Trouble at 1600: Flynn’s Gone, But the “Deep State Spies” Remain. Who is “Organizing” Them?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics, UncategorizedLeave a comment

cookware-001

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue. – Saul Alinsky, “Rules For Radicals”, 1971

Damon Linker, writing for TheWeek.com, reports that…

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down. The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

 Donald J. Trump  ✔ @realDonaldTrump

“The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?”

President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It’s weaponized spin.

This doesn’t mean the outcome was wrong. I have no interest in defending Flynn, who appears to be an atrocious manager prone to favoring absurd conspiracy theories over more traditional forms of intelligence. He is just about the last person who should be giving the president advice about foreign policy. And for all I know, Flynn did exactly what the anonymous intelligence community leakers allege — promised the Russian ambassador during the transition that the incoming Trump administration would back off on sanctions proposed by the outgoing Obama administration.

But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.

What if Congress won’t act? What if both the Senate and the House of Representatives are held by the same party as the president and members of both chambers are reluctant to cross a newly elected head of the executive branch who enjoys overwhelming approval of his party’s voters? In such a situation — our situation — shouldn’t we hope the deep state will rise up to act responsibly to take down a member of the administration who may have broken the law?

The answer is an unequivocal no.

In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That’s bad. But the answer isn’t to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.

As Eli Lake of Bloomberg News put it in an important article following Flynn’s resignation,

“Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do. [Bloomberg]”

Those cheering the deep state torpedoing of Flynn are saying, in effect, that a police state is perfectly fine so long as it helps to bring down Trump.

It is the role of Congress to investigate the president and those who work for him. If Congress resists doing its duty, out of a mixture of self-interest and cowardice, the American people have no choice but to try and hold the government’s feet to the fire, demanding action with phone calls, protests, and, ultimately, votes. That is a democratic response to the failure of democracy.

Sitting back and letting shadowy, unaccountable agents of espionage do the job for us simply isn’t an acceptable alternative.

Down that path lies the end of democracy in America.

So, Boys and Girls…here’s the Million Dollar Question: What weasel put these Professional Bureaucrats, who had been in their positions in the previous Administration, up to betraying the 45th President of the United States of America with no regard as to our National Security?

I’ve got three words for ya: PETULANT PRESIDENT PANTYWAIST.

And, that’s not all that the Former Community Organizer and Ex-President of the United States of America is doing to ruin Trump’s Presidency and the country that he was previously sworn to protect right along with it.

In an article published last Saturday in The New York Post, titled, “How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s Presidency”, author Paul Sperry wrote that

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy, it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.

“It is fine for everybody to feel stressed, sad, discouraged,” he said in a conference call from the White House. “But get over it.” He demanded they “move forward to protect what we’ve accomplished.”

Far from sulking, OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.

Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

Critical to the fight is rebuilding the ravaged Democratic Party. Obama hopes to install his former civil rights chief Tom Perez at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.

Perez is running for the vacant DNC chairmanship, vowing, “It’s time to organize and fight . . . We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

The 55-year-old Obama is not content to go quietly into the night like other ex-presidents.

“You’re going to see me early next year,” he told his OFA troops after the election, “and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go.”

At the beginning of this post is a quote from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, a favorite of the 60s counter culture, which was also on the reading list of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and his First Secretary of State and Failed 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Let’s look at rule #8 – rule #13:

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

It’s very apparent from what is happening during Trump’s Presidency that somebody’s read Alinsky’s book.

In American Politics, as far as anybody can remember, that is still alive and kicking, you have had those of a political ideology who were Pro-American and Gung Ho about all the things that this country stands for. And, on the other side, you had those of a political ideology who criticized everything that America stood for, and still stands for, to this day.

From those who believed that Communism would be great for America back in the 1950s, to those in the 1960’s, who wanted to “tune in, turn on, and drop out”, and spit on our returning Servicemen, to those of the 1970s who were naive pacifists like their President, Jimmy Carter, to those in the 1980s, who were part of the “Me Generation”, to those whom we call “Progressives” (a misnomer) or “Modern Liberals” in our present generation, Including President Barack Hussein Obama and all of his minions, there has always been a minority segment of American Society, who despise everything that this land, which was given us by the Almighty and was fought for and died for by those before us, stands for, while they reap all the benefits of America the Beautiful.

As I have written, during Obama’s two terms as President, America suffered under a “Tyranny of the Minority”.

Obama owes everything that he is to the benevolence and largess of America and her people.

In his tenure as President, he proved that he was president of some of the people, not all of the people.

And, those of us, whom his failed political ideology did not appeal to, had enough of his failed leadership and decided not to go “quietly into that good night” by voting for Donald J. Trump,  instead of Obama’s chosen successor, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So now, it is apparent that Ex-President Obama and his Mentor and Benefactor George Soros are going to try to make average Americans submit to their political ideology of “forced Socialism through Fascism” by sabotaging the Presidency of Donald J. Trump “by any means necessary”.

As I have written before, George Soros needs to be deported…NOW!

As far as the “clean and articulate” Ex-President is concerned…

Can an Ex-President be tried for TREASON?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Flynn Resigns Over an Appearance of Impropriety. His Actions Pale in Comparison to What the Obama Administration Got By With.

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

michael-flynn-warns-iran-2017

Be prepared for a torrent of Fake News today.

NBC News reported late last night that

Michael Flynn abruptly resigned as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Monday night, hours after it was learned that the Justice Department informed the White House that it believed he could be subject to blackmail. Retired Army Gen. Keith Kellogg, a top policy adviser for Trump’s presidential campaign, was appointed acting national security adviser, the White House said in a statement announcing Flynn’s replacement.

Flynn’s status was considered perilous after it was disclosed that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other senior officials about his communications with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, a senior U.S. official told NBC News.

The U.S. official confirmed part of a report in The Washington Post, which quoted current and former U.S. officials Monday as saying Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, delivered the message to White House counsel Donald McGahn.

The Post reported that Yates was privy to FBI monitoring showing that Flynn discussed sanctions on Russia with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak — even though Flynn told administration officials that he hadn’t. Pence repeated the misinformation in national television appearances.

Trump fired Yates as acting attorney general late last month after she directed Justice Department lawyers not to defend his executive order on immigration.

A senior intelligence official confirmed to NBC News last week that Flynn discussed the sanctions, which the Obama administration imposed to punish Russia for its campaign to interfere in the presidential election.Related: Flynn in Hot Seat Over Discussing Sanctions With Russians

The intelligence official said there had been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal.

But Monday, the only clear thing about Flynn’s status was that it is unclear.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told NBC News on Monday that Flynn still has the full confidence of the president, appearing to signal that Flynn’s job is safe.

But moments later, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president was “evaluating the situation” and was talking with Pence about his discussions with Flynn.

Spicer confirmed reports that Flynn had called Pence to apologize.

Trump pointedly declined to answer reporters’ questions about Flynn on Monday afternoon, saying only, “We just put out a statement.”

By contrast, he was effusive in his praise for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, saying: “Reince is doing a great job. Great. Not a good job. A great job.”

Flynn did the right thing.

Even if he has done nothing wrong, the new Administration cannot afford to give the Democrats, who are still in the midst of a National Temper Tantrum over losing on November 8, 2016, any ammunition, such as the look of impropriety, with which to exaggerate and create more Fake News out of.

It’s funny that the Democrats and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, are so interested in “impropriety in Trump’s Administration, when, for 8 long years, they turned a blind eye to all of the improper shenanigans occurring during the Obama Administration.

For an example of what I am referring to, here is an excerpt from an article I published on June 5, 2015, titled “Obama and Muslim Brotherhood Still “Going Steady””…

The Washington Times reports that

President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.

Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan declined to comment on PSD-11. “We have nothing for you on this,” she said.

The directive outlines why the administration has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood, which last year was labeled a terrorist organization by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as a key vehicle of U.S. backing for so-called political reform in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia in recent months appears to be moderating its opposition to the Brotherhood in a bid to gain more regional support against pro-Iran rebels in Yemen.

The UAE government also has labeled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. Both groups denied the UAE claims. Egypt is considering imposing a death sentence on Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed former president who was ousted in military coup in July 2013.

Critics of the administration’s strategy say the Brotherhood masks its goals and objectives despite advocating an extremist ideology similar to those espoused by al Qaeda and the Islamic State, but with less violence. The group’s motto includes the phrase “jihad is our way.” Jihad means holy war and is the Islamist battle cry.

Counterterrorism analyst Patrick Poole said the Brotherhood in recent weeks has stepped up its use of violent attacks in Egypt.

“The failed Obama Doctrine that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to usher in a glorious era of peace and democracy in the Middle East was adopted by the administration because that’s what the foreign policy establishment going back to the George W. Bush administration proclaimed as gospel,” Mr. Poole said.

“And now we see as a result Egypt fighting a terror campaign by the ‘moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood; we have a failed state in Libya; and we see NATO ally Turkey turning from secular democracy to religious totalitarianism under Obama’s pal [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.

“This dangerous foreign policy was launched by PSD-11 and the administration’s open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, and now we can see its catastrophic effect,” Mr. Poole added.

Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, extensively documented Muslim Brotherhood subversion efforts, both in the United States and abroad.

Mr. Gaffney has said the Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous group promoting the totalitarian and Islamist supremacist doctrine of Sharia. Several Muslim Brotherhood supporters have been identified as key advisers to Mr. Obama, according to Mr. Gaffney.

Egyptian press reports after the ouster of Mr. Morsi have revealed extensive cooperation between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood during Mr. Morsi’s presidency.

Please allow me to remind you who these guys are…

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 those are the Radical Islamists, the enemies of our country, which President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration chose to invite to the White House on several occasions during his presidency.

Because of his background, Obama innately trusted Muslims…even radical ones.

And yet, the Main Stream Media ignored the impropriety of sworn enemies of America cozying up to a Sitting President.

They also ignored the fact, as I have documented in other posts, that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Personal Aide and BFF, has close relatives in the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, while Michael Flynn did the right thing last night, by filing his resignation, what he did pales in comparison to what the Obama Administration got away with for 8 long, nightmarish years.

So, today, the Liberal Democrat Politicians and “Broadcast Journalists” need to remember the history of the Obama Administration and its many improprieties, before they attempt to pick the bones of the Trump Administration over Flynn’s Resignation.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Will Trump Write a New Immigration EO? He Should. Research Proves That He Was Right and the 9th Circus…err…Circuit Was Wrong.

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

9th-circuit-600-li

“We have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.

“We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.” – Donald J. Trump, August 31, 2016

Foxnews.com reports that

President Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller said Sunday that the White House is “considering and pursuing all options” to impose an immigration travel ban, now that Trump’s executive order on the issue has been halted in federal court.

Miller, an immigration hawk, told “Fox News Sunday” that new executive orders to protect Americans from “hostile” intruders are under consideration, as are potential legal challenges.

“We are contemplating new and additional actions … to ensure our immigration system is not a vehicle for terrorists,” said Miller, who was instrumental in crafting former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions’ policies on illegal immigration. (Sessions is now the U.S. attorney general.)

A federal appeals court recently halted Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order to temporarily ban travel from seven mostly Muslim nations. And the Trump administration’s attempt last week to have the ban lifted was denied.

Miller on Sunday argued the appeal court has overstepped its authority, reasserting the president’s powers and expressing confidence that Trump will prevail in his promise to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the United States.

“The three judges made a broad, over-reaching statement,” Miller said. “The president’s powers here are beyond question. … Something good is going to come out of this. The powers of the president will be confirmed.”

In response to assertions that the executive orders were hastily crafted and executed, Miller argued they were drafted by “congressional experts” and reviewed by lawyers and top federal agency officials.

He also argued that the three executive orders on immigration signed last month essentially remain in effect and that they have already “profoundly improved our national security.”

Miller also said that Assistant to the President Steve Bannon, who is considered a driving force behind Trump’s immigration policies, had “no role” in the so-called roll out of the executive orders, which immediately created problems for travelers, including those with green cards, arriving at U.S. airports.

And, Guess what? Trump was right about how dangers those countries are, all along.

According to a report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies this past Saturday,

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

Gosh. A Sovereign Nation who gets to decide who enters their borders. What a novel idea.

Who would have thought of that?

Well…can you say “Founding Fathers”, boys and girls?”

I knew that you could.

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

Why should we allow people into our country who want to kill us?

That has to be the dumbest idea anyone has come up with since The Rosie O’ Donnell Variety Show (which lasted one episode).

I’m just sayin’.

What about other Presidents? How did they feel about “multi-culturalism”and allowing people in who do not like us?

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” – Theodore Roosevelt,

The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.

That act allowed all of those immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.

Later, Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.

In fact, Obama and his Administration were themselves actually restrictive in whom they allowed to immigrate to America., refusing the entry of Middle Eastern Christians, who were and are attempting to escape from certain death at the hands of Radical Islamists.

The only reason that the Democrat Elite are mad at Donald J. Trump’s Proposal to restrict the immigration of those who would kill us, is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of un-vetted Muslims, and potential Democrat Voter into our country.

They could care less about the results of their avarice.

Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own callous hypocrisy.

They should be grateful to President Trump.

The Democrats are trying to commit mass seppuku, with the rest of us included, and Trump is trying to take the knives out of their hands.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

A KJ Sunday Morning Reflection: Liberal Democrats, Trump’s “Immigration Ban”, and a “Convenient” God

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

god-dnc-3-li

Average Americans have all known for sometime that this is not our fathers’ Democrat Party. Conservatives have been driven out and “Moderates” are an endangered species.

Today’s Democrats embrace a Far Left Political Ideology, in which there is no room for a Supreme Being…until they need to reference Him for political leverage and justification.

Don’t believe me?

Remember what happened at the 2012 Democratic National Convention?

Delegates and members of the Democratic party booed after former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) discussed God and moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, had to ask for the Yea and Nay vote several times before declaring the motion passed.

C-SPAN cameras captured the dissatisfaction among members after the motion passed.

More information from the Associated Press:
Democrats have changed their convention platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

The move came after criticism from Republicans.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said “we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama’s personal views on Jerusalem.

Now that we’ve established that, there seems to be a misconception among “the Smartest People in the Room”, American Liberals, about Christian American Conservatives.

American Liberals seem to believe that because we are strong in the Faith of Our Fathers, that we are somehow gullible or less intelligent than they are.

On December 18th of 2016, Philosophy Professor, Author , and Speaker Michael F. Austin, updated the following column titled “A Christian Case Against Donald Trump”, for the Premier Liberal Website, huffingtonpost.com…

At a recent political rally, Donald Trump said “I am an evangelical. I’m a Christian. I’m a Presbyterian.” He then said, referring to Ted Cruz, that “not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba, in all fairness.”

No one can see into the heart of another person. What we can do, however, is evaluate their words and deeds. We should do so not to condemn, but rather to understand and move closer to the truth. No one who is a follower of Jesus can correctly claim that their words and deeds always match their professed beliefs. Mine do not. My concern is not whether Trump really is a Christian, though I admit I have serious doubts. Rather, my concern is whether his stated views and beliefs line up with Christian thought. And it is clear that many of them do not.

First, last summer Trump stated that he isn’t sure he has ever asked God for forgiveness, as he doesn’t “bring God into that picture.” He soon backtracked. Asking God for forgiveness is a central aspect of Christianity across the many traditions. This is not relevant to his political views, but it is curious that many Christians support Trump and believe his claims about his Christian faith.

Second, Trump has stated that the United States should take out the families of terrorists: “…you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” This policy would clearly contradict just war theory, which is a prominent Christian view related to declaring and conducting war. One of the tenets of just war theory is that it is immoral to intentionally kill innocent civilians. Given the nature of war, non-combatants will be injured and killed, but according to just war theory this should be avoided if at all possible. It should never be done intentionally. Trump’s proposal is not only immoral, it is also illegal and would be ineffective. If we attack innocent women and children, we only provide evidence for the terrorists who claim that they are fighting an immoral enemy.

Third, Trump has proposed that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. He’s also open to forming a database tracking all Muslims who live here. In addition, he will not rule out requiring some sort of special ID for Muslims. While this taps into the fears and irrational beliefs many hold about Islam, terrorism, and our safety, it is simply wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their religious faith (or lack thereof). We certainly need to have better screening procedures so that we can identify individuals who may be a threat, given their views and affiliations. But to ban all Muslim immigration because of terrorism that emerges from misguided interpretations of Islam is like banning all Christian immigration because of attacks on abortion clinics or violent racist ideology emerging from incorrect interpretations of Christianity.

Fourth, Trump has a problem with women. His comments about Carly Fiorina’s appearance and Megyn Kelly’s blood are well-known. His sexism is not new. I was recently reading the classic book On Writing Well, when I came across the following anecdote from a writer who interviewed Trump at a spa he developed in Florida: 

“Evidently, Trumps philosophy of wellness is rooted in a belief that prolonged exposure to exceptionally attractive young spa attendants will instill in the male clientele a will to live…Trump introduced me to ‘our resident physician, Dr. Ginger Lee Southall’—a recent chiropractic college graduate…I asked Trump where she had done her training. ‘I’m not sure,’ he said, ‘Baywatch Medical School? Does that sound right? I’ll tell you the truth. Once I saw Dr. Ginger’s photograph, I didn’t really need to look at her resume or anyone else’s. Are you asking me, ‘Did we hire her because she trained at Mount Sinai for fifteen years? The answer is no. And I’ll tell you why: because by the time she’s spent fifteen years at Mount Sinai, we don’t want to look at her’” (p. 221). 

The notion that women are equal to men because they are also created in the image of God is an important theological truth, even though many Christians and Christian institutions have not lived up to this. The dignity of women is not grounded in their appearance, but rather their humanity. That Trump has the support of so many women is baffling, to say the least.

Finally, Trump appears to be a narcissist. This might work for reality television or real estate deals, but it is not a desirable trait for the President of the United States. The most important moral principle, according to Jesus in the gospels, is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. The Christian understanding of love is that it involves sacrifice, self-denial, and preferring the good of others over one’s own. It does not appear that Donald Trump understands this.
For these and many other reasons, Christians should oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump.

As I was preparing to write my rebuttal to this piece, I realized that I do not have to.

Everything that this “philosopher” has accused President Trump of saying and being, has been rebuked time and again, not just by the President, but by those who know him…and more, importantly, THE FACTS.

About this whole “Muslim Immigration” Thingy…The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of “America’s Pastor”, Rev. Billy Graham and head of  Billy Graham Ministries and “Samaritan’s Purse”, a wonderful Worldwide Charity Organization, recently addressed the subject of how Christians should react to the ban…

“It’s not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come,” Graham said in an interview with the Huffington Post. 

“We want to love people, we want to be kind to people, we want to be considerate, but we have a country, and a country should have order and there are laws that relate to immigration and I think we should follow those laws,” he added. “Because of the dangers we see today in this world, we need to be very careful.”

Graham said despite the length of the process for vetting refugees, experience has shown it needs to be better.

After President Barack Hussein Obama took office, he made a point of stating several times that America was not just a Christian nation anymore.

And, while that remains true to a certain extent, it is also true that the overwhelming majority, 75% of Americans still proclaim themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ. And even beyond that, 92% of Americans still believe in God.

What is amazing to me, though, is how,  American Christianity is constantly attacked on all fronts:  militarily, culturally, and even within organized religion, itself.

From illegal immigration to abortion to homosexual “rights”, Americans who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ on these issues have been under fire by Liberals, who insist that they know more about what is in the Bible and what Christ says, or would say, about these topics, then those of us who actually read God’s Word.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1:22

When you enter into a Facebook “discussion” with these “new Pharisees”, and you counter their arguments on these topics with Scripture, Liberals are initially slow to respond.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, – 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV 

Most Liberals will start “Googling” these topics, looking for any Scriptures that will substantiate their position.

There’s been many a time they have come back at me with Old Testament Scripture. It is then that I explain to them about the sacrifice that Christ made for us sinners, freeing Christians from Jewish Law and taking the punishment for our sins , creating a New Covenant by covering Christians through the shedding of His blood.

At that point in the “discussion”, there is a long pause, as they are trying to figure out a comeback.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.- 1 Corinthians 2:14

This misconception, which I have been trying to explain, involves Liberals’ belief that American Christians will not fight back against them and the things they want to do in our society.

If there’s one thing during all of the years of anti-Christian bias, which we have experienced during the Obama administration, and now, after Christian Americans helped elect American Businessman and Entrepreneur Donald J. Trump as the 45th President, that the Liberals should have learned, is the fact that Christian American Conservatives will fight back.

It is funny though…that when we begin fighting back, the Liberals have a tendency to label us as uncaring, mean , divisive, and intolerant.

Liberals react that way because internally, they are having a kicking and screaming temper tantrum, because they cannot get their way…as the days since November 8th, 2016 have plainly showed.

For Liberal Democrats to now attempt to use the God of Abraham as a Spokesperson and Arbiter against the actions and policies of President Trump, after turning their back on God for years, is a display of hypocrisy that would had made even the ancient Pharisees blush.

In fact, their desperation reminds me of a passage found in the New Testament,

22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ – Matthew 7:22-23

One must always be careful…because when you point a finger at someone, there are always four pointing back at you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

Iran Celebrates 1979 Islamic Revolution Chanting “Death to America”…and Obama Trusted Them

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

 

IRAN-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-GAZA

“I don’t understand the president. He dealt from desperation, and he shouldn’t have been desperate.First of all, we’re giving them billions of dollars in this deal, which we shouldn’t have given them. We should have kept the money. Second of all, we have four prisoners over there. We should have said ‘Let the prisoners out. They shouldn’t be over there.'”

“You know the Iranians are going to cheat. They’re great negotiators and you know they’re going to cheat.” – Donald J. Trump, 7/14/15

When you’re right. You’re right.

Yahoo News reports that

ANKARA (Reuters) – Hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied on Friday to swear allegiance to the clerical establishment following U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that he had put the Islamic Republic “on notice”, state TV reported.

On the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the U.S.-backed shah, marchers including hundreds of military personnel and policemen headed towards Tehran’s Azadi (Freedom) Square.

They carried “Death to America” banners and effigies of Trump, while a military police band played traditional Iranian revolutionary songs.

State TV showed footage of people stepping on Trump’s picture in a central Tehran street. Marchers carried the Iranian flag and banners saying: “Thanks Mr. Trump for showing the real face of America.”

“America and Trump cannot do a damn thing. We are ready to sacrifice our lives for our leader”, a young Iranian man told state TV in a reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Last week, Trump put Iran “on notice” in reaction to a Jan. 29 Iranian missile test and imposed fresh sanctions on individuals and entities. Iran said it will not halt its missile program.

Iranian leading religious and political figures, including Pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani had called on Iranians to join the rally on Friday to “show their unbreakable ties with the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Republic”.

In a speech marking the revolution’s anniversary, Rouhani urged Iran’s faction-ridden elite to seek unity amid increased tensions with the United States.

“Some inexperienced figures in the region and America are threatening Iran … They should know that the language of threats has never worked with Iran,” Rouhani told the crowd at Azadi Square.

“Our nation is vigilant and will make those threatening Iran regret it … They should learn to respect Iran and Iranians … We will strongly confront any war-mongering policies.”

The rallies were rife with anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli sentiment. Some carried pictures of Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and British Prime Minister Theresa May captioned “Death to the Devil Triangle”.

“This turnout of people is a strong response to false remarks by the new leaders of America,” Rouhani told state TV, which said millions had turned out at rallies across Iran.

U.S. flags were burned as is traditional although many Iranians on social media such as Twitter and Facebook used the hashtag #LoveBeyondFlags to urge an end to flag-burning during the anniversary.

They also thanked Americans for opposing Trump’s executive order banning entry to the United States to travellers from seven mainly Muslim countries, including Iran. Trump’s travel ban is being challenged in U.S. courts.

Some marchers carried banners that read : “Thanks to American people for supporting Muslims”.

Both U.S.-based social media sites are blocked in Iran by a wide-reaching government censor but they are still commonly used by millions of Iranians who use special software to get around the restrictions. Iranian officials, including Khamenei, have Twitter and Facebook accounts despite the ban.

Trump has criticized a nuclear deal reached between Iran, the United States and other major powers in 2015 aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear work. Most of the sanctions imposed on Iran were lifted last year under the deal.

Rouhani defended the deal, which his hardline rivals oppose as a concession to pressure from Washington, saying it protected the Islamic Republic’s rights to nuclear power, ending Iran’s political isolation and crippling economic sanctions.

The 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama certainly left our Sovereign Nation in a precarious position.

Obama purposely and surreptitiously handed a Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and  our staunch ally, Israel.

What made the Former President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement” to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel?

With no assurances or ways to keep them in check, Obama gave them everything they wanted: their money, nuclear capability, and acquiescence by the Government of the United States of America.

Just look at the way that Iran, the world’s largest State Sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism has behaved since Obama’s “Nuclear Agreement”.

Here’s a question for you:

What if a condition of the Iran Prisoner Swap Agreement and the closure of the “Iran Deal” was that we humble ourselves by allowing our Navy Personnel to be captured and used as propaganda?

Iran remains our mortal enemy, who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

It is well known, that a young Obama, after his mother wed a quite well-off fellow from Indonesia, attended a Madrassa, or Muslim School, in Jakarta.

I believe that the time he spent among “the religion of peace” in his youth, and the 20 years he spent under the “Reformed Muslim” (Liberation Theology) teachings of “ex”-American Muslim, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, molded and cemented his attitude toward Muslims.

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal showed where their loyalties unequivocally lied, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal” that, from the start, was destined to not only blow up in their faces, but also “where alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears” and in the heart of the Holy Land, itself.

Obama’s concern was never with our allies nor the safety of the citizens and the military of the United States of America.

Obama, as he always has been, was concerned with himself and leaving a marvelous legacy as president.

Giving Iran the means to “kill the infidels” definitely cemented Obama’s Legacy as an incompetent buffoon…if there is anyone left to remember it.

Iran has always been, since the ouster of the Shah, a rogue nation. They are a threat to every nation who stands in the way of their crazed Political Ideology, disguised as a “religion”.

Are you old enough to remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

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

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

Boys and girls, this is the difference between Ronald Wilson Reagan, a Strong American President, and Petulant President Pantywaist, Barack Hussein Obama.

Thank God, we have a strong American President again.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Ninth Court Ruling: Of Judicial Activists, Naïve Liberals, Radical Islamists, and Founding Fathers

On By kingsjesterIn Uncategorized3 Comments

robart-600-ci “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants, non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate,”- 8 U.S. Code § 1182 

If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to usurping the Constitutionally-granted Authority of the President of the United States of America.

Foxnews.com reports that

A defiant President Donald Trump tweeted “SEE YOU IN COURT” after a San Francisco federal appeals court Thursday upheld the suspension of his controversial immigration order.

He also warned the security of the nation was at stake and said he expected to easily win the case.

Top presidential adviser Kellyanne Conway told Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days” that she could not specify if Trump meant he would take it to the Supreme Court, but there were “different options” open to the White House.

She added that the ruling “does not affect the merits at all.”

The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to it last week.

But the Justice Department said it is “reviewing the decision and considering its options.” Trump later tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

He also told the White House press pool shortly after the ruling, “it’s a political decision and we’ll see them in court…it is a decision that we will win in my opinion very easily.

Asked how he learned about the decision, Trump replied, “we just saw it, just like you did.”

Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.

The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued.

Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.

However, the court ruling disagreed with that argument:

“In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action,” the court ruled.

Supporters of Trump’s order argue it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban” and that it has harmed individuals and businesses.

The court ruled that the government has not presented “any evidence” of a sufficient national security threat from the seven countries in question.

“…[The] Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.

The Democratic National Committee called the ruling a “massive blow to the White House.

“Let’s be clear: This is a massive blow to the White House. The court upheld that we do not discriminate based on religion. That is what terrorists do, and what terrorists want us to do,” Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union also praised the ruling.

“The government’s erratic and chaotic attempts to enforce this unconstitutional ban have taken a tremendous toll on innocent individuals, our country’s values, and our standing in the world,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Projects, said in a statement. “We will keep fighting this un-American executive order until it is permanently dismantled.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, called on Trump to abandon the order entirely.

“President Trump ought to see the handwriting on the wall that his executive order is unconstitutional. He should abandon this proposal, roll up his sleeves and come up with a real, bipartisan plan to keep us safe,” he said.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in the following Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with others, such as Liberal Politicians in Congress, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

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

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

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-power Political Party, to sabotage a president trying to protect American Citizens?

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

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

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

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

This action by the 9th Circuit Court proves that Liberals are more concerned about their politics than they are the safety of our nation.

And, you know what is so stupid about this whole fiasco?

The list of countries which Trump wishes to temporarily suspend immigration from , was originally compiled by the Obama Administration, as a list of countries in which “Radical Islam” (although they probably did not call it, that) is growing exponentially.

And, another thing…I asked a couple of Liberals, when the ruling was announced, if they were taking these refugees into their homes…especially the 20 something year old military-looking ones with cellphones, which were so prevalently seen in the pictures of the “Muslim Migration” that swept across Europe.

Of course, all I received was the sound of crickets in return.

In the past, Liberals have made an art form out of circumventing the will of the American people by taking things before Liberal Judicial Activists.

However, this time is not about allowing two hairy-legged gents to roll around under the sheets together and label it a “marriage” in the name of “love”.

This time, it is about allowing those who want to kill us to come into our Sovereign Nation without being properly vetted.

Neville Chamberlain would be so proud.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Sen. Jeff Sessions is Confirmed as Attorney General. Hollywood Liberals Immediately Lose Their Collective Minds…Again.

On By kingsjesterIn ChristianityLeave a comment

snowflake-600-ci-2

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ― William F. Buckley Jr.

Foxnews.com reports that

Sen. Jeff Sessions won confirmation Wednesday evening to become the next attorney general of the United States, capping a Senate fight so contentious that one of the nominee’s biggest critics was forced by majority Republicans to sit out the last leg of the debate.

The Senate narrowly approved the Alabama Republican’s nomination on a 52-47 vote, the latest in a series of confirmation votes that have been dragged out amid Democratic protests. One Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, joined Republicans in voting to confirm Sessions. Sessions himself voted present.

In his farewell address Wednesday evening, Sessions urged his erstwhile colleagues to get along better following days of bruising debate.

“We need latitude in our relationships,” Sessions said. “Denigrating people who disagree with us is not a healthy trend for our body.” 

President Trump has accused Democrats of obstructing the confirmation process, though the Senate will turn next to votes on the president’s picks to lead the health and treasury departments.

Sessions became just the sixth Cabinet nominee approved by the Senate, joining Trump’s choices for Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Transportation and State.

Wednesday’s vote came after a rowdy overnight session during which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was formally chastised for allegedly impugning Sessions’ integrity on the floor.

Warren had read a letter authored in 1986 by Coretta Scott King, who was against Sessions’ nomination at the time to the federal bench, arguing he used the power of his office to “chill” black voting rights. Warren also quoted the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who originally had entered King’s letter into the record, describing Sessions as “disgraceful.”

GOP Senate leaders said Warren had violated Senate rules and should lose her speaking privileges. In a remarkable scene, the Senate then voted 49-43 to suspend Warren’s speaking privileges for the rest of the nomination process – the first time the Senate has imposed such a punishment in decades.

Democrats had repeatedly contended that Sessions is too close to Trump, too harsh on immigrants, and weak on civil rights for minorities, immigrants, gay people and women. Sessions was a prominent early backer of Trump, a supporter of his hard line on illegal immigration and joined Trump’s advocacy of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“There is simply nothing in Senator Sessions’ testimony before the Judiciary Committee that gives me confidence that he would be willing to stand up to the president,” said Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. “He has instead demonstrated only blind allegiance.”

Republicans argued Sessions has demonstrated over a long career in public service, including two decades in the Senate, that he possesses integrity, honesty, and is committed to justice and the rule of law.

“He’s honest. He’s fair. He’s been a friend to many of us, on both sides of the aisle,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on Wednesday. “It’s been tough to watch all this good man has been put through in recent weeks. This is a well-qualified colleague with a deep reverence for the law. He believes strongly in the equal application of it to everyone.”

The debate had been intensified by Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship three decades ago, which was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee after it was alleged that as a federal prosecutor he had called a black attorney “boy” and had said organizations like the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union were un-American.

At his hearing last month, Sessions said he had never harbored racial animus and claimed he had been falsely caricatured.

Before Wednesday’s vote, Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the Senate’s lone black Republican, offered a personal and passionate defense of Sessions. He spoke of his personal experiences in introducing the Alabama Republican to African-American pastors at a racial forum in Charleston.

And he read the statements of black Alabama Democrats vouching for Sessions, who as attorney general will be the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Scott said the South is still working through racial differences and said “Jeff Sessions has earned my support and I will hold him accountable if and when we disagree.”

Scott read messages in which he was called an “Uncle Tom” — and worse — and said that “as I read through some of the comments of my friends on the left, you will wonder if I ever had an experience as a black person in America.”

“I just wish that my friends who call themselves liberals would want tolerance for all Americans.”

Unfortunately, Senator…that is not going to happen any time soon.

Gossipcop.com reports that

Celebrities are reacting to Jeff Sessions getting confirmed as attorney general. See reaction tweets from Hollywood stars below.

Sessions’ nomination was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday night with a vote of 52-47. The confirmation comes after objection from Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren, who was silenced on the Senate floor on Tuesday. Celebrities also reacted negatively to Sessions’ nomination back in November, and in January, Jedediah Bila of “The View” actually begged Republicans to oppose him.

They did not, however, despite accusations of racism, conflicts of interest, and other issues with Sessions’ past. Now stars are expressing disappointment and outrage over his confirmation. Ellen Page simply tweeted, “Horrible.” Alyssa Milano said, “And there you have it.” And Sophia Bush declared, “This an abomination.”

Billy Eichner ‏quoted Harvey Milk as saying, “Rights are won only by those who make their voices heard,” and wrote, “Sessions is a revolting choice. The fight continues. #Resist.” George Takei sarcastically posted, “Congratulations, America. We have an oil man at State, a billionaire idiot at Education, and a racist as Attorney General. #SwampRats.” And, at the sight of David Duke cheering Sessions, Chris Evans exclaimed, “If David Duke….DAVID!…DUKE!… thinks you’re right, then you are unequivocally wrong. The confirmation of @jeffsessions is beyond words.”

In response to the same Duke tweet, Andy Richter said, “You should be so proud, @GOP.” Rosie O’Donnell posted, “Sen. Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as the 84th attorney general. the absolute worst thing – jeff sessions.” Warren herself tweeted, “If Jeff Sessions makes even the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry into @TheJusticeDept, he’ll hear from all of us.” That prompted both Andy Cohen and Alison Brie to write “amen” in reply.

“ICYMI: #JeffersonBeauregardSessionsIII was deemed too racist to be a federal judge but he was just confirmed to be US Attorney General,” wrote Yvette Nicole Brown. Condola Rashad also tweeted, “This is an abomination. A direct threat to everything our great Civil Rights leaders fought for is now in order. Onwards! We won’t go back.”

Dear Condola: SHUT UP AND ACT!

As they have shown before and now by their overly dramatic reaction to the President’s pick for Attorney General,Jeff Sessions, being approved, those “celebrities” on the Left of the Political Spectrum who voted for Hillary Clinton to be our next President of the United States of America, continue to throw the longest temper tantrum over the results of one of the biggest upsets in an American Presidential Election that the world has ever seen.

These self-proclaimed activists, are making a lie out of the claim that they have made for years that they are the most tolerant…and “gifted” among us.

In fact, these sore losers remind me of the hysterically sobbing children that you hear in every Walmart across the country.

It’s not that those children are crying because they are physically hurt. Just like these Hollywood Liberals, they’re crying because they did not get their way.

And, all these months after their beloved Hillary lost, these petulant, arrogant, spoiled Hollywood Libs have cried so hard that, just like the toddler in Walmart who sees a toys that they can’t have, they simply cannot stop crying.

This epic meltdown by those who are paid handsomely to entertain us is a direct result of an isolated ignorance of average Americans’ desire to rid ourselves of those in the Halls of Power who told us repeatedly that they knew what was best for us and “who we were”, while their actual mission was to turn America into a Third-World Barrio in their quest to make us a Socialist Paradise.

All during the Presidential Campaign, the Democratic Party, along with those in “Showbiz”, through their minions in the Main Stream Media, assured us that it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would be our 45th president.

There is a reason for that.

The Liberal Elite have always believed that our country revolves around the big metropolitan areas in the Northeast and in California. They have always looked down their noses at what they derisively call “Flyover Country”, the same area that many of us call the Heartland of America or simply “home”.

Their overly dramatic overreaction to Hillary losing the election has been caused by their own unbridled and unsupported arrogance.

Just like their fellow Modern American Liberals who run Democratic Party, the disconnected “dancing monkeys” in Tinsel Town and the Big Apple never saw Trump’s victory coming.

At this point, all their incessant national temper tantrum is doing, is making them look like fools.

I don’t remember any of us average Americans asking them for their opinion as to how we should vote, do you?

Perhaps, if they got their noses out of the air and actually associated with their families and former friends “back home”, instead of kissing each other’s hindquarters at the latest Premiere or “social event”, perhaps they and reality would not have taken divergent paths, and they would conduct and comport themselves like the Legendary American Actor, John Wayne, who once said,

…I always thought I was a liberal but I came up terribly surprised when I found I was a right wing conservative extremist…I have always listened to every human being I’ve ever met about how I should feel.  But this so-called new liberal group… they never listen to your point of view and they make a decision as to what you think and they’re articulate enough and in control of enough of the press to force that image out for the average person.  For some reason, maybe it’s these pictures, they have not been able to do that with me…it hasn’t affected my career in popularity in spite of the fact that they’ve tried to make them do it.  There isn’t a hell of a lot we can do to change human behavior.  We keep making laws to try to change human behavior but we can’t do it…You’re being conned into Keynesianism and socialism now but it isn’t going to stop the selfishness of human behavior.  It isn’t going to stop the greed.  If you take $20 and give a dollar to every son of a b!tch in the room, you come back a year later one of the b@st@rds will have most of the money.  It’s just human nature.  We’re never gonna whip it with a lot of laws. 

As communication gets better and you make people conscious of somebody in trouble, starving or something like that, the average person will help…I think there are people who try to affect a thinking where they know more than some other son of a b!tch and try to pull a false impression on what human nature is.  We’ve proven we go back to hope at the first opportunity…and bam they’re out there ready to grab it.  So we are optimistic; we have to be optimistic.  What else would we be if you lose optimism?”

Well, Duke…I guess when you lose optimism, you sound like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Like you so eloquently said,

Life is tough, but it’s tougher if you’re stupid. 

Today’s “Stars” should have listened to you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama NOAA Scientist Withheld Data Showing Global Warming Slowdown Before 2015 Paris Climate Conference

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

solid-foundation-600-wlogo

Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised. — Charles Krauthammer

Foxnews.com reports that

A key Obama administration scientist brushed aside inconvenient data that showed a slowdown in global warming in compiling an alarming 2015 report that coincided with the White House participation in the Paris Climate Conference, a whistle blower is alleging.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a major 2013 report, concluded global temperatures had shown a smaller increase from 1998 to 2012 than any similar period over the past 30 to 60 years. But a blockbuster, June 2015 paper by a team of federal scientists led by Thomas Karl, published in the journal Science in June 2015 and later known as the “pausebuster” paper sought to discredit the notion of a slowdown in warming.

“Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century,” Karl, who was at the time director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said at the time.

The report argued that evidence shows there was no “hiatus” in rising global temperatures and that they had been increasing in the 21st century just as quickly as in the last half of the 20th century.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science Committee, questioned the timing, noting the paper was published just before the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan was submitted to the Paris Climate Conference of 2015.

“In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference,” Smith said in a statement. “Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials.”

Karl denied the paper was released to boost the plan.

Karl’s neglect of the IPCC data was purposeful, according to John Bates, a recently retired scientist from the National Climactic Data Center at the NOAA. Bates came forward just days ago to charge that the 2015 study selectively used misleading and unverified data – effectively putting NOAA’s thumb on the scale.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bates said Karl was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

For example, Karl allegedly adjusted temperature data collected by robot buoys upward to match earlier data from ocean-going ships. That was problematic, Bates said, because ships generate heat and could cause readings to vary.

“They had good data from buoys,” Bates told the Daily Mail. “And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

Bates, who could not be reached for comment, but has published some of his allegations in a blog, claims to have documentation of his explosive charges and indicated more revelations are coming.

A NOAA spokesman, in an email to The Washington Times, said NOAA “stands behind its world-class scientists” but also that it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately.”

Bates is not the first to question Karl’s conclusions. A paper by Canadian climate modeler John Fyfe questioned the 2015 study. As he put it, in a 2016 article from the journal Nature Climate Change, “there is a mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what observations are showing. We can’t ignore it.”

Climate scientists have closed ranks around Karl. A study published last month in Science Advances, by Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.

In addition, climate scientist Peter Thorne, who has worked with the NOAA, said Bates wasn’t involved in the work that he’s criticizing. Bates disputed the assertion.

While Karl, and other scientists who believe man-made climate change poses a major threat had the ear of the Obama administration, President Trump has shown signs of skepticism. It remains to be seen from which scientists he will take his cue.

The Climate Change Hoax was a big money-maker for Liberals under the Obama Administration.

When you attempt to discuss the Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever-They-Decided-To-Call-It-Today Hoax with one of the members of the Cult, they will tell you that 97% of the World’s Scientists are believers.

Have you ever wondered where they get that outlandish figure from?

Back on May 26, 2014, Joseph Bast, of the Heartland Institute, and Dr. Roy Spencer, Founder of The Weather Channel, wrote the following article for The Wall Street Journal…

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

So, why do Modern American Liberals continue on their Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy an “International Crisis”?

Per usual, I have some opinions on that…

1.  Appeasing the Gullible –Hey “The Facts Are In.” The “science” is true. And, as P.T. Barnum said,

There is a sucker born every minute.

Remember…these “true believers” of the Goreacle, also voted for Obama. They are easily fooled.

2. Money, Money, Money – Too much money invested by Democrat “Power Brokers” and to much of American Taxpayers money spent needlessly to back down now. Obama’s got political promises to keep.

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Liberals continue to grasp for whatever national distraction they can come up with to attempt to sabotage Trump’s Presidency, in the hope that, somehow, Trump will get impeached, recall, or something, and they can continue their quest to turn America into a Third World Socialist Utopia.

4. Modern American Liberals are heartbroken – Obama left, Hillary lost and they have to have something to worship. Mother Gaia and Captain Plant will have to suffice.

5. Man is his own god – It is an unbelievable arrogance that allows those who believe in “Climate Change” to proclaim that man can lay claim to the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham, by controlling the very weather around us, by recycling plastic bottles, etc.

So, there you go. I wonder how the “Gaia Worshippers” will distract the American Public from the NOAA Scandal?

Perhaps, they can get the Goreacle to present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Soros Funded Trump’s Vichy Republican Primary Opponents: Why His Money Did Not Buy the Presidency…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

donald-trump-hd-images

Remember how the GOP Elite where all diametrically opposed to Donald J. Trump running for President?

It appears that it was because he could not be bought.

…LIKE THEY WERE.

Breitbart News reports that

Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

Soros Fund Management, a former hedge fund that serves now as an investment management firm, was founded by progressive billionaire George Soros in 1969. It has risen to become one of the most profitable hedge funds in the industry. Employees of the firm are heavily involved in backing political candidates giving millions upon millions to groups that were supporting failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency.

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016.

In total, executives with the Soros-founded company pushed $36,800 into the coffers of these GOP candidates just this past cycle. That does not include Super PACs or campaign committees, which saw tens of thousands of dollars more. While these numbers for Republicans pale in comparison to the millions upon millions poured into Democratic groups, causes, and candidates, it is significant that Soros executives are making a play inside the GOP. Perhaps even more significant is the type of Republican they aim to prop up: pro-amnesty, pro-open borders on trade, and generally speaking anti-Trump. A pattern emerges when looking at the policies of the Republicans that these Soros Fund Management executives support financially.

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separate May 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time.

Bloomberg reported in late April 2016, just before these two separate donations to Ryan;

David Rogers and Joshua Donfeld, two portfolio managers at billionaire George Soros’s family office, are leaving the firm over disagreements with its new chief investment officer about the direction of global markets, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Rogers, a protege of Soros’s former chief investment strategist Stan Druckenmiller, managed a portfolio of about $3 billion at the $28 billion Soros Fund Management, said the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. Rogers, 38, made his name as a commodities trader, while Donfeld, 40, focuses on stock investing, said the people, adding that both men are expected to leave the family office next month.
Another two separate donations to Ryan came from Donfeld, both on May 2, 2016 and totaling $2,700 each. In total, that adds up to $10,800—between both Rogers and Donfeld, who were working for Soros Fund Management at the time—that they gave to Paul Ryan.

 
Ryan’s chief spokesman, Brendan Buck, has not responded to a Breitbart News’s inquiry about the donations from the Soros firm’s employees. But Ryan’s support for open borders when it comes to immigration and trade, and his backing of so-called “criminal justice reform” legislation, is in line with Soros’ worldview—and he regularly bashed Trump over the course of the 2016 election.

But he was hardly the only anti-Trump Republican who received cash from Soros Fund Management employees over the course of 2016. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a failed presidential candidate, received $3,500 from the firm’s employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics data. That includes a $1,500 donation from Soros Fund Management executive Scott Bessent. Bessent has since left the firm to work at a different hedge fund, but “oversaw George Soros’s $30 billion fortune for the last four years” according to an early January 2016 article in Bloomberg. The other two donations to Graham from the firm’s employees—both worth $1,000, with one on March 17, 2015, and the other on July 29, 2015—came from Alexander Cohen, an executive with Soros Fund Management.

Fellow failed presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raked in $2,700, while other failed GOP presidential candidates Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also received $2,700 apiece from employees of the Soros firm.

 
Rubio’s $2,700 donation came from the aforementioned Los Angeles-based Donfeld on Jan. 22, 2016, a few months before, as Bloomberg reported, he and Rogers left the firm. Kasich’s $2,700 donation came from Bessent on Oct. 24, 2015. Bush’s $2,700 donation came on July 24, 2015, from David Murphy of Soros Fund Management. Murphy, according to his LinkedIN page, is a current “portfolio manager” at the firm.

Kasich’s spokesman Chris Schrimpf did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Bush’s spokeswoman Kristy Campbell.

A spokesman for Rubio, Matt Wolking, vociferously defended the senator, calling this story in Breitbart News—without having read it because it wasn’t written until long after he responded to inquiries about this matter—a “fake” story since Rubio didn’t get donations directly from George Soros himself and since hedge funds as companies cannot make donations to federal candidates. Breitbart News never alleged that Rubio did get donations directly from George Soros himself, but was inquiring with Rubio’s staff if the senator had a comment on why he did take donations from an executive at George Soros’s hedge fund. That fact, that Rubio did take cash from a Soros Fund Management executive—and that that fund was founded by George Soros—is not something Wolking, on Rubio’s behalf, challenges. So what his team is doing is creating a straw man argument to falsely claim this story is “fake.”

 “This story is a fake,” Wolking told Breitbart News. “Senator Rubio has never received any contribution from George Soros. And he has never received any contribution from the Soros company because, among other things, companies can’t donate to federal candidates.”

But more importantly, a Rubio spokesman did admit that the FEC filing is correct—that Rubio took a $2,700 donation from Donfeld. The Rubio spokesman argues that Donfeld donated “almost exclusively” to GOP candidates over the years—which is mostly true, as Donfeld has given to people like Ryan, Rubio, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), and 2012 GOP Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel, among others. But Donfeld, whom the Rubio spokesman points out and as Breitbart News mentioned earlier in this piece, left the Soros firm after making this donation to Rubio, has donated to Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), and a failed Democratic congressional candidate in Arizona’s 9th congressional district in 2012, Andrei Cherny.

Anti-Trump Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a failed one-time GOP presidential nominee from 2008, got $2,500 from an executive at the Soros firm, while Boehner—who resigned amid a coup from conservatives—raked in $2,600 from an executive at the Soros firm.

McCain’s $2,500 this cycle came from Donfeld of Soros Fund Management on Sept. 23, 2015. In previous cycles, McCain has taken cash directly from George Soros himself—a $1,000 donation on June 2, 1999—and from others with the firm, including a $1,000 donation from Bessent on March 13, 2000, a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Michael Au on Dec. 27, 2007, a $1,000 donation from Duncan Hennes of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2000, and a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Joshua Berkowitz on Jan. 15, 2008. McCain’s spokeswoman, Julie Tarallo, has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Breitbart News.

Boehner’s $2,600 donation this cycle came from Bessent of Soros Fund Management on Feb. 12, 2015. The media relations department at Reynolds American, the tobacco company of which Boehner joined the board after resigning from Congress in 2015, has not responded to a request for comment on his behalf.

Now former Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), the 2016 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Nevada who lost his election after he withdrew his endorsement of Trump in the general election, also received $2,500 from an executive at Soros Fund Management, while Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)—a “Never Trump” congressman who voted for a third-party candidate because he refused to support the GOP nominee for president—received $1,000 from an executive at the Soros family firm.

Heck’s $2,500 donation on Sept. 29, 2016, came from Soros Fund Management’s Sender Cohen. According to the Israel on Campus Coalition, another organization for which Sender Cohen serves as director, he is a “Portfolio Manager, the Director of Research and member of the Management Committee at Soros Fund Management.” Heck’s spokesman from the campaign has not responded to a request for comment on Monday.

Curbelo’s $1,000 donation came on June 5, 2015, from Paul Sohn, a former executive with Soros Fund Management. Sohn had already left the firm earlier in the year, as it was reported on CNBC in January 2015 that Sohn had left Soros Fund Management after his involvement in a controversial investment. That is months before he reported on this June 2015 Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing for this Curbelo donation that his employer was Soros Fund Management. A Curbelo spokeswoman has not responded to a request for comment.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the House GOP conference chairwoman, got $1,000 from an official with Soros Fund Management. She is responsible for unleashing the independent and wildly unsuccessful general election candidate Evan McMullin—whom Trump has called “McMuffin” in jest after his failure—upon the world. McMullin, who turned out to fail fantastically on election day despite media fanfare about his candidacy, was previously a McMorris Rodgers staffer as chief policy director for nearly two years in the House GOP conference before his whimsical bid at the presidency that went nowhere and had essentially zero impact on the race. Rodgers’ $1,000 donation this cycle came from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2015. A spokesman for McMorris Rodgers has not responded to a request for comment on this matter.

The only few Republicans who received Soros Fund Management cash but did support Trump were Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA). Royce received $2,500 from the firm, Johnson and Grassley each received $1,000, and Donovan received $300. Johnson’s $1,000 donation came on April 15, 2016, from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management, as did Grassley’s, which came on Oct. 13, 2015. Donovan’s $300 donation came from Christopher Rich of Soros Fund Management on April 20, 2015. Royce’s $2,500 donation came from Sender Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 31, 2016. Spokespersons for Johnson, Grassley, Donovan and Royce have not responded to Breitbart News’s requests for comment.

The money of George Soros was not what got the Republicans back in The White House.

It was a Populist Movement.

Dictionary.com defines “populism” as

1. the political philosophy of the People’s party.
2. (lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3. (lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4. (lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:populism in the arts.

That word first reappeared in the American Lexicon, when Sarah Palin almost dragged John McCain’s RINO Rear across the Finish Line, in the Presidential Election of 2008.

The support of average Americans propelled Donald J. Trump through the Republican Primaries, cutting through the Vichy Republican Candidates like a hot knife through butter.

However, after Trump won the Republican Primaries and accepted the Party’s Nomination as their President Candidate, I could still sense that something was not right.

4 months ago, I wrote the following…

Now, that same political party, including its Political Leader, House Speaker Paul Ryan, seen determined to prevent their own candidate from becoming the next President of the United States of America.

All of the so-called “Political Pundits”, both Professional and self-identified, (and usually Liberal) are joining in, in a firestorm of “wish-casting” in an effort to negate the overflow crowds that are welcoming Trump to each and every Campaign Stop.

Regarding those who continue to insist that they are on “our side” and are opposing Trump “for the good of the country”…

Holding one’s breath until they turn blue, or telling a Christian American Conservative that they are somehow condemned to Hell and are Unpatriotic, for supporting Donald J. Trump, is not going to change the reality of the situation.

Neither will staying at home and not voting this November.

That’s been tried before.

That is how we got stuck with Petulant President Pantywaist.

If the Republican Establishment keeps mooning average Americans and showcasing their Spines of Jello, instead of supporting their Part’s Nominee, average Americans are going to show them what they think of them by decimating the House and Senate Republicans in the Down-Ballot Vote.

However, I am beginning to believe that the Vichy Republicans, for all of their bluster, could care less.

They appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the Washingtonian Status Quo…including ignoring the wishes of the American Voters, who gave them their cushy jobs.

As it has  proven, without a doubt in the past, the Republican Establishment’s arrogance will be their undoing.

After all…

Actions (and Inactions) have consequences.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Does Donald J. Trump need to “tone it down”, in terms of his fight against those who would preserve the Washingtonian Status Quo?

Only if he wants to sound like a Professional Politician.

And, we Americans have had our fill of them.

Little did I know that all of those Vichy Republicans who stood in the way of their own Presidential Candidate were bought and paid for by the Former Nazi Collaborator , George Soros.

However, as it turned out, all of Soros’ money could not buy the Presidency on November 8th, 2016.

The Grassroots Movement, which began back then eventually, with the Vichy Republicans kicking and screaming in protest, but eventually acquiescing to the inevitable, led us to a seminal moment in American Politics:

The election of Citizen Statesman, Donald J. Trump, as the 45th President of the United States of America.

The American People spoke…loud and clear.

No wonder he is funding all of these Astroturf Protests against President Trump and paying professional protesters to whip up the crowd into a anarchistic frenzy.

Like all of those losers who are reading his websites, accepting his money, and blindly following his lead, George Soros is in the middle of a massive temper tantrum because he did not get his way and our country is not under his ownership.

Georgie Porgie, puddin’ and pie,

Move back to Hungary and have a good cry.

Americans elected a man who could not be bought by you.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Lead Story in Today’s Washington Post Calls Iran “Stronger”, Warns US Against Attacking Them

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

iran-missile-test

Just when you think that the Main Stream Media has sung enough verses of “Gloom, despair, and agony on me”, they pile their Anti-American fertilizer higher and deeper.

The Washington Post ran the following as its Lead Story Today…

BEIRUT — President Trump’s tough talk on Iran is winning him friends in the Arab world, but it also carries a significant risk of conflict with a U.S. rival that is now more powerful than at any point since the creation of the Islamic republic nearly 40 years ago. With its warning last week that Iran is “on notice,” the Trump administration signaled a sharp departure from the policies of President Barack Obama, whose focus on pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran eclipsed historic U.S. concerns about Iranian expansionism and heralded a rare period of détente between Washington and Tehran.

Many in the region are now predicting a return to the tensions of the George W. Bush era, when U.S. and Iranian operatives fought a shadow war in Iraq, Sunni-Shiite tensions soared across the region and America’s ally Israel fought a brutal war with Iran’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Except that now the United States will be facing down a far stronger Iran, one that has taken advantage of the past six years of turmoil in the Arab world to steadily expand its reach and military capabilities.

“In order to confront Iran or push back more fiercely against it, you may find you’re in a conflict far more far-reaching and more destructive to the global economy than many of our allies or American public are willing to bear,” said Nicholas Heras of the Center for a New American Security.

Iran’s alleged quest to produce a nuclear weapon — which Tehran has always denied — has been curbed by the nuclear accord signed in 2015. But in the meantime it has developed missiles capable of hitting U.S. bases and allies across the Middle East and built a network of alliances that have turned it into the most powerful regional player.

Iran now stands at the apex of an arc of influence stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean, from the borders of NATO to the borders of Israel and along the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. It commands the loyalties of tens of thousands in allied militias and proxy armies that are fighting on the front lines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen with armored vehicles, tanks and heavy weapons. They have been joined by thousands of members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most prestigious military wing, who have acquired meaningful battlefield experience in the process.

For the first time in its history, the Institute for the Study of War noted in a report last week, Iran has developed the capacity to project conventional military force for hundreds of miles beyond its borders. “This capability, which very few states in the world have, will fundamentally alter the strategic calculus and balance of power within the Middle East,” the institute said.

America’s Sunni Arab allies, who blame the Obama administration’s hesitancy for Iran’s expanded powers, are relishing the prospect of a more confrontational U.S. approach. Any misgivings they may have had about Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric have been dwarfed by their enthusiasm for an American president they believe will push back against Iran.

“We are so happy and excited about President Trump,” said Abdullah al-Shamri, a former Saudi Arabian diplomat, speaking from the Saudi capital of Riyadh. “We expect him to deal with the Iranians as the threat that they are, producing missiles and interfering in other countries.”

Exactly what the Trump administration intends to do about a state of affairs that has already become deeply entrenched is unclear, however. So pervasive is Iran’s presence across the region that it is hard to see how any U.S. administration could easily roll it back without destabilizing allies, endangering Americans, undermining the war against the Islamic State and upsetting the new regional balance that emerged during the Obama administration’s retreat, analysts say.

 The Trump administration has given no indication that it intends to abrogate the nuclear accord. Rather, U.S. officials say, the goal is to contain activities that lie outside the scope of the accord, such as the ballistic missile program and what one official called the “destabilizing activities” of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies.

So far, U.S. action has been confined to retaliation for Iran’s test-launch of a ballistic missile last week and an attack by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on a Saudi Arabian navy ship in the Red Sea. The Treasury imposed sanctions Friday against people and companies alleged to be involved in the missile program and the Pentagon dispatched the destroyer USS Cole to the coast of Yemen, suggesting that Iran’s arming of the Houthis may be an early target.

Otherwise, the Trump administration has given little indication of what it has in mind, except to make clear that it intends to be different from Obama.

“Iran is playing with fire — they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” Trump wrote in a tweet Friday.

Iran has offered a relatively muted response to the challenge, with Iran’s foreign minister tweeting that Iran is “unmoved” by the threats emanating from Washington. “We’ll never initiate war,” he said.

Iran may well conclude that it is not in its interests to engage in confrontation with a new U.S. administration already earning a reputation for unpredictability, analysts say.

But those familiar with Iran’s behavior in the region have said that they do not believe it will readily surrender its gains. 

“Any pushing back, the Iranians won’t take it lying down,” predicted Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Shiite Iraqi parliamentarian who has, for many years, worked to bridge the divide between Iran and America in Iraq.

“Iraq, Iran and the United States are an extremely finely balanced equation, and Trump shouldn’t come and bash,” he said. “He should play this extremely delicately.”

It is in Iraq, where fighting the Islamic State has most conspicuously brought the United States into a tacit alliance with Iran, that a more hostile relationship between Tehran and Washington could prove most consequential.

Iranian-backed militias are deeply embedded in the overall Iraqi effort to wrest back territory from the militants, one that is also being aided by the United States. In the Mosul offensive, hundreds of U.S. advisers are working alongside Iraqi troops advancing from the east, among about 6,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Iraq. Thousands of Iranian-backed militia fighters are meanwhile advancing on the city from the west, among a force of tens of thousands that answers mostly, though not exclusively, to Iran.

One of the Iranian-backed groups fighting around Mosul is Kitaeb Hezbollah, which also blew up American troops with roadside bombs and fired mortars into U.S. bases at the height of U.S.-Iranian tensions a decade ago. It will not hesitate to attack U.S. troops should the United States attempt to diminish Iran’s role in Iraq, said Jaffar al-Hussaini, Kitaeb Hezbollah’s spokesman.

“We look at America as our first enemy, the source of all evil on the Earth,” he said. “American interests in Iraq are within our sights and our fire range. If they act foolishly, their interests will be wiped out . . . and we can target their bases whenever we want.”

It is also hard to see how the United States could act to curtail the extensive influence acquired by Iran during the war in Syria. Iran and Russia together have fought to ensure the survival of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and they are now pursuing a peace settlement in alliance with Turkey that excludes a role for the United States. America has been left with few friends and little leverage, apart from the Kurds in the northeast of the country.

Russia controls the skies over Syria, and Turkey wields influence over the rebels, but Iran holds sway on the ground, through its extensive network of Shiite militias drawn from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have provided the manpower for front lines from the northern countryside of Aleppo, near the Turkish border, to the Golan Heights bordering Israel in the south.

Trump’s promises to curb Iranian influence are at odds with his stated desire to pursue closer cooperation with Russia in Syria and also to support Assad, because Iran is allied with both Assad and Russia, said Mustafa Alani, a director at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

“He will not be able to contain Iran if he is going to support Assad. He cannot have both at the same time,” he said. The solution, he said, is to topple Assad, because “Assad is the man who is underpinned by Iranian support. He was saved only by Iranian intervention.”

Alani sees no reason Trump should not easily be able to contain Iranian influence. 

“It is a myth that Iran is strong. The only reason Iran is strong is because of U.S. weakness,” he said. “Iran is very thinly stretched. It will not take a lot to contain Iran.”

But even those celebrating the shift in American policy don’t seem so sure. 

“Tehran today is challenged by a strict, driven, strong and decisive United States, which was not always the case with the lenient and hesitant Obama administration,” said a commentary Saturday in the Pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat newspaper. “The region now faces turbulent winds of change. It will not be easy.”

Thank you, Surrender Monkeys.

Are you old enough to remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis? If not, here is a summary, courtesy of u-s-history.com:

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

…Upon the death of the shah in July [1980] (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages’ release.

In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an “October Surprise”* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages’ release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration’s defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released.

In stark, terrifying contrast, the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, purposely and surreptitiously handed a Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and  our staunch ally, Israel, with his toothless “Nuclear Agreement”

Why did the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement” to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel?

He gave Iran everything they wanted: their money, nuclear capability, and acquiescence by the Government of the United States of America, literally, encouraging the world’s population of Islamic Terrorists to kidnap our own Naval Personnel, with the promise of a huge payday, while he remained president.

By the way, in case you didn’t know, there was a reason, besides his duties as Secretary of State, that John F. Kerry did the bulk of “negotiating” with the Mad Mullahs of the Rogue State of Iran during the second half of Obama’s Presidency…

They were “family”.

As noted on the website of Lt. Col. Allen B. West…

…in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

…Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.

…Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration and has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening.

But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son.

Does this bother anyone at all?

Apparently Kerry only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

So, to answer the Washington Post Liberal writing staff who are wringing their hands and soiling their panties over the possibility of actually having to stand up to the Mad Mullahs of Iran:

You need to be better informed.

As I was watching Fox and Friends yesterday morning before church, Sean Hannity was telling everyone that it is rumored that the United States of America, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are going to launch a joint operation, using “Bunker Buster Bombs” on all of Iran’s Nuclear Sites, in a pre-emptive strike.

Just like Obama and Kerry gave in to Iran to get our sailors back and paid them millions of dollars in ransom, the staff of The Washington Post seem willing to offer their pointy heads to be chopped off, rather than stand up to the Rogue Radical Islamic Country of Iran.

Why are Liberals such Unpatriotic Naïve Wussies?

I guess it is just what Surrender Moneys do.

However,, don’t worry Americans,

There’s a New Sheriff in town.

…And, we are STILL THE Greatest Country on the face of God’s Green Earth…no matter what the “concerned” Liberals may write in their dying newspapers.

Until He Comes,

KJ