys and girls, we are facing the terrible reality that we are no longer the “Alpha Male” of the World’s Nations.

Thanks to the Wuss in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama, Vladimir Putin, on behalf of Mother Russia is systematically going about the process of reclaiming territory, which he believes belongs to his country. 

Putin, an ex-KGB autocrat, has the unenviable task of being the leader of a country with a dwindling population and an economy which is entirely dependent on the price of oil.

The fact that Putin is now, in the eyes of many, the world’s most powerful head of state, is a result of the world leadership void resulting from the Chamberlain-esque enemy-appeasing Barack Hussein Obama, who is unfortunately, sitting in the Oval Office of the President of the United States.

Obama’s deliberate backing off from world conflicts and visible weakness in dealing with “Foreign Aggressors” has emboldened Putin to believe that he can do whatever he darn well wants too, because Barack Hussein Obama does not have the testicular fortitude to stand up to him. (Yeah, I said it.)

During Ronald Reagan’s famous “Evil Empire” Speech, which he gave on March 8, 1983, he said,

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second-oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, “Ye shall be as gods.”

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, “but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.”

In light of that prescient statement and upon reflecting on the Administration-sponsored Societal Darkness which is now rapidly enveloping our country, and the dhimmi/Alinsky-ite/Marxist we have as our “Dear Leader”, …we’re screwed. 

 Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to “Organizing For Action” Worshipers : “You’re Doing God’s Work.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Obamahalologo'President Obama thanked the group that used to be his reelection campaign, Organizing for Action, in an event held last night in Washington.

“The work you are doing is God’s work,” Obama told supporters.

Per David Horowitz’s discoverthenetworks.org,

Organizing for America [now “Action”] (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

OFA is an outgrowth of “Obama For America,” the network of Obama supporters who went door-to-door urging voters to back the Illinois senator in the 2008 presidential race. Shortly after election day in November of that year, Obama For America’s organizers met in Chicago and voiced their desire to keep their operation active in some form, even though the presidential campaign was over. Their wishes were subsequently echoed by Obama For America’s enthusiastic foot soldiers, who in December 2008 held some 4,800 house meetings nationwide to rally support for such a venture. Moreover, 500,000 Obama supporters completed a survey wherein they, too, expressed a wish to continue their organization’s work. Out of those roots, OFA was formed.

Another factor that motivated the Obama administration to create OFA was the fact that after the new President had taken his oath of office, his White House was, by law, barred from using (for subsequent political purposes) the 13-million-name e-mail list of supporters it had compiled during the 2008 presidential race. Thus the administration established OFA within the structure of the Democratic Party, which was not bound by such restrictions; OFA is free to use the aforementioned list as it pleases. Nor is OFA subject to IRS nonprofit regulations, because it has no independent legal status outside the DNC.

“God’s work”? Hardly. OFA carries out the work of sinful, corrupt men, including President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mm mmmm).

Although, Obama’s Messianic Complex is the stuff of legend.

In August of 2008, in St. Paul, Minnesota, while delivering his acceptance speech, after receiving the Nomination to become  the Democrat Presidential Candidate, Obama said,

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

On February 19, 2008, Columnist Sally Quinn wrote the following in her feature “On Faith” in The Washington Post:

Is Obama the Messiah? People are asking these days and it’s not so hard to understand why: the desperate throngs, the tears, the great awakening of a slumbering demographic. All that larger symbolism.

The emotional landscape of many American voters is calamitous of late — frightened by our Babylonian war, unhappy with our President and depressed by the cleansing crush of the credit crunch — so it’s not surprising that the coming presidential election would take on a certain biblical coloring.

The Messiah question is a loud one coming from all corners. Even a blogger for Mother Jones, the hot heart of the far left, worries that the Obama-passion will be used for nefarious purposes by right-wingers, he himself writes “Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise.”

The salty 62-year old Chris Matthews of MSNBC puts the phenomenon of Obama on the good book scale, telling the NY Observer that “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.”

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan proclaimed Obama as”The Messiah”.   Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan said:

You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

Barack Hussein Obama is  a god?  a messiah?  Hardly. 

When Christian Conservatives have brought up Obama’s Messianic Complex in the past, we have been called narrow-minded  raaaciiists, ignorant rednecks, or simply out of touch.  Now, following over 5 years of Obama running the greatest nation on the face of the Earth straight into the ground, more and more Americans of every faith and political ideology seem to finally be coming to the painful realization that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) ain’t all that and a bag of chips.  

Obama, by declaring that his sycophants, through their support of his skirting of the Constitution, suppression of states’ rights, alienation of American Christians, and unflagging support of abortion, amnesty, marijuana legalization, and gay “marriage”, are somehow doing “God’s Work”, has shown his total misunderstanding of the God of Abraham, the Creator, whom our Founding Fathers, who Obama erroneously compares himself to, gave a preeminent position to in our Founding Documents.

And, that is why he, and his worshipers at OFA, fail.

“God’s work?”

The Devil you say.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Cut US Military to Pre-World War II Levels. [Neville Chamberlain Lives!]

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

MILITARY CUTS, OBAMA CARTOONSI think all of us here share the belief that we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet, that we have to support our troops and make sure that they are properly trained, properly equipped, that they are provided with a mission that allows them to succeed. All of us here also agree that the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of our diplomacy and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and strengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security.- President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama, while introducing his National Security Team on December 1, 2008

All of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

That was then. This is now: Obama has ordered his Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, to offer a budget proposal which would reduce America’s Military prowess by 1/8th, taking it down to Pre-World War II levels.

Yahoo News reports that

The proposed 13 percent reduction in the army would be carried out by 2017, a senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP.

The spending plan is the first to “fully reflect” a transition away from a war footing that has been in place for 13 years, Hagel said at a press conference.

The plan comes amid growing fiscal pressures and after years of protracted counter-insurgency campaigns, which saw the army reach a peak of more than 566,000 troops in 2010.

Having withdrawn US forces from Iraq in 2011, President Barack Obama has promised to end America’s combat role in Afghanistan by the end of this year

The proposed cut in manpower along with plans to retire some older aircraft and reform benefits for troops could run into stiff resistance in Congress.

A senior US military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the political challenge.

“We’re going to need some help from our elected representatives to get this budget across the finish line,” the officer said.

Several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee immediately expressed reservations about the budget proposal.

Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who sits on the committee, said the proposals had the “potential to harm America’s military readiness.”

The Pentagon had previously planned to downsize the ground force to about 490,000.

But Hagel warned that to adapt to future threats “the army must accelerate the pace and increase the scale of its post-war drawdown.

Hagel also said the army national guard and reserves would be cut by five percent.

The smaller force would entail some “added risk” but it would still be able to defeat an adversary in one region while also “supporting” air and naval operations in another, he said.

The Pentagon for years had planned to ensure the army could fight two major wars at the same time but that doctrine has been abandoned.

Distinguished American Veteran, Former United States Representative Lt. Col. Allen B. West wrote the following, concerning this announcement:

Instead of “investing” in the most important task of our federal government — providing for the common defense — we shall now focus on “investing” in the expansion of the welfare nanny-state. There is no doubt where President Obama’s priorities lie.

We have departed from the maxim of “peace through strength” to a belief in “appeasement through weakness.” Obama somehow believes kumbaya is a strategic objective. And don’t give me the crap about drones, because we learned during Vietnam that a president should not be directing strikes from the White House – implemented by another failed progressive president, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

We should be examining how we create the capability and capacity to meet the challenges of the enemy globally. That means looking at each geographic AOR (Area of Responsibility; CENTCOM, AFRICOM, EUCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, NORTHCOM) and ensuring they have the appropriate level of force mix to meet the threats in their AORs.

We don’t need massive endeavors into new technologies, we need a massive focus on capability to meet and defeat the enemy by way of deterrence. Of course I support the defense industry, but the defense industry shouldn’t be the drivers of our national security strategy.

For Obama and 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.

Spot on.

The greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, once said, 

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.

Reagan was a realist. He realized that, as President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt once advised, the best way to keep America safe, is to “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Unfortunately for us, we are presently suffering through a president who speaks like a wuss and carries a feather pillow….and a prayer rug.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Senate Wants Obama to “Stand Firm” Against Putin About the Ukraine. Fat Chance.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

obamaputinSo, with the Mid-East already a smoldering ash heap thanks to “Arab Spring” and “Smart Power”, is Eastern Europe next?

Fox News reports that

Top Senate Republicans on Sunday told President Obama to send a “clear” message to Russia President Vladimir Putin to stay out of Ukraine’s political crisis, renewing criticism about the president’s foreign policy and his negotiations with the powerful Russian leader.

“I believe the president needs to up his game and send a clear unequivocal public message to Putin not to interfere in what is happening in Ukraine,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.” “This is an opportunity for the president to really be unequivocal with Putin right now.”

The months of political upheaval in Ukraine have divided some residents between aligning with Russia or Western nations, a situation now being portrayed as a de facto power struggle between Obama and Putin, who appear on opposite sides of several world issues, including the Syria crisis.

Obama vowed in June 2010 to “reset” relations with Russia in an effort to help solve international problems and improve the world economy. But four years later, little appears to have improved.

“It’s time to reset the reset,” Ayotte said.

Critics of the Obama administration’s foreign policy say Putin has had the upper hand in efforts to end Syria’s 3-year-long civil war because Russia is a major ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad, which has allowed him to remain in power and keep a large part of his chemical weapons cache.

Such critics are also bristling over Putin allowing former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. government secrets, to live in Russia.

Still, Obama said the situation in Ukraine is about residents being able to make decisions for themselves and not about “some Cold War chessboard.”

Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the president talked Friday with Putin and that they agreed that a political settlement in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, should ensure the unity of the country and the right of Ukrainians to express their free will.

This weekend, the Ukraine parliament declared President Yanukovych unable to carry out constitutional duties.

…Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a frequent critic of Obama’s foreign policy, said the United States needs to be clear with Putin that Ukrainians must be allowed to determine their own future and that partitioning the nation would be unacceptable.

“They want to be Western,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “That’s what this whole hundreds of thousands in the square was all about. They don’t want to be Eastern.”

McCain also said an array of Ukrainians in the opposition movement are overjoyed but worried about the economy. And he suggested Putin should be “a little nervous” now that the Olympics are over and his residents — “tired of crony capitalism” — might follow neighboring Ukrainians.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ind., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, defended Obama, saying he, like every new U.S. president, has tried to negotiate with Putin, who has been a threat for many decades.

He also told “Fox News” the administration will have a challenging time in Ukraine because Russia has the “trump card” of supplying the country with natural gas.

The problem with the Senators’ wishes, is the fact that we have Neville Chamberlain in office, when we need Winston Churchill.

Or…

President Ronald Reagan, who gave a speech, concerning our relationship with Russia, on March 8 1983, which has since come to be called “The Evil Empire Speech”. His words ring as true today, as they ever have.

During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas—that’s their name for religion—or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

This doesn’t mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom.

…It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable “Screwtape Letters,” wrote: “The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

Well, because these “quiet men” do not “raise their voices,” because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they’re always making “their final territorial demand,” some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.

While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

…Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism’s attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, “Ye shall be as gods.”

The Western World can answer this challenge, he wrote, “but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism’s faith in Man.”

President Reagan knew that, one day, the struggle against Marxist Ideology would not just be waged externally, against foreign enemies, but internally, against domestic ones, as well…bureaucrats who would give away our very sovereignty for perceived political expediency. As we have seen in the ongoing Middle East Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution, known as Arab Spring, and, more recently, President Obama and Sec. Kerry’s bungling of Syria and Iran, our enemies, like Vladimir Putin, love this present administration, who are more than willing to “negotiate” with their new-found “friends”.

And, much like the small town fellow, who gets conned into a three-card monte game on the sidewalks of New York, the deck is stacked against us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: When “Trolls” Attack

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics5 Comments

Christian America Fish LogoCatching flack for sticking to my Christian American Conservative Principles in nothing new for me.

My posts, concerning American Christianity, seem to “touch a nerve” in both Liberals and Atheists, alike. (But, I repeat myself.)

Their reaction has hardly been unexpected.

Of course, those Liberals and Atheists who responded, over the years, immediately denied that our Founding Fathers were Christians and that our country was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system.

Evidently, they had never read anything, except what their like-minded, non-believing soothsayers, allowed them to.  Or else, they would have read historical documents like President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, written on November 1, 1777, and found at wallbuilders.com:

The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, to set apart a day of public thanksgiving, brought in a report; which was taken into consideration, and agreed to as follows:

Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:

It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.

One of the first reactions to my posts, by the Liberal/Atheist responders continued to deny Jefferson’s Christianity.

Atheists like to bring up the fact that he wrote a version of the Bible which left out Christ’s miracles.  What they are reluctant to do, though, is explain why he wrote his book that way.  David Barton explains on wallbuilders.com:

The reader [of a newspaper article which Barton is replying to], as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

Finally, the Eight Per Centers who replied to my blogs insisted that Crosses and other Chrstian symbols have no place in the Public Square.  They wish for Christians to remain unseen and unheard from, worshiping in private.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans’ Christian Faith, of which 78% of us, according to Gallup, still anchor our lives around,has been the Solid Rock upon which our nation was built. To deny that, is to deny reality, to re-write history, and, to, quite frankly, endanger “the Shining City on a Hill”.

As President Ronald Reagan said, 

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Has the Tonight Show Become a Democratic Propaganda Machine?

On By kingsjesterIn Entertainment, Politics8 Comments

Jimmy Fallon and Michelle ObamaJimmy Fallon, of Saturday Night Live and those Credit Card Commercials with the baby, officially took over the reins of the Tonight Show last week.

And, one of his first guests was the First Wookie…err…Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama.

Politico.com reports that

The curtain rose this week on a new era of late-night TV — altering the terrain for politicians who frequent the shows and complicating life for Republicans, who have lost their most comfortable seat in front of the camera.

“The whole landscape’s about to change,” Arsenio Hall, the recently reincarnated late-night host, said in an interview. “Jay [Leno] going home is going to change it for a lot of people.”

Jimmy Fallon replaced Leno — who was seen as the one late-night host with a welcome mat out for the GOP — and moved “The Tonight Show” back to New York City after decades in Hollywood. Beyond the location, expect another big departure from Leno: Not nearly as many heavy-hitting political jokes or guests.

Fallon, who is eyed a bit warily by some Republicans, had first lady Michelle Obama on Thursday — they have a chemistry between them — after launching his new show on Monday. He said recently that his show will not be the place to go for in-depth interviews with politicians and candidat

Obama and Fallon’s only foray into politics during her appearance was a pitch about Obamacare’s provision that allows children to stay on their parent’s health insurance until age 26, with a quick quip from Fallon about the problem-plagued HealthCare.gov finally working.

“(The website is) working now. It’s so much better when it’s working,” Fallon said.

As part of the new late-night lineup, Seth Meyers is taking over Fallon’s old spot on “Late Night,” and the former “Saturday Night Live” head writer has said he does plan to focus on politics. In fact, Vice President Joe Biden will be one of his first guests on Monday, when the show debuts. Meyers and his team declined an interview request.

With the 2014 midterms not far off and the 2016 presidential cycle already in motion, a seat on a late-night host’s couch is an important place for politicians who are looking to soften their image, reach a young-ish audience and prove they have a sense of humor like any average Joe.

But there will definitely be less pure politics without Leno, experts said. While Leno and “Late Show” host David Letterman have relied heavily on politics in their monologues and had many politicians on as guests, Fallon turns political only when there’s a story so big it can’t be ignored, said Robert Lichter, director of Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University and the author of the forthcoming book “Politics Is a Joke: How TV Comedians Are Remaking Political Life.”

“[Johnny] Carson initiated political humor on late night, but Leno put it on steroids,” Lichter said. “Leno always told far more political jokes than anyone else. With folks like Fallon and others, you’ve got political humor when something big happens … so, for Fallon, politics is just one of many areas. For Leno, it was a major part of his arsenal.”

Fallon’s slimmed-down diet of politics may not be a bad thing, said Erik Smith, Obama’s senior adviser for advertising and message development during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. As opposed to what Smith called a “sense of cynicism” toward politics that Leno and Letterman exhibit in their monologues, Fallon’s skits and stunts — like the “slow jam” — bring out a softer side of a candidate and are more likely to go viral.

Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, in their column at newsbusters.org, disagree…

The Obamas have had few more obsequious media allies than NBC’s Jimmy Fallon. Now that he’s taking over the hallowed ground of “The Tonight Show,” Fallon’s proven ability to spread his reach into viral videos on YouTube promises to become even more politically potent.

Fallon’s Obama-friendly sketches and interviews have become immediate “news” grist for the Comcast corps at NBC and MSNBC. The same sensation happens when Fallon is ripping into a Republican.

Just as NBC and MSNBC were tearing Gov. Chris Christie apart over “Bridgegate,” Fallon joined this political crusade by bringing on liberal rock star Bruce Springsteen for a jokey version of the hit “Born to Run.”

Fallon and Springsteen sang clumsy lyrics that Christie was “killing the working man who is stuck in Governor Chris Christie’s Fort Lee, New Jersey traffic jam.” The YouTube video went viral, while the media played it up as another nail in the coffin they were building for Christie’s career.

The NBC press agents are trying to paper over Fallon’s political tilt. A Parade Magazine profile on Feb. 16 oozed that Fallon “persuaded Brad Pitt to yodel, President Obama and Mitt Romney to ‘slow jam the news,’ and Tom Cruise to crack raw eggs on his noggin.” But why pretend?

In 2012, Fallon’s “slow jam” with Obama featured the president trying to sell his allegedly wonderful plans for college loans, and Fallon followed up by uttering in a low voice, “Awww yeah. You should listen to the president. Or as I like to call him, the Preezy of the United Steezy.”

After Obama trotted out campaign attacks against Republicans, accusing them for raising interest rates on students to keep taxes low for billionaires, Fallon added: “Mmm, mmm, mmm. The Barack Ness Monster ain’t buying it.” Singer Tariq Trotter then sang in tribute: “He’s the POTUS with the mostest!”

Fallon ended this spectacle later by stating the ridiculous: “We don’t take sides politically on this show.” It’s worse than that. Obama invited himself. Fallon excitedly described on “Today” afterward how “the White House called us” about doing the skit. Matt Lauer asked: “He booked himself on your show?” Fallon gushed: “The president booked himself.”

Try to imagine a conservative Republican attempting to pull this off.

Indeed. They would not stand a chance.

Being the “old codger” that I am, I remember Johnny Carson very well.  Johnny had a natural, easy-going Interview Style, which allowed him to talk to anyone on his show, from a 7 year old to Movie Stars.

And, while Carson skewered BOTH political parties in his monologues, he never brought up his political affiliation on the show. He felt that if ehe invited politicians on the show, that would turn off his viewers, as they tuned into his show at the end of a long, hard workday, to be entertained, NOT PROSELYTIZED TO.

And, that will ultimately be this latest version of the tonight show’s downfall. If people want to watch shomeone suck up to the Democratic Party, they can tune in to Letterman or Jon Stewart or, if they are really desperate, MSNBC.

Each host of the Tonight Show brought something to the table. Steve Allen both comedy and musical ability. Jack Paar brought urbane sophistication. Johnny Carson brought masterful comedic timing and  Midwestern “Aw, shucks” feel to the show. Jay Leno, was the “Everyman”…the wisecracking guy next door, whom you could find on the weekend with his head stuck under a car hood.  And, Conan O’Brien brought…err…umm…never mind.

So, what will Jimmy Fallon bring?

If he tries to be a younger version of Letterman, he won’t be around long. 

We’ll see.

Until He Comes,

KJ