Category: Politics

Wright/Obama: The Memories Remain

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The majority of Americans, since that fateful Inauguration Day of January 21, 2009, have been trying to figure out two things about President Barack Hussein Obama:

1)  What is he thinking?  2) Is he a Christian, a Muslim, or what?

The answer to question #2 may be “what”, considering the “theologian” he sat under for 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Check out this excerpt from theblaze.com:

Last week, Wright spoke at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of a week-long revival event. His controversial words took aim at Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the media and plenty of other targets.

“I’m not divisive, the media is divisive,” he said, going on to lament the soundbites he claims were unfairly used to disparage him during the 2008 campaign.

As could be expected, the three evening sermons he delivered during the revival often turned to themes and subjects much more controversial than alleged media bias.

“Believers beware,” Wright preached in one of his lessons. “There are some conversations you will find yourselves in in which there is no communication taking place.”

He went on to speak about Jesus and Pontius Pilate in John 18 in the Bible, saying that they were speaking “two different languages.“ This sermon quickly delved into his belief that ”the Italian army — Roman soldiers“ were ”occupying Palestinian territory.”

Then, Wright found himself discussing U.S. operations in the Middle East, while also taking aim at FOX News personalities Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

“I was in the military six years and neither Hannity or O’Reilly was in the military,” he proclaimed. “Let me tell you one thing they taught us in the United States Marine Corps…fighting for peace is like raping for virginity. Those are oxymorons, but that’s what we do in the name of regime change.”

The controversial preacher also showed no love for Justice Thomas, as he told his audience that, though Thomas “looks like” them, he is “worshipping some other God.” He also made an intriguing comparison about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the Lord depicted in the Quran.

“The god of racists is not the God of righteousness. The god of the greedy is not the God of grace. The god of Wall Street is not the God of Main Street,” Wright proclaimed. “Those are two different gods and I ain’t talking about Allah and Yahweh. Those are the same names for the same God.”

He continued, taking a jab at Thomas and his Christian faith.

“And I’m not talking about black and white…some of ya‘ll think I’m talking about white folk,” he said. “There’s a whole lot of folk who look like you who are worshipping some other God — somebody shout Clarence Thomas. Hallelujah!”

So, besides being the President of the United States’ former pastor, who is this lunatic?

Per discoverthenetworks.org:

The son of a Baptist minister, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. was born in Philadelphia on September 22, 1941. On March 1, 1972, he became the pastor of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a position he held until February 2008.

After a tour of duty in the U.S. Navy, Wright went on to earn a master’s degree in English from Howard University in 1969. Six years later he earned an additional master’s degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and in 1990 he received a Doctor of Ministry Degree from United Theological Seminary.

The writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright reflect his conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

What is this Black Liberation Theology that Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches?

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

In the past, Obama has credited a sermon of Mr. Wright’s, “The Audacity of Hope,” with drawing him to what he identified back in 2008 as, “Christianity”. In fact, Wright had so influenced the young Illinois Senator that Obama made the phrase the title of his second book.

However, right before he announced his presidential campaign, Obama started to put distance between himself and his pastor of 20 years, cancelling plans for him to deliver the convocation prayer at the campaign’s formal announcement.

The president has been physically distancing himself from Rev. Wright ever since.

Still, given Obama’s words and actions over the last three years, is appears that he still “bitterly clings” to the 20 years worth of Sunday morning sermons preached by his “Pastor”.

Bill Cosby: The Gun Killed Trayvon

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

In the back of the storeroom that my bride and I are currently renting, in a box with my Frampton Comes Alive Double Album, is an album by Bill Cosby.  I believe the title is, “Bill Cosby is a Very Funny Fellow…Right.”

And, while I still believe that he is, with the following commentary, he’s way off the mark.

Last Saturday, The Washington Times featured the following report by Deborah Simmons, in her op ed feature, “Can We Talk”:

“The gun.”

Those two simple words flowed easily from the mouth of social commentator Bill Cosby during an exclusive interview Friday regarding the Trayvon Martin case, arguably the most high-profile, citizen-on-citizen U.S. slaying facing the Obama administration.

Trayvon was killed Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, who told police that a “confrontation” with the unarmed 17-year-old led him to shoot in self-defense.

Mr. Cosby, a Navy veteran, said “the gun” empowered Mr. Zimmerman, whose actions have stirred a firestorm of debate, protests and remarks from President Obama.

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” said Mr. Cosby, whose remarks were the first he has made publicly about the case.

“Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself,” Mr. Cosby explained. “The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations.

“When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” he said.

An award-winning actor and great American humorist, Mr. Cosby, 74, is best know for the ground-breaking NBC sit-com “The Cosby Show,” stand-up routines and recorded performances, all of which are infused with familial humor.

Scheduled to perform April 28 at the Kennedy Center, Mr. Cosby continues to grace multiple platforms, and is scheduled to tickle funny bones as co-emcee at the April 12 gala celebrating the reopening of the historic Howard Theatre in Northwest Washington.

But it was at another celebration, the NAACP marking of the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education school-desegregation decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, that saw Mr. Cosby take a spot on the forefront of controversial social commentary.

In his remarks at the 2004 event, Mr. Cosby pointed out to the audience that blacks had essentially created a new lower rung on the socioeconomic ladder by failing to police their children. Since then, he has traveled the nation and used social media to expound the virtues of personal accountability, responsible parenting and a sound education.

Did racial bias unintentionally assist Dr. Cosby in forming his opinion?  According to gallup.com, it’s a possibility.

These results are from an April 2-4 USA Today/Gallup poll of 3,006 Americans, including 242 blacks, conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking. Martin’s death has sparked national interest and, more recently, protests, because Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, was not arrested after he claimed self-defense under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. With many black leaders and others calling for Zimmerman’s arrest and charging racism against the Sanford police department, the case has clearly captured the attention of the large majority of black Americans across the country.

…Blacks are much more likely than nonblacks to have an opinion about Zimmerman’s guilt. Overall, 72% of blacks say Zimmerman is definitely or probably guilty of a crime; 1% say he is not. Nonblacks also say Zimmerman is guilty, by 32% to 7%, but well over half of nonblacks say Zimmerman’s guilt is unclear from the available information.

Blacks are more certain about their opinions than are nonblacks. Blacks who say Zimmerman is guilty of a crime are significantly more likely to say he is definitely guilty than probably guilty, while nonblacks tilt more toward the “probably guilty” choice.

Additionally, 72% of blacks say racial bias was a major factor in the events that led up to the shooting death of Martin, with another 13% saying it was a minor factor. Nonblacks, on the other hand, are significantly less certain, with 31% saying racial bias was a major factor, 26% saying it was a minor factor, and 25% saying it was not a factor at all.

That may have have been a part of the thought process, leading to Dr. Cosby’s pronouncement.  Unfortunately, also painfully weighing on his mind was the 1997 muder of his son, Ennis:

Ennis Cosby [born April 15, 1969], son of actor Bill Cosby, was killed on January 16 [1997] as he was changing a tire near a freeway in Los Angeles. An 18-year-old Ukranian immigrant, Mikail Markhasev, was arrested in mid-March and charged with the crime.

That would certainly explain Dr. Cosby’s hatred of guns.

However….on October 26, 2011, gallup.com reported that

Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

Do all of these Americans who own guns, mean to harm someone, or are they simply trying to protect themselves from being harmed?

Second Question:  Why is Trayvon’s background being ignored?

Why is the fact that he was pounding Mr. Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk at the time not appropriate to bring up?

While I’m on a roll, here’s another question:  Why did it take one month after Trayvon’s death for The Justice Brothers, Jackson and Sharpton, and the rest of the Liberals and race-baiters (but, I repeat myself) to make this a national cause celebre?

Furthermore, regarding Dr. Cosby’s remarks from back in 2004, why has he arguably, noticeably backed off from them?  Did Obama, Oprah, and others scold him for being “misguided” in his forthrightness?

Meanwhile, less than five miles from where I live in the Northwest Coner of Mississippi, right across the state line:

According to the Memphis Police Department, four victims were hospitalized [last] Tuesday morning being treated for wounds they received in an early morning shooting.

All are currently listed in critical condition.

According to witnesses, a car with a number of people in it came around the corner and began shooting at a group of young men in front of 416 Washburn Drive. In the process, the gunmen shot up five cars, a house, and a mailbox.

So far no arrests have been made in the shooting.

Perhaps, it’s time that I looked in to joining that 47%.

Spinning Obama’s Supreme Court “Gaffe”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

You can take a president away from Chicago Politics, but you can’t take the practice of Chicago Politics away from a president.

Per foxnews.com:

Obama, during a joint press conference Monday with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, said he’s “confident” the law will be upheld, but cautioned the “unelected” court against reaching any other conclusion. In doing so, Obama invoked what he described as conservative concerns about judicial activism.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called it a “fantasy” to think “every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

“Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law,” he said.

The president’s challenge to the high court drew widespread attention, on the eve of the Republican presidential candidates’ next round of primaries — Wisconsin, Maryland and the District of Columbia are voting Tuesday. All the candidates oppose the health care law, though front-runner Mitt Romney has come under fire for his role in passing one with similar provisions while governor of Massachusetts.

Romney, who describes the federal law as an overreach, also slammed Obama for his Supreme Court comments on Tuesday.

Romney, in an interview on Fox News, said an activist court is one that “departs” from the Constitution and legislates from the bench. In this case, he said, the judges simply are weighing whether a law is constitutional.

“That will not be an activist court — that will be a court following the Constitution,” Romney said.

Now, the Obama Administration is spinning faster the turnstile at Disney World.

White House press secretary Jay Carney tells the press corps that President Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court was misunderstood because he was speaking in “shorthand” since he is a former professor of law.

Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.

Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.

Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.

Former Obama Law Student Thom Lambert wrote the following article, My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review, which was posted on foxnews.com:

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.

Okay.  So how do Obama’s Law Professors feel about his shorthand?  One of them seems to be spinning as hard as the Administration.

President Obama’s former law-school professor said yesterday the president “obviously misspoke” when he challenged the authority of the US Supreme Court to overturn his historic health-care law.

“He didn’t say what he meant. . . and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it,” Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe told The Wall Street Journal.

Tribe, who called Obama one of his best students, tried to downplay the president’s remarks by insisting everyone already knows he wants the law to survive.

“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done, except by public confusion,” Tribe said.

By the way…

Lawrence Tribe is an American constitutional scholar and the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at the Harvard Law School. A longstanding proponent of liberal jurisprudence, in 2001 Tribe helped found the American Constitution Society a supposed liberal counterweight to the conservative Federalist Society and was long considered a possible Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic administration.

This situation has me singing an old Blood, Sweat, and Tears song:  Spinning wheel got to go ’round…The Attorney General is singing too:

“The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.”

Methinks Justice Kagan has spilled the beans to her former boss and things aren’t going to go Obama’s way when the Supreme Court’s decision is given.

In the meantime…pray.

The Muslim Brotherhood Visits the White House

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

The Obama Administration’s Bizarro World Smart Power! Foreign Policy Minions are at it again…treating our friends like they’re our enemies and our enemies as our friends.

For example…

White House officials held talks with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington this week, as the Islamist group threw itself into the fray in Egypt’s presidential election.

The meeting on Tuesday with low-level National Security Council staff was part of a series of US efforts to broaden engagement with new and emerging political parties following Egypt’s revolution last year, a US official said.

The White House pointed out that Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and other US lawmakers and officials had also met with Brotherhood representatives in Egypt and elsewhere in recent months.

“We believe that it is in the interest of the United States to engage with all parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence,” said National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

“In all our conversations with these groups, we emphasize the importance of respect for minority rights, the full inclusion of women, and our regional security concerns.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, said on Saturday it would nominate Khairat al-Shater, a professor of engineering and business tycoon, to contest Egypt’s first presidential election since a popular uprising ousted Hosni Mubarak last year.

The Islamists, who control parliament, had repeatedly said they would not put forward a member for the election in order to mitigate fears that they were trying to monopolize power.

So…just who are these welcomed representatives of the “religion of peace”?

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Consistent with the foregoing credo, MB since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad, against non-Muslim “infidels.” As al-Banna himself wrote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” Added al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

…

Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. Article II of the Hamas charter explicitly identifies Hamas as “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” In January 2006 Hamas defeated the rival Fatah party to win the Palestinian legislative elections, thereby becoming the first branch of MB to control an official government.

Outside of the Middle East, MB exercises a strong influence in Muslim communities throughout Europe. Among the more prominent Brotherhood organizations in the region are: the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).

…In early February 2011, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.” That objective was entirely consistent with former MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef’s 2007 assertion that his organization had never recognized Israel and never would: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine.”

And these are the people that President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration have chosen to support.

Schmucks.

The United States of America Vs. Sheriff Joe Arpaio

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

The man who swore to take an oath to protect American citizens seems more concerned with protecting those here illegally.

Reuters.com reports that

The Obama administration on Tuesday said it was preparing to sue Arizona county sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department for violating civil rights laws by improperly targeting Latinos in a bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

The sheriff’s high-profile crackdown on illegal immigrants has helped thrust the issue onto the national political stage with some states passing tough new laws aimed at pushing out those in the country illegally.

The administration’s Justice Department and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office have been in settlement talks for months over allegations that officers regularly made unlawful stops and arrests of Latinos, used excessive force against them and failed to adequately protect the Hispanic community.

Those negotiations have broken down because of a fight over the Justice Department’s demand that an independent monitor be appointed by a federal court to oversee compliance with the settlement, which has now reached 128 pages in draft form, according to the Obama administration.

“We believe that you are wasting time and not negotiating in good faith,” Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in a letter to the lawyer for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

Austin said in the letter that Arpaio’s team demanded that a meeting slated for Wednesday include for the first time negotiations over the monitor and previously had demanded that the Justice Department provide more details about its findings.

“MCSO’s refusal to engage in good faith negotiations requires us to prepare for civil (court) action,” Austin said. He added that the Justice Department has recently discovered more information about the “failure to reasonably investigate sex crimes” by Arpaio’s office.

The Justice Department in a December report outlined numerous alleged civil rights violations, including that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latinos by Arpaio’s force.

The sheriff has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at the Obama administration for targeting his department and failing to deal with the problem of illegal immigration with some 11.5 million believed to be in the United States.

In a strongly worded statement on Tuesday, Arpaio said the appointment of a monitor would force him to abdicate responsibility for his police force, including decisions about policies, operations, jail programs and enforcement.

“To the Obama administration, who is attempting to strong arm me into submission only for its political gain, I say: This will not happen, not on my watch!” Arpaio said in the statement.

Arpaio’s force has been under investigation by federal authorities since 2008 during the Bush administration. Obama’s Justice Department spent months fighting for access to documents and to some of his deputies. Arpaio was interviewed twice during the probe.

Where was the concern of the Obama Administration when a good, hard-working American was gunned down by an illegal in Arizona.  Remember this story?

Police say Robert Krentz, whose family has been ranching in southern Arizona since 1907, was gunned down early Saturday morning, March 27th, 2010, by an illegal immigrant while out on his ATV tending to fences and water lines on the family’s 34,000-acre cattle ranch.

Reached by phone early Tuesday at his family’s ranch, Andy Krentz, Krentz’s oldest son, said his father was a churchgoing man who routinely went out of his way to help those in need.

“My father was a very good family man,” Krentz told FoxNews.com. “He supported his kids, supported his family. He went out of his way to help anybody we could without regarding to who they were. It didn’t matter who they were.”

Sue Krentz, Krentz’s wife, said she was “pretty overwhelmed” by her husband’s death, which coincided with her parents’ deteriorating health.

“This is icing on the cake,” Krentz said.

Yes, it was. The public outcry was deafening.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Friday, April 23rd, 2010, a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were “overreacting” and that she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Do you realize that there are parts of Arizona where Americans are not allowed to travel because of the danger of violence from Mexican Drug Lords?

Roughly 3,500 acres of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge — about 3 percent of the 118,000-acre park — have been closed since Oct. 6, 2006, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials acknowledged a marked increase in violence along a tract of land that extends north from the border for roughly three-quarters of a mile. Federal officials say they have no plans to reopen the area.

Elsewhere, at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which shares a 32-mile stretch of the border with Mexico, visitors are warned on a federally-run website that some areas are not accessible by anyone.

“Due to our proximity to the International Boundary with Mexico, some areas near the border are closed for construction and visitor safety concerns,” the website reads.

On another page titled “Border Concerns,” the website warns that visitors should be aware that “drug smuggling routes” pass through the park.

“If you see any activity which looks illegal, suspicious, or out of place, please do not intervene,” the website reads. “Note your location. Call 911 or report it to a ranger as quickly as possible. Each year hundreds of people travel north through the park seeking to enter the United States.”

Visitors are also warned to be mindful of illegal immigrants within Ironwood Forest National Monument, a 129,000-acre federal parkland in the Sonoran Desert.

Excuse me, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General…Before you attempt to embarrass and verbally crucify a fine public servant like Sheriff Joe, why don’t you take care of those in Arizona who are in violation of our country’s laws and endangering the lives of American citizens, first?

Your priorities seem to be just a wee bit out of order.

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

Obama Vs. the Supreme Court: Falls Count Anywhere

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

The day after Wrestlemania XXVIII, President Barack Hussein Obama did his impression of “The Rock”, as he called out the Supreme Court.

Does ol’ Scooter know something that we don’t?

Reuters.com has the story:

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of “judicial activism” that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama, a Democrat, had not commented publicly on the Supreme Court’s deliberations since it heard arguments for and against the healthcare law last week.

Known as the “Affordable Care Act” or “Obamacare,” the measure to expand health insurance for millions of Americans is considered Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.

A rejection by the court would be a big blow to Obama going into the November 6 presidential election.

Republican presidential candidates, who are vying to take on Obama in November elections, have promised to repeal the law if one of them wins the White House.

Obama’s advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president — who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law — made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Conservative leaders say the law, which once fully implemented will require Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty, was an overreach by Obama and the Congress that passed it.

The president sought to turn that argument around, calling a potential rejection by the court an overreach of its own.

“And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said.

“Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” he said.

AFP reporting on yahoo.com continues the story:

Obama’s comments will be seen as a warning shot to the court, one of the three branches of the US government, and could draw complaints from critics that he is trying to influence the deliberations.

Gee, DiNozzo.  Ya think?

The health care case is the most closely watched Supreme Court deliberation since a divided bench handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, and could have far reaching political implications.

Obama also argued there was a “human element” to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

And, with additional taxes levied on the American people, in order to finance Obamacare, small companies will begin to fold, and an already bad economy will become worse.

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Without the mandate, they say, the costs of insuring an extra 32 million Americans would be prohibitive to the private health insurance industry.

The Affordable Care Act is highly polarizing in US politics as the election approaches and Obama is yet to get a political dividend for the huge expenditure of political capital required to pass the legislation.

If the court upholds the law, and he wins reelection in November, the legislation will likely stand for years, as it will be fully implemented by 2014, two years before his second term draws to a close.

But Republicans running to replace him in the November 6 election have all vowed to repeal ObamaCare.

“I think it’s important… to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,” Obama said.

“The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

“There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.”

Before you start breaking out the hankies over Scooter’s noble sentiments concerning his wonderful, heaven-sent Affordable Care Act, remember what the Congressional Budget Office reported recently:

President Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul is projected to cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, reports the Congressional Budget Office, a hefty sum more than the $940 billion estimated when the healthcare legislation was signed into law. To put it mildly, ObamaCare’s projected net worth is far off from its original estimate — in fact, about $820 billion off.

Backtracking to his September 2009 remarks to a joint session of Congress on healthcare, Obama asserted the following: “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.”

When the final CBO report was released before the law’s passage, critics surmised that the actual 10-year cost would far exceed the advertised projections. In other words, the numbers were seemingly obscured through a political ploy devised to jam the legislation through Congress.

I pray that the Supreme Court puts a stake in the heart of Obama’s vampiric National Healthcare Monster.

This nation’s health…and our pocketbooks…simply cannot afford it.

Romney and Those Darned Christians

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

On March 27th, 2012, gallup.com released the following lists of the 10 Most Religious and Least Religious states in America. Most Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011 Least Religious States, Based on % Very Religious, 2011

As of the writing of this blog, Mitt Romney has come in First Place in the following states’ Republican Primaries: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

The only state that Romney will possibly win among the Most Religious List is Utah.  Excuse me for being politically incorrect, but, the only reason he will carry that state, is the fact that he is a Mormon. (Yeah, I said it.)

The Pew Research Center released some interesting information last month.

A poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found that nearly 60% of Romney supporters believe that churches should step back from political and social issues, while 60% of Santorum supporters believe churches should play a more active role. These sentiments were echoed by another sharp divide found between the candidates’ supporters regarding their views on whether there’s too little expression of religious faith by political leaders. For Romney’s camp, there’s little concern, with 24% agreeing that there’s not enough religious discourse. But 55% of Santorum supporters see a deficit in religious speech by politicians. As for the nation on a whole, the poll unearthed another interesting trend. The largest number of Americans in the poll’s 10-year history believe there is too much expression of religious faith by politicians. In 2010, the last national election year, 37% said there was too little expression compared to 29% saying there was too much. Now, the numbers are nearly reversed, at 30% and 38% respectively. Democrats were found to be nearly twice as likely as Republicans to say there’s too much talk of religion by politicians, 46% to 24%. Among white evangelicals, Santorum’s most prominent base of supporters, only 14% thought politicians focused on religion too much. As such, it comes as no surprise that 54% see the Republican Party as being friendly toward religion, compared to 35% for Democrats. The largest divides in the poll were on President Obama’s perceived friendliness to religion. A majority of Republicans, 52%, categorize him as unfriendly, compared to 5% of Democrats, while 15% of Republicans see him as friendly, compared to 59% percent of Democrats. The poll was conducted between March 7-11 with 1,503 individual interviews and has a sampling error of 3 percentage points.

If I’m interpreting this poll correctly, both the majority of Romney supporters and the Majority of Democrats have an aversion to religious values playing a part in the governance of our country. With 78% of Americans, per Gallup, identifying themselves as Christians, this could be a problem for Romney, if he continues on to the nomination.

But, is it his Mormonism or his flip-flipping Political Ideology that has alienated the Conservative Base of the Republican Party?

TheBlaze.com reported the following on March21st:

Following a win in the Illinois GOP primary Tuesday and a key endorsement from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney’s top adviser Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN where he answered questions concerning whether his candidate had gone “so far right” in the primary campaign.

“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign,” Fehrnstrom said. “Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

Fehrnstrom’s answer is likely to rehash concerns from many critics within the conservative base and general electorate who have long alleged that Romney is a “flip-flopper“ and has ”no core values.”

The campaign of Romney’s strongest rival Rick Santorum has immediately pounced on the gaffe.

“We all knew Mitt Romney didn’t have any core convictions, but we appreciate his staff going on national television to affirm that point for anyone who had any doubts,” Santorum’s National Communications Director Hogan Gidley said in a statement.

“With the two year anniversary of the signing of ObamaCare upon us, can voters really believe that the man who urged the President to use his healthcare plan in Massachusetts as a model would really repealObamaCare? Or is that promise just something they would ‘shake up and restart’ with when Romney hits the general election.”

If you have spent any time at all on Conservative Blogs during the Republican Nomination Process, you have seen Mitt Supporters label Christians, especially Evangelicals, as narrow-minded bigots, if they express any concern of the political ideology of Mitt Romney.  These “fans” stand at the ready to identify genuine concerns as anti-Mormon bigotry, where there is none.

The simple fact of the matter is, as Rush Limbaugh himself stated on February 2nd:

There is a Republican primary going on right now, and who votes in a Republican primary?  Starts with a C.  Conservatives.  There are elements of conservatism that are fundamental.  And we conservatives, we have radar.  We know when somebody isn’t.

Additionally, if the Romney supporters knew their Christianity, they would be familiar with the gift of discernment.

What is a Christian American Conservative?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics20 Comments

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

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

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

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

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

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

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

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

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

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

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

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ

Reverend Al Sharpton: Doing for Trayvon What He Did for Tawana?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

MSNBC Host Al Sharpton has made a living for years out of race-baiting.

Remember Tawana Brawley?

Museumofhoaxes.com tells the story:

On November 28, 1987, a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley was found lying inside a trash bag outside an apartment building located in Wappingers Falls, New York. She was covered in feces and racial insults had been scrawled on her body. When questioned by police she claimed that a group of white men, including police officers, had raped and beaten her. The black community rallied around her, and a prominent black leader, the Reverend Al Sharpton, appointed himself her spokesman. Support for Brawley reached its peak on June 15, 1988 when her advisers held a meeting at the Bethany Baptist Church in Brooklyn that was broadcast to an audience of ten million viewers.

However, the material evidence did not back up Brawley’s claims. Her body displayed no signs of rape or assault. She was not frostbitten, even though she had supposedly been kept naked in the freezing woods for days. The feces on her body turned out to be from a neighbor’s dog, and even more damningly, a local resident of the apartment community where she was found claimed to have seen her climb into the trashbag alone and lie down of her own accord.

In October 1988 a grand jury issued a report following a seven-month investigation. It concluded that Brawley’s claims were a hoax. Many speculated that Brawley had made up a wild story in order to avoid punishment at the hand of her stepfather for having run away from home for three days. But Brawley herself insisted that she was telling the truth, a stance which she has maintained to this day. More than anything else, the episode and its bitter aftermath displayed the deep racial divisions that still haunted American society.

Now, in 2012, the Reverend Al Sharpton, MSNBC Host, is race-baiting once again.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that

If George Zimmerman is not arrested in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin soon, theRev. Al Sharpton will call for an escalation in peaceful civil disobedience and economic sanctions.

Sharpton would not say the efforts would be taken against the city of Sanford specifically, but he has been critical of the police department’s handling of the case.

The NAACP, who is sponsoring a march in Trayvon’s hometown of Sandford, Florida today, immediately tried to distance itself from Sharpton’s threat. Read this and decide for yourself if this was a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” moment:

Turner Clayton, the Seminole County chapter president of the NAACP, reacted immediately to Sharpton’s warning, saying, “We hope that the citizens of Sanford will govern themselves accordingly. We are not calling for any sanctions, against any business or anyone else. And, of course, what Rev. Sharpton does, that’s strictly the [National] Action Network. We can’t condone that part of the conversation, if that’s what he said.”

“I don’t think they can confuse that,” Clayton said. “It’s just that they will have to make a judgment as to whether they want to follow the mission of the NAACP or follow what the Rev. Sharpton said.”

Clayton said that the rallies are going to show support from the community and show the special prosecutor that “we are interested in what happened, and we’re not going to stand by and let them do something that the people of Sanford will not accept.”

Saturday’s rally will begin with a march from the Crooms Academy to the Sanford Police Department on 13th Street. The march begins at 11 a.m. and is hosted by the NAACP.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is expected to attend, along with Sharpton, who is expected to deliver specifics on his warning.

Sanford city workers spent the day discussing security and preparing for the rally, including setting up barricades, signs, cones and a stage.

Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch leader, shot and killed Martin, 17, last month, in a gated community in Sanford. Zimmerman claims the shooting was in self-defense.

Is it a “conflict of interest” for the Reverend Al to be a wild-eyed, race-baiting, camera-hogging activist and a cable news program host for MSNBC?

Evidently not, per comments his boss, Phil Griffin,  made to The Christian Science Monitor (I’m shocked):

Sharpton’s dual role would have been unthinkable on television 20 years ago and still wouldn’t be allowed at many news organizations. While opinionated cable news hosts have become commonplace over the past decade, Sharpton goes beyond talking.

“It certainly represents a change in our traditional view of the boundaries between journalism and activism,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank. “Al Sharpton is clearly an activist.”

Sharpton, a Baptist minister, runs the Harlem-based National Action Network, a civil rights organization. He’s been a frequent presence as an advocate in racially-charged cases dating back to Tawana Brawley‘s accusations of an assault that turned out to be a hoax in the late 1980s.

He joined MSNBC’s roster of hosts last summer after extensive discussions about how his activist role would continue while on the air.

MSNBC chief executive Phil Griffin said his chief requirement was that Sharpton discuss his activism with network bosses so they could decide, on a case-by-case basis, how it would affect “Politics Daily,” which begins at 6 p.m. ET.

“We didn’t hire Al to become a neutered kind of news presenter,” Griffin said. “That’s not what we do.”

Griffin, talking before Monday’s show, said he hadn’t seen any conflict with Sharpton’s role on and off the air in the Martin case. He said Sharpton had fulfilled his requirement to honest and upfront about his activities, and credited “Politics Daily” with helping to make it a national story.

And somewhere, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. is sadly shaking his head.

Trayvon: Is the Righteous Indignation Fading?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

Alright. Who left the irony on?

Realclearpolitics.com presented this quote yesterday:

“His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course,” Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today.

“People have to stop politicizing it,” she added. “It’s no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”

Uh huh.

Meanwhile, in my hometown of Memphis, Tenessee:

A march from the National Civil Rights Museum to City Hall in Memphis this morning in support of justice for Trayvon Martin turned into a shouting match as different agendas clashed.

Most were there as a show of support for the Florida teen who was killed by a neighborhood watch captain. But Kennith Van Buren, who had a bull horn, attempted to talk about property taxes and racism associated with the Memphis and Shelby County schools merger and how the suburbs want to break away.

Van Buren, surrounded by four supporters, was shouted down by others.

Today’s rally was the third held in Memphis for Martin. While other crowds have been much larger, only about 15 to 20 supporters either marched or arrived at City Hall around noon.

There was confusion for those who arrived later. “Are we here for prayer or what?” one woman asked before finally leaving.

“We came down not to fight City Hall. We came down here to talk to City Hall. We came down here for our children,” said Wanda Mosby, 61, of Memphis. No elected officials appeared at the rally.

“It’s about right and wrong,” said Constance Houston, 56, of Memphis. “And they were wrong.”

A number of the women wore hoodies as a symbol of what Martin was wearing when he was killed. Others had t-shirts with the words, “I am Trayvon Martin.” Underneath that was a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Beverly Brown said the Women of Faith Helping Hands Ministries organized the rally.

Regarding Van Buren and others, Brown said, “They came for their own agenda. What he was talking about had nothing to do with Trayvon.”

The situation is pretty confusing.  Like what former Black Panther and current United States Congressman (And the Dems say that America is not the Land of Opportunity) Bobby Rush did on the House Floor yesterday.

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., lost his right to speak on the House floor after he violated rules by putting on a hoodie and sunglasses in honor of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teen shot last month.

“May God bless Trayvon Martin’s soul, his family and — [inaudible]” Rush said as he was removed from the House floor this morning for wearing a hoodie.

Rush was wearing a grey hoodie under his suit jacket. He took off his jacket, pulled the hood over his head and put on sunglasses while saying “racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum,” he said.

“The member will suspend,” said a visibly frustrated Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., the speaker pro tempore presiding over the morning session. “The member is no longer recognized.”

Rush shouted Bible passages over the sound of the gavel as the speaker interrupted him, but he was eventually pulled from the House floor. “The chair will ask the sergeant-at-arms to enforce the rules on decorum,” Harper said.

Rush’s “donning of the hood” violated clause five of House Rule 17 against wearing hats on the House floor.

I thought elderly men wore sweaters, not hoodies.

Bobby Rush is not the only one who has gotten carried away.  Black Movie Producer and Air Jordan Pitchman Spike Lee has gotten in trouble for tweeting before thinking.

This just in… 

An elderly couple has gotten a lawyer and moved out of their home because of the Trayvon Martin case. And Wednesday they got an apology from a high-profile celebrity.

Matt Morgan of Morgan & Morgan announced on Twitter Wednesday that Elaine McClain and David McClain had retained the firm. The McClain’s have been harassed ever since someone posted their address on Twitter, believing it to be the home of George Zimmerman, the shooter in the case. The address was apparently retweeted by Spike Lee, acclaimed director.

Morgan stated on Twitter:

“For the record, #GeorgeZimmerman does not live at the address retweeted by @spikelee. Please respect the privacy of the McClain’s.”

Spike Lee tweeted this out Wednesday to his more than 250,000 followers:

I Deeply Apologize To The McClain Family For Retweeting Their Address. It Was A Mistake .Please Leave The McClain’s In Peace. Justice In Court

In published reports, family members said the couple has a son named William George Zimmerman, but it’s not the same man involved in the case. The tweets were reportedly traced back to a man in California.

Classy, huh?  Please note that the cretin did not apologize until the elderly couple got a lawyer.

It has been a month since Trayvon’s death.  Why has all of this “righteous indignation” just now sprung to fruition?

Another thing…is it just me…or does all this “indignation” seemed awfully forced?  It’s almost like it was planned for a month and held until just the right time.  Like it was supposed to be a distraction from the Obamacare Supreme Court Hearings…or something.

It is tragic that Trayvon’s  young life ended…but, why did the Democrats and the “outraged”  wait a month to protest it?