Socialism in America Vs. the Real “Reason for the Season”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

washington

I began writing my daily articles in April of 2010.

Over eight and one-half years later, the struggle to prevent Liberals from rewriting our nation’s history continues…as does the fight to keep the greed and avarice of those promoting the installment of Marxist Theory in our political, medical, and religious institutions from consuming our nation in a fire of self-destruction, as it has other nations before us.

As we Americans begin to get our Christmas Decorations out of their boxes and tubs and start buying presents for family and friends, I can’t help to think about the “Reason for the Season” and the “State of the Union” as it relates to Jesus Christ.

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

In order for you to understand how I and the overwhelming majority of Americans living here in the Heartland feel about that question, I believe you first need a working knowledge as to whom Jesus was.

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

JESUS, THE PERFECT MAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus spoke the truth, and the truth is eternal.

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

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

WHO, THEN, was Jesus?

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

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

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

In a opinion piece for ChristianPost.com, Christian Talk Show Host Julie Roys gave the following Five Reasons that Socialism itself is not based on  the teachings of Jesus Christ.

1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview

According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.

His website declares: “The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time.”

This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

To socialists, all that really exists is the material world.

2. Socialism Punishes Virtue

Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.

As Karl Marx, famously said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren’t industrious by giving them the fruits of another man’s labor. This is precisely what socialism does.

Interestingly, Marx mooched off others his whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.

As Aristotle once noted, “Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”

The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing

Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn’t endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn’t endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that’s saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That’s not Christian; that’s stealing!

But, socialists don’t believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn’t either. That’s preposterous.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can’t even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare

Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society’s problems on them.

Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: “Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.”

Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor — and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.

Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.

In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, “Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . .”

But, Sanders — and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton — go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a “toppling” of the wealthiest 1%.

The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They’re creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13). 

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family

A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family. Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.

Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the “The Communist Manifesto,” once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair.”

Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a “revolution” in childcare and for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he’s a proud supporter of gay marriage — what Kengor calls “communism’s Trojan Horse” to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.

To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it’s a dystopia. That’s because there’s nothing Christian about socialism — and there’s absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it.

America was not founded to be a Socialist Nation.

The following is courtesy of adherents.com:

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

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

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

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

Courtesy adherents.com

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers

# of Founding Fathers/% of Founding Fathers

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

The Founding Fathers were, without a doubt, aware of the following passage:

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

The Liberals and Atheists who reply to my daily articles, after they view them on SpartaReport.com, my personal blog site, and on Facebook, insist that Crosses and other Christian symbols have no place in the Public Square.  They wish for Christians to remain unseen and unheard from, worshiping in private, and for Christian Americans to  “compromise” our Faith…i.e., shut up about Homosexual Marriage and other sins,  being used as political expediencies to further an agenda to “radically change” America into something that it was never meant to be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have, however, noticed in the last few years, a propensity among those who have not been raised in a Christian home, to be intolerant toward those who have…as witnessed in public forms, ranging from Collegiate Classrooms to Facebook Political Pages.

Americans’ Christian Faith, of which approximately 3/4ths 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”.

To put it bluntly…

The “Reason for the Season” is The Reason American Exists.

As President Ronald Reagan said,

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

That being said, isn’t it interesting that those among us who claim to be the most tolerant are actually the least tolerant of all?

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

Watch the political maneuvering up on Capitol Hill after the Democrats take over the House of Representatives and see who talks about Freedom and Responsibility and who talks about the right of “citizens”, both legal and illegal, to “free stuff” like “socialized medicine”.

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

In closing, be of good cheer and remember the words of a great old Christmas Hymn…

There is a Great Joy a’coming!

 

Until He Comes,

KJ

Marc Lamont Hill Loses Job Fighting for the “Right” of Palestinians to Return to a “Country” Which Never Existed

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Marc_Lamont_Hill_kill_jews

Every since my collegiate days, from 1976-1980, when I was a Radio News Director, I have watched with stunned incredulity, as the American Liberal Political Ideology and its adherents, have vocally castigated the country of Israel for defending themselves against the violent factions of nomadic tribes , who wish for nothing else than their annihilation of both the country of Israel and their citizenry.

The irony of their naiveté, is the fact that, in the 1960’s, American Liberals were among some of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, as of this writing, they continue to blatantly back the Palestinians and the Terrorist Organization known as Hamas.

Opposing God’s Chosen People and supporting the historically nomadic people that call themselves “Palestinians” fits with Modern Liberals’ Political Ideology, which views modern political struggles as “Class Warfare”, being waged between race and ethnic groups. Liberals believe that the predominantly white West is  somehow subjugating the non-white rest of the world. This viewpoint is an extension of the class-based, rich versus poor, categories, which they intentionally classify people in, following the example of their fallen messiah, Former President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)

For example…

CNSNews.com reports that

Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, who was fired as a CNN contributor on Thursday, had earlier rejected criticism that his endorsement for “a free Palestine, from the river to the sea” amounted to a call for an end to Israel.

Elsewhere in his remarks – made at an annual U.N. meeting in support of the Palestinian cause – Hill also drew parallels with black Americans’ struggle, which he noted had gone beyond Gandhian non-violence, and said those supporting the Palestinian people should not shame them for “resisting.”

It is the “river to the sea” comment that has drawn most of the attention, however. A CNN spokesperson in response to an emailed query confirmed, “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.”

Addressing the U.N.’s “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People,” Hill condemned Israeli policies – using such terms as “ethnic cleansing” and “settler colonialism” – and voiced support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, before ending with the loaded phrase.

“We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action and international action, that will give us what justice requires,” he concluded. “And that is a free Palestine, from the river to the sea.”

The expression is traditionally used to refer to Palestinian statehood from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which would self-evidently spell an end to the world’s only Jewish state.

The slogan is popular at anti-Israel demonstrations around the world, and is frequently espoused by officials of Hamas and Fatah.

…Seeking to defend his comments on Twitter, Hill said that the “river to the sea” slogan “has a variety of meanings” and was and is “a phrase used by many factions, ideologies, movements, and politicians.”

The slogan “has never been the exclusive province of a particular ideological camp. The idea that this is a Hamas phrase is simply untrue.”

“My reference to ‘river to the sea’ was not a call to destroy anything or anyone,” Hill tweeted. “It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza.”

…In one section of his speech, Hill voiced support for Palestinians “resisting” and noted that in their struggle against discrimination African Americans did not use exclusively non-violent means.

“Contrary to Western mythology, black resistance to American apartheid did not come purely through Gandhian non-violence. Rather, slave revolts and self-defense and tactics otherwise divergent from Dr. [Martin Luther] King or Mahatma Gandhi were equally important to preserving safety and attaining freedom,” he said.

The Palestinians should be allowed “the same range of opportunity,” he said.

“If we are standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people we must recognize the right of an occupied people to defend itself,” Hill continued.

“We must prioritize peace – but we must not romanticize or fetishize it.”

“We must advocate and promote non-violence at every opportunity – but we cannot endorse a narrow politics of respectability that shames Palestinians for resisting, for refusing to do nothing in the face of state violence and ethnic cleansing.”

In the Israeli-Palestinian context, “resistance” has long-established associations with violence against Israelis.

U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah style themselves part of the “resistance front.” (Hamas is an acronym for the Arabic name “Islamic Resistance Movement.”)

Factions’ statements hailing as martyrs those killed while carrying out attacks refer regularly to their “resistance” actions – which can include lethal shootings and stabbings, the firing of missiles from Gaza, and suicide bombings.

According to the Israeli foreign ministry, at least 3,159 Israelis have been killed, and many more wounded, in terror attacks carried out by Palestinian “resistance” groups since 1948.

Professor Hill is advocating for a nomadic people to “return” to a country which never existed.

Per discoverthenetworks.org,

The term “Palestine” (Falastin in Arabic) was an ancient name for the general geographic region that is more or less today’s Israel. The name derives from the Philistines, who originated from the eastern Mediterranean, and invaded the region in the 11th and 12th centuries B.C. The Philistines were apparently either from Greece, Crete, the Aegean Islands, and/or Ionia. They seem to be related to the Bronze Age Greeks, and they spoke a language akin to Mycenaean Greek. Their descendents, still living on the shores of the Mediterranean, greeted Roman invaders a thousand years later. The Romans corrupted the name to “Palestina,” and the area under the sovereignty of their city-states became known as “Philistia.” Six-hundred years later, the Arab invaders called the region “Falastin.”

Throughout subsequent history, the name remained only a vague geographical entity. There was never a nation of “Palestine,” never a people known as the “Palestinians,” nor any notion of “historic Palestine.” The region never enjoyed any sovereign autonomy, remaining instead under successive foreign sovereign domains from the Umayyads and Abbasids to the Fatimids, Ottomans, and British.

During the centuries of Ottoman rule, no Arabs under Turkish rule made any attempt to formulate an ideology of national identity, least of all the impoverished Arab peasantry in the region today known as Israel.

The term “Palestinian,” ironically, was used during the British Mandate period (1922-1948) to identify the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. The Arabs of the area were known as “Arabs,” and their own designation of the region was balad esh-Sham (the province of Damascus). While some Arab nationalist writers, and coffee-shop intellectuals in Cairo or Beirut, developed the concept of Arab nationalism in large part as a response to Zionism, the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” were used in their traditional sense as geographic designations, not as national identities.

In early 1947, in fact, when the UN was exploring the possibility of the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs, various Arab political and academic spokespersons spoke out vociferously against such a division because, they argued, the region was really a part of southern Syria, no such people or nation as “Palestinians” had ever existed, and it would be an injustice to Syria to create a state ex nihilo at the expense of Syrian sovereign territory.

I can remember the first time I saw Professor Marc Lamont Hill. It was on The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News.

Hill was your typical know-it-all Liberal Talking Head, a personality which made it all the more satisfying when O’Reilly made him look positively silly every time he appeared on his program.

Hill’s anti-Semitism is an example of the rampant anti-Semitism which is pervasive among today’s Far Left Liberal Democrats.

The false equivalencies which have been thrown about, for the last few decades all over the cable news channels and the internet by Liberal Pundits, paid and unpaid, trying to justify the murderous cowardly actions of the Palestinian Terrorist Organization, Hamas, boggle the mind of any rational, well-informed American.

While Israel has been one of our nations staunchest allies since their birth as a nation in 1948, Hamas, who took over for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, hates our ever-loving guts, and would behead every single American, man or woman, adult or child, without any regret whatsoever. Because to them, we are infidels, and “The Great Satan”, against which they are waging a “Holy Jihad”, not to mention the fact that Israel is our closest ally.

For Liberals, like the Former Cable News Political Pundit, Professor Mac Lamont Hill to support murders and to advocate for a “nation” which never even existed is nothing but an exercise in stupid, dangerous naiveté for the sake of a political ideology…

…and proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Cohen Pleads Guilty in Federal Court Right Before Trump Leaves for G-20…Coincidence? Hardly

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Donkey-Dog-600-LI

Politico.com reports that

White House aides had hoped that the G-20 summit would be an opportunity for President Donald Trump to showcase his deal-making skills. Now, they’re worried that special counsel Robert Mueller’s latest bombshell could overshadow his latest tour on the world stage. And some think that’s just the way Mueller wanted it.

In a Thursday statement, Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, called it “hardly coincidental” that Mueller made a dramatic legal move “just as the President is leaving for a meeting with world leaders,” adding that the chief Russia investigator “did the very same thing as the President was leaving for a world summit in Helsinki.”

Giuliani was referring to Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russian military officials for 2016 email hacks just days before Trump met with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Finland this past summer, casting a pall over the Putin meeting and forcing Trump to confront pointed questions about the Russian’s culpability.

Similarly, when Trump touches down here late Thursday, he will undoubtedly be met with sharp questions about his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for lying to Congress about an unsuccessful plan to build a luxury tower in Moscow.

Gee, ya think, DiNozzo?

The timing of Cohen’s admission of guilt is no coincidence.

As Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program yesterday…

All of this is about undoing what the American people voted for — and, in the process, ruining anybody and their families and their careers who had anything to do with it, including Brett Kavanaugh, anybody Trump would nominate, Trump and his family. These all-mighty, powerful people couldn’t stop Donald Trump at the ballot box. They couldn’t stop him on the campaign trail. The brilliant Hillary Clinton — who was supposed to win in an eight- to 10-point landslide — couldn’t stop Donald Trump giving it her best shot.

Her brilliant husband, Bill Clinton, and the smarter-than-anybody-ever-born Barack Obama could not stop Donald Trump, damn it, and so this effort was undertaken to stop Donald Trump. And with all due respect to anybody out there in the legal community and the Justice Department, this is the most bogus bastardization of justice that I can remember seeing or that I know about in my lifetime. You know, there’s some people saying, “Well, there’s an investigation. We must follow it through.

“Well, there is a special counsel. We must follow it through. Well, the special counsel was appointed by a duly constituted deputy AG and we must…” No! Why? If the whole thing is bogus and fraudulent from the get-go, why do we treat it as in any way legitimate? “Well, because there are decent people in the Department of Justice, Rush, and they are working here trying to uphold the…” No, they’re not! None of that’s happening here!

This is a concerted effort to use the Department of Justice — Obama’s people at the FBI and so forth — to undermine the will of the American people as expressed in the presidential election of 2016! But if that’s not enough, in addition to undermining the express will of the people, we’re gonna destroy the lives and careers of as many people who screwed us by winning as we can. That’s what the Department of Justice appears to have become, to me. At least the people running it. To me, it’s not coincidental, and it all happens, and it all starts under the administration of one Barack Hussein O.

I agree with Maha Rushie 100 per cent.

Mueller and his cadre of Liberal SS Troops have made it their mission to undermine Trump through the continuance of their Dog and Pony Show, which they euphemistically call “an investigation”.

The more that Mueller and his troops have insisted that they are non-biased, the more information has come forth that they have been and still are holdovers from the Clinton Administration, working as Deep State Operatives to do unto Trump as Brutus did unto Caesar.

They have proven themselves to be nothing but Trump Haters with no actual evidence of any kind that President Trump “colluded” with the Russians.

Several members of Mueller’s Team worked for the same Law Firm, WilmerHale, a huge Donor to the Democratic Party.

Anyone who has ever worked for the Law Firm of WilmerHale has donated to the Democratic Party…including Special Counsel Robert Mueller!

Everything that the Democrats, their Deep State Operatives, and Special Counsel Mueller and his “17 Angry Democrats” have accomplished by all of their efforts to bring down President Donald J. Trump is to cause me to support him that much more.

This all smells like the sort of dirty political “shenanigans” that Sam “Mooney” Giancana and the Chicago Branch of the Mafia used to use when they could not overtly “take out” a politician who would not “play along” with their wishes.

In case you did not know, “Mooney” and the “Boys” delivered Illinois for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 President Election, supposedly after Kennedy Supporter Frank Sinatra asked him to.

But, I digress.

As long as Mueller is allowed to operate outside of the scope of his original mission, he will continue to interfere in the Presidency of Donald J. Trump on behalf of “The Resistance”.

According to Former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, the firing of Special Counsel Mueller would not be grounds for impeaching President Trump.

Therefore, I suggest a purging of the DOJ and FBI that, alluding back to the Mafia, will resemble the activities which went on during the Baptismal Ceremony in “The Godfather”…in a strictly political way, of course.

And that, in itself, would be very entertaining.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Mueller’s “Witch Hunt” Reeks of Desperation and Needs to End

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

BeeleN20171220_low

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1067870479636185089

FoxNews.com reports that

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s tough tactics with investigation targets and witnesses are fueling complaints about the probe from President Trump and his allies at a critical stage, as key cooperation efforts seem to break down.

Just this week, conservative author Jerome Corsi balked at a plea deal after complaining the Mueller team wanted him to admit to lying (which he claims he didn’t do) only after he “couldn’t give them what they wanted.” He tweeted Wednesday he now plans to pursue a complaint against Mueller’s team.

Further, Mueller’s team has accused ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort of violating his plea deal by lying to investigators, amid reports his cooperation agreement was not panning out how prosecutors had hoped.

More information also has come to light about the nature of those Mueller-Manafort interactions, as it emerged Manafort’s legal team has been briefing Trump’s team about their discussions. The briefings reportedly fueled tensions with Mueller’s investigators, though it was already known that the president’s and Manafort’s legal teams have a joint defense agreement, meaning they share information.

But through these briefings, Trump’s team learned about Mueller’s focused line of questioning.

Specifically, top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann has been pumping Manafort for information about the president, with a focus on the highly scrutinized meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and whether Trump knew about it in advance.

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said the president is very upset with how Manafort has been treated, saying they keep hammering him with the same questions apparently seeking different answers.

Manafort already was convicted on multiple counts of financial fraud over the summer in connection with work he completed in Ukraine as a political consultant. A subsequent deal in a related case was seen as an opening for Mueller’s prosecutors to get new information, but that possibility seems to be diminishing.

In a court filing on Monday, Mueller, Weissmann and several other investigators accused Manafort of violating his plea deal, which was agreed upon in September.

“After signing the plea agreement, Manafort committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement,” Mueller, Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee and Greg Andres wrote in a court filing Monday.

The President and Rudy’s instincts are dead on.

Andrew Weissmann is a veteran government prosecutor known for his work on the Enron task force and for going after mob figures in New York. He is an expert at “flipping” lower level defendants.

Per Heavy.com,

1. Weissmann Served as the FBI’s General Counsel Under Robert Mueller – Before his tenure at the FBI, Weissmann was a partner at Jenner & Block in New York for five years.

2. Weissmann Led the Enron Task Force but Not Without Controversy – Time after time, courts have reversed Weissmann’s most touted ‘victories’ for his tactics. This is hardly the stuff of a hero in the law. Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court.

3. Weissmann Donated Money to President Barack Obama – Weissmann is a Barack Obama and Democratic campaign donor, according to federal records. “Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation, previously gave $2,300 to Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008 and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, the same year Democrats won control of Congress.

4. Weissmann Attended Princeton & Columbia Universities & Prosecuted Mafia Crime Families – According to the DOJ press release, Weissmann “began his career with the Department of Justice in 1991 at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of New York, where he served in various leadership positions, including as chief of the Criminal Division. According to Mother Jones, one of the people Weissmann prosecuted had ties to Trump. “As a prosecutor in the Eastern District, Weissmann signed a 1998 cooperation agreement between the US government and Felix Sater, a violent felon and securities trader who had pleaded guilty to financial crimes. Sater went on to become a confidential informant for the FBI and a Trump business partner,” the magazine noted.

5. Some Conservatives Have Noted That Weissmann Was in a Position of Power During the Clinton Uranium Controversy – Some conservatives contend that Mueller has a conflict of interest because they argue the FBI, under his stewardship, should have more thoroughly investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton over a uranium deal known as Uranium One. National Review notes that Andrew Weissmann ran Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section during this time frame.

President Trump has been right all along.

This is nothing more than a Witch Hunt coordinated by a bunch of Democrats to attempt to either evict Trump from the White House or, at least, slow down his wonderful rapid progress on behalf of our Sovereign Nation to a crawl.

Mueller and his entire staff are nothing more than a Democratic Party Lynch Mob, being allowed to run amok and cause chaos in the heart of a Republican Administration.

Rush Limbaugh agrees with me.

If there were any integrity — and I mean this from the bottom of my sizable and beating-in-rhythm heart — if there were any integrity in this investigative team, they would have shut this thing down a month after they learned what has never happened and they would have shifted their direction toward the Democrats and the Hillary campaign and all of the fraud that existed in taking a phony document to the FISA court to get warrants to spy on innocent people while the FBI planted spies in the Trump campaign.

People with integrity, the kind of integrity we’re told Mueller has in abundance, would have immediately seen what’s gone on and brought a stop to all this. But no. That’s not what happened. It’s very clear what this is. This is the Washington establishment, the elites, the deep state, whatever you want to call it, remaining focused and using every ounce of federal power they can amass to continue their efforts to overturn the results of the election of 2016 and to destroy anybody they can who had anything to do with Trump winning.

Special Counsel Mueller has accomplished nothing but some low level political indictments through massively excessive spending of American Taxpayers’ money.

To go after 70-year old Jerome Corsi because he can not remember any information which could be used against President Trump is not only political vindictiveness, it is ruthless and petty.

Mueller and his gang of Democratic Donors need to present their findings and close up shop.

At this point, their efforts appear to the American Public as ineffectual as the reboot of “Murphy Brown”.

And, just like that anti-Trump Hate Fest, Mueller’s Witch Hunt needs to be cancelled.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Hyde-Smith Wins MS Senate Seat, in Spite of Soros’ Funding of Espy

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Cindy Hyde-Smith, Donald Trump

Last night, around 9:30 p.m. Central, politico.com reported that

Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith has won Mississippi’s Senate runoff, defeating Democrat Mike Espy despite controversy over recent comments. Hyde-Smith had 56 percent of the vote to Espy’s 44 percent when the Associated Press called the race with more than three-quarters of all precincts reporting. The result means Republicans will hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate next year.

The runoff for the remainder of Thad Cochran’s term was held because neither candidate got a majority of the vote in a crowded race Nov. 6. Since then, Hyde-Smith has drawn scrutiny for saying she would attend a “public hanging” for a supporter, before apologizing and calling the comment an exaggerated form of regard.

Hyde-Smith faced an unusually energetic special election challenge from Espy, a former congressman and Clinton-era agriculture secretary who inspired slim Democratic hopes of repeating the party’s miraculous Senate victory in Alabama last year, as Hyde-Smith faced a storm of controversy over recent remarks about attending a “public hanging.”

Espy, who is African-American, called Hyde-Smith’s “public hanging” comments a “black eye” for the state. Hyde-Smith ultimately apologized to “anyone offended” by her remarks, which she said were an exaggerated form of regard for a supporter. But the comments, which some viewed as connected to Mississippi’s history of lynching, brought unexpected scrutiny to Hyde-Smith, putting Republicans on edge even in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1982.

President Donald Trump visited the state Monday in an attempt to make sure GOP voters are engaged for the runoff.

“Don’t take any chances,” Trump implored supporters at the first of two rallies. “You have to vote. We cannot allow Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to erode [GOP control of the Senate] by winning the great state of Mississippi.”

Hyde-Smith’s victory makes her the first woman elected to represent Mississippi in the Senate.

Hyde-Smith’s victory was not an easy one.

Guess who attempted to come to the rescue of the disgraced and indicted Former Secretary of Agriculture under Bill “Bubba” Clinton?

Earlier in the day, Breitbart.com reported that

Organizations financed by George Soros are making a last-ditch effort to get Mississippi Senate candidate Mike Espy elected in today’s runoff race.
Soros himself donated $10,800 to Espy’s senatorial campaign via the billionaire activist’s Soros Fund Management.

MoveOn.org, which has been massively backed by Soros, has organized a phone bank and a number of other iniatives to mobilize voters for Espy. “We need to contact every person on this list to make sure they vote in the Nov. 27 runoff!” exclaimed the radical organization on its website.

Besides funding from Soros, MoveOn.org has also been financed by the Tides Foundation, a leftwing sponsorship organization that has itself received donations from Soros and has partnered with Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

Over at Color of Change, another group financially backed by Soros, supporters are being urged to vote for Espy.

One organization that has been particularly active in helping to mobilize voters is The Collective, a little-known but increasingly influential political organization that says it is seeking to build a “black political power” movement in the U.S.

Breitbart News reported in September that Soros is a financial contributor to The Collective.

The group officially endorsed Espy in the Senate race and has been helping to drive voters to the polls, including with a text-messaging program.

On November 20th, I wrote about the “Robo-calling” on behalf of Mike Espy by an organization named Open Progress, a 501 non-profit with a very profitable Get-Out-The-Vote business named OPro By Open Progress LLC.

Open Progress’ co-founder is Elizabeth Haynes, Founder and President of a specialist market research and analytics firm which employs a data-driven approach to solving questions in the consumer, retail, and media sectors for the buy-side.

Open Progress worked on both the Doug Jones Campaign in Alabama and the Conor Lamb Campaign in Pennsylvania.

As the Church Lady would say, “Isn’t that special?”

Well, as one of my favorite old hymn’s title would suggest, “Bless Be the Tie That Binds”.

Coming full circle, now we know who paid for all of that “Robo-calling” and “Robo-texting” to Mississippi Voters.

The Puppet Master himself, George Soros, was once again pulling the strings of a Democratic Candidate.

However, this time, the voters chose their own Senator, not one buoyed by a bunch of Democratic “Carpetbaggers” who didn’t even live in the Magnolia State, much less give a darn about its citizens.

President Trump, as he had been already doing during his MAGA Rallies before the Midterm Election, reminded Mississippi Voters of the reason why they needed to prevent another Washington Insider from going up to the Capitol on their behalf.

He also reminded all of us down here why we voted for him.

Trump does not use flowery phrasing. Nor does he speak in platitudes while employing circuitous logic to attempt to make a point.

He simply tells it like it is, speaking to Americans as a friend would, not as a scolding martinet of a teacher, as the Democrats do.

Last night was a great night for Mississippi.

The Good Guys won.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Congresswoman-Elect Ocasio-Cortez…About That Migrant Caravan/Holocaust Comparison…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez (2)

If brains were dynamite, this woman couldn’t blow her nose.

FoxNews.com reports that

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the star Democratic congresswoman-elect from New York, compared migrant caravan members who clashed over the weekend with U.S. border agents to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany and other targets of genocide.

Ocasio-Cortez, who was elected to represent New York’s 14th Congressional District earlier this month, tweeted over the weekend in support of those attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. She compared those fleeing violence in Central America to those who escaped Germany, Rwanda and Syria.

“Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime. It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted late Sunday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., fired back at the incoming freshman lawmaker on Monday, recommending she study the “differences” between Nazi Germany and the migrant caravan in Mexico.

“I recommend she take a tour of the Holocaust Museum in DC. Might help her better understand the differences between the Holocaust and the caravan in Tijuana,” Graham tweeted.

Ocasio-Cortez responded to Graham Monday evening by tweeting: “[T]he point of such a treasured museum is to bring its lessons to present day.

“This administration has jailed children and violated human rights,” she added. “Perhaps we should stop pretending that authoritarianism + violence is a historical event instead of a growing force.”

Over the weekend, hundreds of migrants from the Central American caravan rushed the border at the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said some demonstrators “attempted to illegally enter the U.S. through both the northbound and southbound vehicle lanes at the port of entry itself. Those persons were stopped and turned back to Mexico.”

U.S. border agents shot several rounds of tear gas after some migrants attempted to penetrate various points along the border and threw what appeared to be rocks at U.S. authorities.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement that some migrants “attempted to breach legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP personnel by throwing projectiles at them.

“As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons,” Nielsen said. “We will also seek to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who destroys federal property, endangers our frontline operators, or violates our nation’s sovereignty.”

Gentle Readers, here is a history lesson that the Incoming Congresswoman from New York evidently slept through or did not understand because the teacher used 2-syllable words.

The Holocaust is generally regarded as the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and slaughter of approximately 6 million Jews — two thirds of the total European Jewish population, and two-fifths of the Jews in the entire world — but also millions of other victims, by the Nazi regime and its collaborators under Adolf Hitler.

When World War II erupted on September 1, 1939 and Germany gained victory over Poland, the Nazis began to enslave the Poles and destroy their culture. The first step was to eliminate the leaders and intelligensia. Many university professors, politicians, writers, and Catholic priests were murdered. Polish people were dislocated to make room for the “superior” Germans.

Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing units, carried out mass-murder operations. On September 29 and 30, 1941, for example, more than half of the 60,000 Jews living in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev were marched into a ravine and shot.

More than 1.3 million men, women, and children were murdered in such outdoor massacres. Hitler also authorized an order to exterminate institutionalized, handicapped patients deemed incurable. The practice went on throughout the war.

During the war, the Nazis created ghettos, or city districts (often enclosed), in which the Germans forced the Jewish population to live under miserable conditions. More than 400 ghettos were established, the largest of which was the one in Warsaw, Poland, where approximately 450,000 Jews were crowded into an area of 1.3 square miles.

By the middle of 1941, 4-5,000 Warsaw Jews perished every month from hunger and disease brought on by malnutrition. Between 1942 and 1944, Germans decided to eliminate the ghettos and deport their populations to “extermination camps,” or killing centers equipped with gassing facilities, in Poland. That was known as the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” — implemented after a meeting with senior Nazi officials in January 1942.

Between September 1939, when Nazi troops invaded Poland, and Germany’s surrender in May 1945, Hitler and his army essentially waged two wars. One was against Allied forces on three continents and the other was against the Jews and other unfortunate civilians.

(After) The Third Reich collapsed in May 1945. SS guards fled and many of the concentration camps were turned into displaced person camps. Between 1948 and 1951, nearly 700,000 Jews emigrated to the new state of Israel. Approximately 140,000 Holocaust survivors came to America after 1948, most settling in New York. (courtesy of u-s-history.com)

When the Jews arrived at the extermination camps, those who were too weak to work were stripped of their clothing and marched into “showers”, which were actually gas chambers in which they were slaughtered via means of hydrogen cyanide or carbon monoxide.

In comparison, those would-be invaders at our southern border were repelled through the use of a non-lethal tear gas.

The overwhelming population of these invaders were young men. The few women and children among them were placed in front as human shields in order to give them an easy path by which to break into our Sovereign Nation.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, it is both sad and ironic that you used the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews in comparison to the acts of criminals who were using the same tactics to break into our country that the Palestinians use all the time to force their way into Israel, the home of “God’s Chosen People”.

Congresswoman-elect Ocasio-Cortez, like most Liberal politicians, you seem to be quite adept at making false comparisons into order to present a falsehood as truth.

It is fitting that you have chosen to embrace and advocate the failed promises which abound in the part of Marxist Theory known as socialism.

You see, Marxist governments rely on the gullibility of the followers of Marxism in order to grow in both money and power. Those in power refer to these followers as the “working class” or “proletariat”.

They also refer to them as “useful idiots”.

Just one final question before I go…

How do you even remember to breathe?

Until He Comes,

KJ

“Harmless Migrants” Become Invaders…and Get What They Deserve

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

rtr_refugee_crisis_11_jc_150916_4x3_992

FoxNews.com reports that

Images and videos posted on social media Sunday afternoon showed hundreds of migrants from the leading Central American caravan pushing past Mexican riot police and rushing the border at the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif., in a major test for both U.S. border authorities and Mexican officials.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said it suspended northbound and southbound crossings for both pedestrians and vehicles at the San Ysidro port of entry at approximately 11:30 a.m. local time. It later tweeted that the pedestrian crossings had re-opened, a little more than four hours after the initial closure. The vehicle lanes re-opened at approximately 5 p.m. local time, five-and-a-half hours after they were closed.

CBP added that some demonstrators “attempted to illegally enter the U.S. through both the northbound and southbound vehicle lanes at the port of entry itself. Those persons were stopped and turned back to Mexico.”

U.S. border agents shot several rounds of tear gas after some migrants attempted to penetrate various points along the border and threw what appeared to be rocks at U.S. authorities.

Mexico’s Milenio TV showed images of migrants climbing over fences and peeling back metal sheeting to enter. Tear gas fumes were carried by the wind toward people who were hundreds of feet away, including some children.

Honduran Ana Zuniga, 23, also said she saw migrants opening a small hole in concertina wire at a gap on the Mexican side of a levee, at which point U.S. agents fired tear gas at them.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement that some migrants “attempted to breach legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP personnel by throwing projectiles at them.

“As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons,” Nielsen said. “We will also seek to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who destroys federal property, endangers our frontline operators, or violates our nation’s sovereignty.”

The Mexican Interior Ministry said Sunday afternoon it would immediately deport the migrants who tried to “violently” breach the border. The Mexican government described Sunday’s events as “acts of provocation” that were “far from helpful” for the migrants’ objectives.

Earlier this month, President Trump said that troops stationed at the border would treat thrown rocks like “firearms.”

“We’re not going to put up with that,” the president said. “They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks, like they did at the Mexico military and police, I said, consider it a rifle.”

The situation Sunday was not unprecedented. In 2013, during the Obama administration, Border Patrol agents used pepper spray to fend off a crowd of approximately 100 migrants who attempted to rush the San Ysidro port of entry. The migrants in that episode also reportedly threw rocks and bottles at U.S. authorities.

Within an hour, the group that rushed toward the border largely dispersed. Most of the migrants in the group were men.

Fox News had confirmed early Sunday through an organizer for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, the group helping organize the leading Central American migrant caravan, that members of the caravan were planning to attempt to cross the port of entry at San Ysidro later in the day.

Footage posted by ITV correspondent Emma Murphy also showed several U.S. Border Patrol helicopters reportedly flying low overhead on the Mexican side of the border.

In anticipation of the planned migrant effort, U.S. authorities said they had deployed additional personnel to the San Ysidro port of entry on Sunday, including Air and Marine agents.

Other video showed migrants pushing toward a border fence chanting, “Yes we can.”

What we are witnessing, gentle readers, is a test of wills involving the willingness of those who have been entrusted with the security of our Sovereign Nation versus those who would break and enter our “home”.

What makes these incoming caravans from Latin America and those who are already here illegally exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world?

By attempting to use our own benevolence against us, they seek to bypass the rules and regulations which immigrants before them have followed in order to become productive American Citizens.

Finally, we have an United States President with a backbone and a willingness to defend our Sovereign Nation from invaders (yeah, I said it) who wish to “radically change” it.

Both the deployment of our military to the Southern Border and the use of tear gas to repel the invaders yesterday were a justifiable actions taken by President Trump in order to protect our sovereignty.

But the way, the group taking credit for the caravans, Pueblo Sin Fronteras, is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Enemies Foreign and Domestic working together to “radically change” America.

Even as I write this, those who have entered illegally before these caravans are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

Stopping this “Breaking and Entering” at our Southern Border is in no way a human rights issue.

Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility….the responsibility to become a productive citizen. And, with that citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

America became a great nation because it was a melting pot of American-born and legally-immigrated citizens with a shared allegiance, not a multi-cultural United Nations with everyone loyal to their home country.

When the caravan first started heading our way, my bride and I were having lunch with a couple of friends after church one Sunday, when one of them asked a question that I have yet to hear anyone in the Main Stream Media ask…

If these people are actually seeking asylum, why haven’t they approached an American Official or one of the Border Patrol Officers and asked for it, instead of trying to enter our country illegally?

Good question.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Europeans Charged With “Disparaging Religious Doctrines” for Criticizing Islam…Could That Happen Here?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

 

untitled (233)

This Sunday Morning, before I share my thoughts, I would to share the following op ed which I read on ChristianPost.com, written by John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris. I found it to be very interesting.

We think of Europe as secular, progressive, and confidently post-religious. But try criticizing Islam.

Should governments be in the business of protecting people’s feelings? Most Americans, I think would say no. The European Court of Human Rights, however, thinks otherwise. In a historic move last month, the international court affirmed a conviction by a lower court in Vienna against a right-wing speaker who criticized the prophet Muhammad.

Identified only as “E.S.,” the woman, at a seminar in Vienna in 2009, described the founder of Islam as a “pedophile.” According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was in his fifties when he married his third wife, Aisha, who was six years old at the time. Tradition also says Muhammad waited to consummate their union until the girl was nine.

For describing this relationship in direct though accurate terms, “E.S.” was reported to Austrian authorities, who charged her with “publicly disparaging religious doctrines,” which, believe it or not, is illegal in that country. The Austrian court convicted, describing her statement as “a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance,” which was “capable of hurting the feelings” of Muslims, and of putting religious peace in Europe at risk.

After a lengthy appeal, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed this troubling verdict, ruling that the speaker’s remarks about Muhammad were not only “without factual basis,” but went “beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate,” thereby putting religious peace in jeopardy. So, peace is in jeopardy because Muhammad is critiqued, and not because of how his followers react to the critique?

Set aside for a moment the factual basis of Muhammad’s treatment of his nine-year-old child bride, and the fact that child brides are still shockingly common throughout the Muslim world. The rationale behind these rulings is genuinely scary for another reason.

This idea that speech should be illegal because it threatens “religious peace” is a capitulation to religious violence. Islamic extremists are well known for rioting and even killing whenever they believe someone has “insulted” the prophet Muhammad. Exhibit A: Asia Bibi, the woman who was just acquitted by the Pakistani supreme court and taken off death row, where she sat for eight years after an alleged slight against the founder of Islam. Bibi now faces the very real possibility of retaliation or assassination by Pakistani radicals and remains trapped in the country.

What the European Court of Human Rights has essentially done is enact a blasphemy law like Pakistan’s, only in the West! Extremists who get violent over perceived insults have been granted veto power over citizens’ free speech. This, just a few years after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in which twelve people—including journalists—were gunned down in Paris over cartoons mocking (ironically!) the violent tendencies of Muhammad and many of his followers.

If guarantees to freedom of speech—which Europe has—do not include the right to say offensive things about religion, such guarantees are not worth the paper they’re written on. If anyone can shut someone else up simply by complaining of hurt feelings, your society is a dictatorship of the easily offended, not free. Caving to the threat of violence will ultimately embolden the violent, not appease them.

Protecting members of a minority religion from hurt feelings is unique to the West. Islamic extremists take advantage of Europe’s indulgence, demanding legal penalties against anyone who criticize Islam. They won’t, of course, ever return the favor. In countries like Saudi Arabia—the birthplace of Islam—a Muslim who converts to Christianity still, to this day, faces the death penalty.

Of course, religious tolerance and free speech arise historically from only one religion, and it isn’t the one founded by Muhammad. Those who think giving up freedom of speech will preserve peace in the long term aren’t insulting our religion. Just our intelligence.

Very well written and spot on, isn’t it?

European Leaders have surrendered their countries and culture to Islamic “Migrants”.

They should have listened to United States President Ronald Reagan when he warned that

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

If America’s Far left Democratic Party had their way, we would be in the same position as Europe.

Lord knows, Former President Barack Hussein Obama tried….but he failed. And, there is a good reason why he did.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 75% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Back when he was a Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law is incompatible with The United States Constitution.

He was absolutely right.

The Center For Security Policy issued the following PDF, ” “Sharia Law Vs. The Constitution”,

Article VI: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land

  • Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
  • Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
  • Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57.  In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

First Amendment: Freedom of speech   

  • Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”  
  • Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

  • Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 
  •  Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

  • Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 
  • Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments: Right to due process and fair trial

  • Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.”  Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.”  Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
  • Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).”  Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims.  A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment 

  • Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
  • Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process 

  • Constitution:  Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
  • Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law.  Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law. 

Given this incompatibility between Sharia Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, which our Freedom and our System of Laws are based upon, if given the choice, which would Muslims currently living in the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave choose to be faithful to?

Back on June 23, 2015, the Center for Security Policy released the following findings for a poll they took of 600 Muslims, who current live in America.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

In conclusion, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”, and, wish to invade our Sovereign Nation and over-throw our Government.

However, there is a difference between being an average Christian American and a Muslim, living in America.

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

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

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

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

For Liberal leaders in both Europe and America to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Trump Leads Charge Against UN’s Migration Agenda as Other Nations Withdraw From Compact

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

U.S. President Donald visits St. Louis, Missouri to speak about tax reform

“When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don’t. They cause problems. So, if it lives up to the potential, it’s a great thing. And if it doesn’t, it’s a waste of time and money.” – United States President Donald J. Trump

FoxNews.com reports that

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. is leading the charge in pushing back against the U.N.’s migration agenda — a move that is picking up support from other countries and giving political cover to those seeking to join them.

The Trump administration announced last December that it would withdraw from the U.N.’s Global Migration Compact — due to be adopted by an intergovernmental conference in Morocco next month. Then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson argued last year that the compact could undermine America’s right to enforce its immigration laws and secure its borders.

“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” Tillerson said.

The U.S. was the first country to withdraw, but it was soon followed by a stream of other countries pulling out of the non-binding compact, officially called the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.” Hungary, Poland, Austria, Australia and Israel have all since announced they will not sign the accord, citing concerns that it will limit the ability of countries to set and enforce their own immigration policies.

“We are committed to guarding our borders against illegal migrants,” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week. “This is what we have done and this is what we will continue to do.”

“We believe that the Compact is inconsistent with our well-established policies and not in Australia’s interest,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a statement this week. “The Compact fails to adequately distinguish between people who enter Australia illegally and those who come to Australia the right way, particularly with respect to the provision of welfare and other benefits.”

U.N. General Assembly President Maria Espinosa on Wednesday defended the compact and said it also gave countries flexibility to shape their own migration policies.

“The Compact allows enormous flexibility for countries to use the parts of the compact that can be adapted to their sovereign decisions and existing legal frameworks…it is a cooperation instrument,” she said at a press conference this week.

The accord consists of 23 objectives for managing migration at “local, national, regional and global levels.” But many of those aims are vague, including objectives like: “enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration” and “address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration.”

James Jay Carafano, a national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News that the U.S. is right to be skeptical of global compacts that may seek to establish broad global norms, like a right to migrate, in part because they can encourage further dangerous migration and international instability.

“I think it’s actually a courageous act of American leadership where America is not just looking out for itself for but the world as a whole,” he said.

Carafano pointed to the recent migrant caravan moving through Honduras and Guatemala, and through Mexico toward the U.S., which the Trump administration has been eager to block from entering the U.S., and also forced migrations out of countries such as Syria and Libya.

“Now people want to create a right for anyone to have a right to global migration, which could create all kinds of problems,” he said.

Just as back in Washington, President Trump is calling for action against the incoming migrant caravan, at the U.N, the U.S. is expressing concern about the direction of a separate global compact — this time on refugees, over fears it too could infringe on a government’s sovereignty to control its own borders.

“The United States believes it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to ensure that migration is managed consistent with each nation’s domestic laws and policies, and its international obligations,” a U.S. official told Fox News. “A government’s first duty is to its citizens – to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.”

Isn’t it great to have a President stands up for America’s rights as a Sovereign Nation against the tyranny of the United Nations?

While Barack Hussein Obama held the Office of the President of the United States of America, he was bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history. His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world was overwhelming. Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, was a stunning example of this naiveté and downright ignorance.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Obama’s acquiescence to the United Nations emboldened that body to believe that THEY were our, forgive the term, “Masters”.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where those who are the enemies of our country, Foreign and DOMESTIC, are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to determine our own destiny, both individually, and, as a free people.

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

These illegal migrants are being purposefully sent to “radically change” America, just as the Muslim Migration into Europe has overtaken several countries’ cultures.

Only by standing up to the thug nations represented at the UN, like President Trump and Ambassador Haley have, will America be respected, and left alone, as the Sovereign Nation that we are.

Instead of bowing and scraping before the United Nations as his predecessor did, President Trump is leading by example and other nations are finding the courage to stand up for their own sovereignty against the U.N., as well.

America is no nation’s doormat, nor should we be their piggy bank.

It is a breath of fresh air to have a President who is putting AMERICA FIRST.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary Lectures Europeans About Immigration, Says “Rightwing Populists” “Want to Be Told What to Do”

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

20151229_zap_m153_018

We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line pf people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country,” – Senator Barack Hussein Obama, (D-IL), 2005

FoxNews.com reports that

Hillary Clinton has issued frank advice to European leaders: If you want to stop the rise of rightwing populists then get a handle on your immigration crisis. 

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, said during an interview with The Guardian that the one million migrants and refugees that have flooded into the European Union since 2015 have thrust immigration into the spotlight and fueled the rise of hardline leaders around the globe. And while she praised German chancellor Angela Merkel for her compassion, she cautioned that countries can’t leave the door open forever.

“I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame,” Clinton said regarding the rise of rightwing populists like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

Clinton added: “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”

Clinton was one of three politicians interviewed by the Guardian, along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, about the rise of rightwing populism and what center-left politicians are struggling to combat it.

…Clinton singled out President Trump’s use of immigration as an issue to rally his base of support on the campaign trail and as one of the reasons she lost to him in the 2016 presidential race.

“The use of immigrants as a political device and as a symbol of government gone wrong, of attacks on one’s heritage, one’s identity, one’s national unity has been very much exploited by the current administration here,” she said. “There are solutions to migration that do not require clamping down on the press, on your political opponents and trying to suborn the judiciary, or seeking financial and political help from Russia to support your political parties and movements.”

The three former world leaders also argued that rightwing politics was able to rise not just because it latched on to an anti-immigration agenda, but because of its disruptive style of politics that highlights divisions. Blair said that more mainstream politicians will struggle to get heard over the simple, emotional language used by populists and that they need to find a way to cut through the soundbites that make the headlines.

And while the three global figures said they believed that populism was near its peak and people were beginning to see its faults, none could pinpoint a reason why populist leaders have been so successful over the past few years.

“The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it,” Clinton said. “They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality.”

She added: “I don’t know why at this moment that is so attractive to people, but it’s a serious threat to our freedom and our democratic institutions, and it goes very deep and very far and we’ve got to do a better job of shining a light on it and trying to combat it.”

Evidently, “rightwing populists” is Liberal-speak for “nationalists” or “patriots”.

Liberals like Hillary have got to be the most naïve people on God’s green Earth.

Either that, or they want to see nations fall to barbaric invaders.

Europe has learned a hard lesson about letting “the snake” came into your house to live with you. Liberals like Germany’s Angela Merkel have become hated within their own countries for allow the Muslim Migration which started in 2015 to run over their Sovereign Nations to the point that European women are literally afraid to go outside.

I realize that Liberals like Hillary and Merkel look down their noses at average patriotic citizens in their respective countries, but even they could not be stupid enough to believe that barbarians with strange customs and a lack of morality and personal hygiene would be welcome to invade Europe or America and radically change our countries into the ones they left behind.

And, where does she get off saying that “rightwing populists” “want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality?”

That’s the biggest case of deflection since the movie “Deep Impact” where the spaceship knocked the meteor headed toward Earth off course.

Oh, and Hillary…reality is not subjective.

They really need to adjust your medication.

You and your fellow Far Left Democrats need to start smelling what you’re shoveling.

What average Americans and Europeans, as well, are using is called in the Bible “a spirit of discernment”.

And that makes perfect sense because…

Heaven has a gate…and a vetting system.

Until He Comes,

KJ