Obama’s Gun Control EO: “The Tears of a Clown”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Salesman-600-nrd1President Barack Hussein Obama presented his Executive Order concerning Gun Control, yesterday, in a National Address, spotlighted by an emotional performance which hasn’t been seen since “Ol’ Yeller” died.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama’s executive action to expand gun sale background checks has opened up a legal can of worms, specifically the president’s bid to broaden the definition of who’s a dealer — and therefore must get a license and conduct background checks. 

Under current federal law passed by Congress, only federally licensed dealers must conduct background checks on buyers. The law does not specify whether this applies to online sales and other areas — so those selling or trading guns on websites or in informal settings such as flea markets often don’t register.

As the centerpiece of Obama’s new gun push, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Monday night issued updated guidance that now deems anyone “in the business” of selling guns a dealer, regardless of where they sell. 

All of which puts a constitutional spotlight on Obama’s actions, raising questions of interpretation that may have to be settled by the courts.

“Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an ‘occasional’ seller, will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an ‘occasional seller’ is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, said in a FoxNews.com opinion piece. 

Until the courts weigh in, it falls on the sellers to figure out who technically is “in the business” of dealing. 

It’s a tough question — and one with serious implications. As Obama noted during remarks at the White House Tuesday, failure to follow these rules can result in criminal prosecution. 

While the new guidance says collectors and gun hobbyists are largely exempt, the exact definition of who must register and conduct background checks is vague. Some officials suggested that selling just one or two firearms could subject a seller to these rules. 

Philip Dacey, president of the Pennsylvania Gun Collectors Association, told FoxNews.com that while he thinks the new orders will not have a huge impact on collectors, the devil is in the details.

“I think [to require a license for] one or two guns would be ridiculous, and how will you enforce it? If there’s no paperwork trail, how would you know when people are selling one or two guns to their neighbor?” Dacey said.

Dacey also noted that getting a federal license could take over three months and entail a complex process involving fingerprints, photographs and a visit by ATF agents. 

The guidance says determining whether someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing requires looking at “the specific facts and circumstances of your activities.”

“As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed,” the guidance says.

However, the document also notes the courts have deemed people dealers in some cases even if they only sell a couple guns.

“Note that while quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors were also present,” the guidance says.

In a conference call with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House Press Secretary Josh  Earnest, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sought to clarify, but risked making the confusion even greater.

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said, according to The Washington Free Beacon. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

On the question of the number of guns sold, Lynch said: “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun.” 

Adding to the questions, the background check provision rests in the murky realm of agency “guidelines,” which carry less weight than formally issued federal regulations and can easily be rescinded.

Republicans blasted the new guidance as a form of intimidation that would only target law-abiding citizens.

“[Obama] knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in a statement. “Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

After Obama’s soon-to-be-Golden Globe-Nominated Performance, Rush Limbaugh made the following observations on his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program…

I’m just sitting here thinking, CNN’s interviewing a gun owner, and where do you think the gun owner’s store is?  Georgia. (imitating Southern accent) “Yes, they’re gonna go find gun shops in the South and they gonna talk to gun shop owners in the South.”  Now, you might be thinking, “Rush, CNN is in Georgia.  It would makes sense they’d find them there.”  They are also in New York.  But they sent somebody out to find a gun shop in Georgia.  It fulfills the image that they have of Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, hunters and so forth, a bunch of hayseeds. 

You know, Obama, I mentioned this, he had a tear. He cried at the end of his show today in the White House.  And he said (imitating Obama), “I think, you know, I got nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year, and I really don’t — I don’t know why, uh, we have to impugn people’s motives.  I don’t know why we have to.”  Well, sir, I tell you, your motive is all that matters, because your motive tells us the why, obviously.  The motive is what’s crucial here.  The motive tells us how serious you are about this.  The motive and the objective are all we need to know. 

You know, they’ve tried this with alcohol, as you well know. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, they’ve tried to penalize, punish bartenders and bars for selling adult beverages to people who later had accidents or a DUI.  Don’t think that they’re not gonna go to doctors here.  You know, folks, who do you think might be, as far as the left is concerned, a prime target for somebody a family member could claim is mentally ill or a doctor could decide is unstable or not all there?  How about veterans returning from the theater of combat?  I mean, as far as many Americans are concerned, they’re all upset. 

How many movies have there been portraying returning veterans as incapable of adjusting to peacetime, posttraumatic stress disorder.  I would wager that many Americans think that your average returning soldier from Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere where there are hostilities comes back and cannot cope for some reason or other.  Insomnia, flashbacks, undiagnosed and diagnosed PTSD.  And, by definition, these returning vets need medical treatment, and so they go to doctors.  And now doctors are required to call the FBI, report to the FBI about any patients that might appear to be upset, mentally unstable, maladjusted, whatever term you want to use. 

And many of these veterans of course have firearms, do they not?  They have been trained in their usage.  The very people who are most familiar, trained and proficient with these weapons would be among the prime targets for having their guns taken away from them simply on the basis that they’re not mentally competent to possess them anymore.  And all it might take with Obama’s new regulations here is their doctor calling the FBI and saying, “Staff sergeant so-and-so Kowalsky just left my office, and I don’t know, FBI, I’m very, very concerned about the mental state of staff sergeant Kowalsky.” 

“Thank you, Doctor,” says the FBI, “we appreciate your call.  Leave it to us.  We’ll take it from here.”  Liberal members of your family who know that you have a gun and don’t particularly like it, might they now have avenues.  And you think the doctor might not cooperate.  Well, how many doctors can no longer afford malpractice insurance simply because of Obamacare?  And do you think the doctor is ever going to claim that any member of a minority group is unstable?  Can you imagine a doctor reporting, what’s her name, the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore, what’s her name?  Mosby, Marilyn Mosby goes to the doctor.  She’s obviously unstable. She goes to the doctor, do you think the doctor would report to the FBI that the DA was just here, and I don’t know, she doesn’t seem right. Or that Mahmoud Sahib Skyhook was just here, and Mahmoud didn’t seem to be all that right to me, you think that’s gonna happen? 

No, it isn’t, because the doctor is not gonna be accused of bigotry or religious prejudice or racial prejudice. So guess who’s gonna get reported on here?  At least the odds are.  And Obama’s crying.  “I have nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year.  I’m just doing what I think is right.”  Well, these leftists, folks, Obama’s quest to transform the country is not gonna end with him leaving office.  He’s not just gonna sit around idly in his post presidential days and watch people dismantle what he’s done.  He’s gonna try to preserve it.  We haven’t seen anything yet. 

I’m telling you, the next 12 months and then the aftermath when Obama’s out of office he’s still gonna have his media cadre on his side, whoever the incoming president is, Trump, Cruz, whoever it is, is gonna have Obama on their case and the media every day. And if there’s just the slightest shred of evidence that anything they’re doing is unraveling what Obama did, look out.  Don’t doubt me.  In fact, make a note of the prediction.  

The Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday concerning President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness. 

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

I thought, that when Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, that he was supposed to “heal the sick, raise the dead, make the oceans rise and fall, and restore our divided country”?

Instead, Obama’s tenure in office will leave in his wake an America more divided than ever before, thanks to his Domestic Policy, consisting of the Rhetoric of Class Warfare and Racial Animus, and his advocacy of the failed Marxist Economic Theory of Socialism, in a nation which runs on the engines of Capitalism.

Yesterday’s non sequitur of a response to the horrific massacre of American Citizens by Radical Islamic Terrorists in San Bernadino, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, was just another serving of cake to us unwashed masses by “King Louis Obama”…punctuated by his phony tear as the cherry on top of his cake of ineffectual leadership.

And, you know, the kicker? Per Gallup, only 2% of Americans even consider Gun Control to be an important National Issue!

Back in 2010, I wrote a series of articles titled “The Great Disconnect: The Whole Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”.

Just call me Nostradamus.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama’s Gun Control EO: A Matter of Distraction and Control

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

guncontrolAccording to the pollsters over at gallup.com, Gun Control is only considered an Important National Issue by 2% of America’s Population.

Unfortunately for the continuation of our Second Amendment Rights, one of those individuals in that 2% is Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States of America.

CNN.com reports that

The Obama administration will announce a series of executive actions on Tuesday to combat gun violence in the U.S.Among other things, the actions would expand mandatory background checks for some private sales. The administration would also provide more funding for mental health treatment, FBI staff and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives agents.

“These are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch,” Obama told reporters gathered Monday in the Oval Office. “But they are also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

With Attorney General Loretta Lynch by his side, the President said he planned to roll out the new restrictions, aimed at combating a wave of recent shootings, in the coming days. He will hold a town hall on the topic Thursday that will air on CNN and is expected to make it a focus next week during his final State of the Union address.

Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have blasted any attempt by the White House to crack down on gun rules.

 “Pretty soon you won’t be able to get guns,” Donald Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Monday during an interview on “New Day.” “It’s another step in the way of not getting guns.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan called out the President’s “dismissiveness” toward the Second Amendment as well as Congress.

“While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the President is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will,” Ryan said in a statement Monday. “His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No President should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.”

Over the weekend, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton told Radio Iowa she applauded the President’s new push, but warned any executive action was likely to fall short the comprehensive reform favored by most in her party.

“We’ve got to act,” she said, “but I don’t think that’s enough and I think we’re going to have to keep pushing forward on the political front and I intend to do that, to take on the gun lobby and to work with responsible gun owners.”

On the trail Monday, Clinton again said she backed the President’s efforts, but warned that voting a Republican into office in 2017 would effectively undo any progress that followed.

The most sweeping action currently being considered, an executive order defining who’s “engaged in the business” of selling guns, would immediately require some private dealers to obtain a license and begin conducting background checks.

But efforts to even partially close the so-called “gun show loophole” are sure to prompt a rash of challenges in court. The resulting rulings and subsequent appeals are likely to drag on well beyond the end of this administration.

Obama’s plan has already drawn heated criticism from Republicans, especially among the party’s presidential candidates.

Gun “Control” (i.e., confiscation) has been a priority of Obama’s since he took office.

And, of course, as Sir Isaac Newton observed,

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

The FBI processed a record number of firearms-related background checks last year, indicating that more guns were sold in 2015 than in any previous year in American history.

More than 23 million checks were processed through the National Instant Background Check System in 2015, an all-time record.

The all-time record for yearly sales comes after May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December 2015 each set sales records for their respective months. In December the FBI conducted 3,314,594 checks, an increase of more than half a million checks over the previous single-month record set in December 2012.

The number of FBI background checks is widely considered to be the most reliable gauge of how many firearms were sold in a given month because background checks are required on all sales made through federally licensed firearms dealers. However, the checks do not provide an exhaustive representation of gun sales. Checks are not required on sales between private parties in most states, and a single background check may cover the purchase of multiple firearms by the same person at once.

Additionally, some states perform the checks on those who apply for gun-carry permits.

The record gun sales came as Democrats moved to implement new gun control measures at the federal, state, and local levels. Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said that the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun rights case was “wrong” and she and President Barack Obama praised Australian-style gun confiscation.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (D.) issued an executive order imposing new gun control measures and the Democrat-controlled city council of Seattle imposed a new tax on guns and ammunition.

Gun rights activists say that Democrats’ new aggressive posture on gun control contributed to 2015’s record sales.

“A day has not gone by without a major media assault on gun rights or an Obama administration call for new additional restrictions on gun ownership,” said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation. “Americans have voted with their dollars and bought record levels of guns and ammunition.”

In the second half of the year, terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California drove gun and ammunition sales even higher. Some dealers reported seeing their business triple in the wake of the attacks, cautioning that the spike was drying up supply in some areas.

Gun rights activists believe that sales will continue to set records in the new year.

In Obama’s zeal to grab our guns, there is an “inconvenient truth” that he and his minions always fail to mention:

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

This fact remains unchanged to this day.

And, Obama and his Administration are quite aware of these numbers.

So, why attempt to restrict the gun ownership of law-abiding Americans?

As I observed yesterday,

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Restricting private ownership of firearms by a country’s citizens is nothing new.

Back on January 13, 2013 while researching another post on the subject of Gun Control, I found some truth from a very unexpected source: Pravda.

(That’s pretty bad when Pravda is telling the truth and America’s Main Stream Media is not. But, I digress…)

Before the Revolution in 1918, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere….but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Russian Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin said:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Obama’s Gun Control Executive Order which he will issue today is not about the safety of American Citizens.

It is about distraction and control.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama “Fired Up”, to Hold Gun Control Pep Rally on CNN

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Party-Pooper-600-nrdHis (Obama’s) first impulse always is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong. And to use executive powers he doesn’t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. – Republican Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush, Fox News Sunday, 1/3/2016

ABC News reports that

Hawaiian vacation over, President Barack Obama says he is energized for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business, turning immediate attention to the issue of gun violence. Obama scheduled a meeting Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss a three-month review of what steps he could take to help reduce gun violence. The president is expected to use executive action to strengthen background checks required for gun purchases.

Republicans strongly oppose any moves Obama may make, and legal fights seem likely over what critics would view as infringing on their Second Amendment rights. But Obama is committed to an aggressive agenda in 2016 even as public attention shifts to the presidential election.

Obama spent much of his winter vacation out of the public eye, playing golf with friends and dining out with his family. He returned to the White House about noon Sunday.

“I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us. That’s because of what we’ve accomplished together over the past seven,” Obama said his weekly radio and Internet address.

While in Hawaii, he also worked on his final State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12. The prime-time speech will give the president another chance to try to reassure the public about his national security stewardship after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Congressional Republicans have outlined a competing agenda for January, saying they will spend the first days of 2016 taking another crack at eliminating keys parts of the president’s health insurance law and ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation is unlikely to become law, but it is popular with the GOP base in an election year.

The debate about what Obama may do on gun violence already has spilled over into the presidential campaign.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, and rival Bernie Sanders said he would support Obama’s expected move.

The Vermont senator told ABC’s “This Week” that he believes “there is a wide consensus” that “we should expand and strengthen the instant background check.” He added: “I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.”

Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.

“This president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator,” unable to persuade Congress and forcing an “illegal executive action” on the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also on Fox, said Obama’s “first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong.”

In the radio address, Obama said tens of thousands of people have died from gun violence since background check legislation stalled three years ago.

“Each time, we’re told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

Obama plans to participate in a town hall Thursday night at George Mason University in Virginia on reducing gun violence. The president will take questions from the audience at the event moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its inmates.

An Executive Order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive Orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke Civil Rights.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Obama realizes that even though he “has a pen”, that does not mean that he has the national approval for his coming dictatorial action, which he claims that he has.

Therefore, he and his Administration have arranged for a “National Townhall Meeting”, to be held live on CNN, this Thursday night.

During this upcoming “Pep Rally”, I can guarantee you the following:

  1. The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
  2. Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
  3. Anderson Cooper will fawn over him, lobbing softball questions that Steve Urkel himself could hit out of the park.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of  the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: The Myth of “Constitutional Religious Neutrality”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

American Christianity 2Do American Political Leaders have the right to invoke the Name of the God of Abraham in their public speeches?

Or, should they keep their faith out of the Public Arena of Ideas, like the “Smartest People in the Room” keep  insisting?

The Washington Post reports that

METAIRIE, La. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court’s longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court’s more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

He also said there is “nothing wrong” with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him. 

Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.

“God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways,” Scalia said.

“There is nothing wrong with that and do not let anybody tell you that there is anything wrong with that,” he added.

Scalia’s comments Saturday come as the court prepares to hear arguments later this year in a case that challenges part of President Barack Obama’s health care law and whether it adequately shields faith-based hospitals, colleges and charities from having to offer contraceptive coverage to their employees.

For what now seems like an eternity, those on the Left side of Political Aisle, spearheaded by President Barack Hussein Obama,  have focused their attention on “radically changing” America.

They soon realized that they simply could not do it through popular culture and educational indoctrination, inundating America’s children with both overt and subliminal imaging designed to countermand the Traditional American Values that they were being raised with, in normal American Households, out here in “Flyover Country”, otherwise known as America’s Heartland…or “the Red States”.

Modern Liberals soon figured out that the way to program Americans into believing that “all paths lead to God” and that cradle-to-grave Nanny-State Government were the new American Standards for living our daily lives, was to turn Christian American Houses of Worship away from being instructors of the Word of God and a sanctuary in which to worship Our Creator, to, instead, being purveyors of the joys of Popular Culture. Wednesday Night Bible Studies were soon replaced by Yoga Classes and Encounter Groups. Religious Leaders were soon quoting philosophy, instead of the Bible in their Sunday Morning Sermons.

And, instead of taking a stand against those things of the world which were directly opposed to what is found in God’s Word, these “new, enlightened” churches started standing up for the “right” of a woman to have her baby prematurely yanked out of her womb with a set of tongs, standing up for the right of Adam to “marry” Steve, when the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and standing up for the equality of all faiths, when the Son of God firmly states, in John 14:6, that

I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, when  as all this Christianity in America going to “fade away” as predicted by “the Smartest People in the Room”?

As recent polls show…not any time soon.

America remains a nation whose population consists of 70-75%, who proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior and 92%, who believe in God.

Being filled with human beings, churches have made a lot of mistakes, However, they have also done a lot of good in the name of the Lord.

For example, the church I attend, houses a Food Pantry, operated in co-operation with other churches in our area, which feeds 2,000 people per month, counseling them, and getting them the assistance that they need.

Churches today have to walk a fine line.

The spiritual battle the influence of American Popular Culture and those seeking the Will of God in their lives, takes all the strength…and prayer, that Christians can muster.

Modern Liberals seem to have great difficulty comprehending the role which Our Creator, the God of Abraham, played and plays in this Grand Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Why have Liberals ratcheted up their anti-Christian Vitriol and Negativity since January 21, 2009?

Why are they so focused on removing America’s Christian Heritage?

Well, as is usually my wont, I have been doing some “reckoning” about this.

It seems to this ol’ Southern Boy, living here in the Heartland, that America’s Christian Heritage and the very real fact of His influence in building and shaping America’s growth into the greatest country on the face of God’s Green Earth, not only stifles and interferes with Modern Liberals’ “anything goes”, “share the wealth”, “hive-mind”, “man is his own god” Political Ideology, but the reality of God’s very existence, somewhere deep in their miserable, bitter psyches, scares the mess out of them.

Why else would they be trying so hard to fight against the influence of Someone Whom they really don’t believe in?

I see them every single day on the television, on the Internet, on Facebook Political Pages, posting stupid meme (a picture with words on it) after stupid meme, attempting to make fun of The Great I Am and those of us who have given our lives to Him.

They are so hateful, and filled with such bitterness, that it is difficult to engage them in “conversation”.

Perhaps, somewhere in their back of their minds, all of these Modern American Liberals, realize that they are fighting a losing battle.

Christianity continues to thrive in America, despite their best efforts.

For, as Justice Scalia stated so eloquently,

God has been very good to us

America was built upon a Solid Rock.

To ignore our nation’s Faith-Based Founding and Heritage is to live in purposeful ignorance.

As President Ronald Reagan said,

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

And, as Hebrews 13:8 tells us,

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Regardless of the Political Machinations of Modern American Liberals, God will have the final word, as to our country’s future.

He always does.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Issue Gun Control Executive Orders Next Week…What “Checks and Balances”?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

1722924_1319321378127988_8942781069457189654_nFreedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. – Ronald Reagan

The Washington Post reports that

HONOLULU — President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week despite growing concerns in the United States over terrorism that have dampened some Americans’ enthusiasm for tighter firearms restrictions.

The president will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to finalize a series of new gun control measures and will announce his package of proposals soon after, according to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.

One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The change is aimed at occasional dealers, including some who sell online frequently or rent tables at gun shows but do not have a storefront.

Obama began examining how he could tighten the nation’s gun rules after October’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. Administration lawyers have spent months reviewing various proposals to make sure they can withstand legal challenges.

The idea of requiring informal gun dealers to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and of conducting background checks came up two years ago when White House officials drafted a proposal for dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually.

The idea was shelved because of legal concerns but gained new momentum after the Roseburg shooting. At that point, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would pursue such a requirement by executive action if elected. Administration officials gave the proposal another look and determined it could be done in a way that was legally defensible.

The White House review has been conducted in relative secrecy, soliciting input from gun safety groups without specifying which policies the administration might ultimately adopt. In the past month, Obama has met with former representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was gravely injured in a 2011 mass shooting, and her husband, Mark Kelly, and with former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, which Bloomberg helped start.

In Obama’s weekly radio address, released a day earlier than usual, the president said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.

“Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Obama continued. “I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”

In reviewing its options, the administration has shut out congressional Republicans, who joined with some Democrats in helping block legislation to expand background checks after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The administration has not communicated with us, and we have not been briefed,” Doug ­Andres, a spokesman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), said in an email. “We will consider options once we have information, but what seems apparent is none of these ideas would have prevented the recent atrocities. Our focus should be on the consistent causes of these acts — mental illnesses and terrorism — rather than infringing on law-abiding Americans’ constitutional rights.”

While most Republican presidential candidates did not provide immediate reaction to Obama’s announcement, they are expected to talk about it in the coming days. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to attend a gun show in Orlando on Sunday, where he will discuss the high marks he has received from the National Rifle Association.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), said that “President Obama is trying to distract Americans from his failure to address the true threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and instead going after the rights of law-abiding American citizens — it is complete lunacy. If Ted Cruz is elected president, the lawlessness will end on Day One, and Americans’ personal liberties will be restored and protected.”

Obama will make his case for additional gun restrictions in a number of forums in the coming month, according to aides, including during his Jan. 12 State of the Union address.

While beefing up background checks has strong support — a Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89 percent of Americans supported checks for purchases at gun shows and for online sales — Obama’s actions also come as Americans have grown more fearful about the prospect of terrorist strikes and are expressing an openness to having ordinary citizens carry guns.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted last month in the wake of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist shootings, for example, found that 53 percent of respondents opposed a ban on assault weapons ban, a record high. When asked which is the better reaction to terrorism, 47 percent said encouraging more people to carry guns legally, while 42 percent preferred enacting stricter gun control laws.

Why are Obama, his Administration, and their “fellow travelers” so intent over getting our guns?

If they cared so much about our nation’s children, their supposed reason for gun confiscation, they would not be pro-abortion, which has murdered 56 million children.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published on January 27, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Why, indeed? The Communist Leader, Vladimir Lenin ,answered that question very succinctly:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Now, I am not one prone to conspiracy theories, but I question the timing of the whole thing. I believe that all of this “solution” was already prepared, and Obama and his sycophants were just waiting for the appropriate trigger mechanism to begin their push for gun confiscation. Unfortunately, the Islamic Terrorist Attack in San Bernadino, California provided them the excuse that they were waiting for.

So now, even as I write this, there are Executive Orders, sitting on the president’s desk, waiting to be signed.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. He has stated, numerous times, that if Congress will not give him what he wants, he will go around them.

Yes, our Founding Fathers put in a System of Checks and Balances. However, that system relies on the willingness of politicians to enforce them.

Unfortunately, in 2016, we have a bunch of professional politicians, who are too afraid of being thrown off of the Gravy Train, to tell the Conductor he’s on the wrong track. When the new Speaker of the House just recently demonstrated his willingness to be a doppelganger of the previous Vichy Republican in that position, by getting the Omnibus Bill passed, he left no doubt as to the state of his intestinal fortitude.

Hurry up, November.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

New Years Day 2016: Once Again, “A Time For Choosing”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

th0HP8WP4PAs I sat down this morning to write something to summarize 2015, while looking forward to 2016, I thought about the Top News Stories of this past year:

The War on ISIS

The Supreme Court Ruling on “Gay Marriage”

The Paris Islamic Terrorist Attack

The San Bernadino, California Islamic Terrorist Attack

The Charleston Shooting and the Liberals’ Use of it to Censor the Confederate Battle Flag and Remove Historical Statues

“Black Lives Matter” and the Mass Riots Across America

The Hoax Known as “Climate Change”

Bowe Bergdahl

“Caitlyn” Jenner

And, last, but certainly not least, the 2016 Presidential Election 

And I wondered how the “Shining City on a Hill”, which the greatest American President in my generation, Ronald Wilson Reagan, so wonderfully described, has fallen so far, into a morass of relative morality and situational ethics.

In 1964, in his famous stump speech, “A Time for Choosing”, The Great Communicator said,

It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.”

This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream–the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

So, is our present state of unrest and strife which we are experiencing in America, simply a matter of choice?

I believe that it is…one of individual freedom or subjugation to “princes and principalities”.

Here is a radio message which the late, great American News Commentator Paul Harvey delivered on April 3, 1965:

If I were the devil, I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree—Thee. So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first—I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to pray after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’ 

And then I’d get organized. I’d educate authors on how to lurid literature exciting, so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting. I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa. I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. 

If I were the devil I’d soon have families that war with themselves, churches that war that themselves, and nations that war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flame. If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, and neglect to discipline emotions—just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you’d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing, I’d have judges promoting pornography—soon I could evict God from the courthouse, and then the schoolhouse, and then from the houses of Congress. And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls, and church money. If I were the devil I’d make the symbols of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.If I were the devil I’d take from those, and who have, and give to those wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. What do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich? I would question against extremes and hard work, and Patriotism, and moral conduct. I would convince the young that marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging more fun, that what you see on the TV is the way to be. And thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure. In other words, if I were to devil I’d keep on doing on what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, good day.

So, are we doomed as a nation to continue to slide down this slippery slope we are traveling on? In the conclusion of “A Time for Choosing”, Ronald Reagan reminded us that the choice was ours to make…

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits–not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

As a Christian American Conservative, I believe that there is a divine spark within each one of us.

It is up to us , whether we choose to listen to that still, small voice, as He guides us through our choices we make everyday.

I also believe that this nation was forged by Christian Men, who were led by their Creator to seek the FREEDOM to worship him as they chose

In 2016, we have an opportunity to begin the journey back to reclaim the vision of our Forefathers.

It is, once again, “A Time For Choosing”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Replace Out-of-Work Americans With Foreigners

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

obamamyworkObama is about to begin his final year as President of the United States by extending his longest digit to the American Workforce.

As we say in Southern Fairy Tales, instead of “Once Upon a Time”,

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this Sh**!

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that

As the nation prepares to ring in the New Year, President Barack Obama is preparing a colossal new executive action that could print-up work permits for a huge number of foreign white-collar graduates every year, above and beyond the levels set by Congress.

This executive action, which directly bypasses Congressional lawmakers, is likely to reverberate across the presidential race, as GOP voters look to choose a nominee they believe will most effectively roll back the President’s still-expanding agenda.  And it will certainly raise new security concerns as it covers categories of immigration utilized by migrants from the Middle East and nearby regions.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to publish the proposed rule tomorrow, the last day of 2015.

The 181-page rule focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college-grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs, despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage positions and struggling to pay off college debts. The rule will also make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than many U.S.-born college grads.

“Obama has gone the Full Monty to bust the immigration system,” says immigration lawyer John Miano. “What is going on is he is effectively giving Green Cards to people on H-1B visas who are unable to get Green Cards due to the [annual] quotas… it could be over 100,000.”

The new rules to aid foreign college-graduates are an extension of his earlier efforts to bypass popular laws against illegal immigration, said Miano, the co-author of a new book about the painful impact of the white-collar guest-worker programs, titled “Sold Out.”

This executive action could have been prevented, however, had the bipartisan 2016 omnibus funding included language proposed by Immigration Subcommittee ChairmanSen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

In April, Sessions proposed language to reduce and cap the number of work-permits — dubbed “Employment Authorization Documents” — that could be distributed to foreign workers each year. Sessions’ recommendation was rejected by GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress, and so House SpeakerRep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) ’s December omnibus is enabling the president’s new executive action.

In 2012, Obama bypassed laws against illegal immigration by awarding two-year work-permits to at least 800,000 younger foreign migrants who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents. In 2015, the courts blocked his November 2014 amnesty plan to award work-permits to roughly 5 million resident migrants who have U.S.-born children. From 2009 to 2015, Obama also allowed at least 250,000 Central American migrants into the United States to request asylum or refugee status. In 2013, Obama added roughly 2 million extra foreign workers to the economy, while roughly 4 million young Americans began looking for work.

“The objective here is to strip American workers of their protections from foreign labor embodied in the Green Card quotas” that are set by Congress, not the White House, Miano said.

The annual award of Green Cards — and vital preliminary work-permits — is limited by quotas that mostly impact the many Indian and Chinese graduates who come to the United States as H-1B guest-workers, or who first arrive as students and later start working in the United States via the Optional Practical Training and H-1B programs.

Roughly 650,000 foreign graduates are working in the United States for roughly 5 years each under the H-1B program. Roughly 120,000 foreign graduates of U.S. colleges are working in the United States for two years each via the OPT program, often called the ‘mini-H-1B program.’ Without this new regulation, most of those foreign graduates will return home after several years, forcing companies to hire U.S. graduates in their place.

The foreign graduates typically get entry-level jobs that would otherwise go to new U.S. business graduates, designers, doctors, programmers, engineers and scientists.  Also, the foreign graduates are used to replace mid-level American professionals once they seek mid-career pay-raises to help pay for mortgages and child-rearing.

According to the pending regulation, “many of these changes are primarily aimed at improving the ability of U.S. employers to hire and retain [foreign] high-skilled workers who are beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions and are waiting to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs), while increasing the ability of such [foreign] workers to seek promotions, accept lateral positions with current employers, change employers, or pursue other employment options.”

The new policy also creates a large economic incentive for U.S. employers to hire foreign college-grads instead of new American college-grads.

That’s because the policy will allow U.S. employers to hire foreign college graduates at very low salaries. The foreign graduates will gladly take those low-wage white-collar jobs because the new policy allows them to get deferred payments from the federal government — valuable permanent work-permits that are the first step on the golden pathway to Green Cards and citizenship.

In contrast, employers can’t pay American graduates with this combination of low-salaries plus the federal promise of citizenship — because the Americans already have citizenship.

That means employers must pay more money to hire American college-grads than they would to hire foreign college-grads. That puts a huge disadvantage on American graduates because they need higher salaries to pay off their expensive U.S. college debt.

 As we journey through this Quixotic Quest, known as our everyday lives, we come across windmills, which we must tilt with daily, known as “priorities”.

Priorities are unique, perplexing things, as they vary from individual to individual.

For those of us between employment, it is finding a meaningful, well-paying job, so that we may provide for our families. For other Americans, it could be the care of their elderly loved ones. For others, their priority may be to climb the Corporate Ladder at their place of employment.

For the parents of 30-year-old Liberals and “puff puff” “l”ibertarians, it may be that their priority is to get their slacker of a “kid” to move out of the basement.

But, I digress…

Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), the 44th President of these United States, has a problem.

(No, I don’t mean his overbearing wife, Mooch, and her desire to build shopping carts, which will tell us what “healthy” foods to buy. That’s a subject for another blog. Besides, it takes that heifer two rips to haul a.. …well, you know.)

Americans have noticed that there is a great disconnect between the citizens of the United States and their president.  It’s not just his stand-offish behavior.  There’s something else going on.  He was not raised like the majority of Americans.

He didn’t have rubber dart gun wars in the neighborhood backyards.  He didn’t play Nerf football in the front yards.  He didn’t go to Vacation Bible School.  I don’t know if he was ever told to stand with his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

It is this disconnect that is at the heart of the trouble with Obama’s presidency.   Hope and Change have turned into despair and disbelief.  Obama has never understood the shared values of average Americans, because the people who raised him did not share those values, either.  It is the concern that we feel for one another, that shared American value system, that is causing a great awakening. One of the main reasons Obama wants control of the internet is so we can’t communicate with each other and he can control the message.

Obama’s problem is one of MISPLACED PRIORITIES.

This problem started the very first time he took the Oath of Office, which clearly outlines his duties as President of the United States of America…

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is very obvious, to even the most casual observer that Obama care more for those in other countries than he does for American Citizens.

Over 92,000,000 Americans remain expunged from America’s Workforce and here is the President of the United States replacing them with foreigners.

Any way you approach this fact, it remains indefensible.

I realize that I could have grown this Blog exponentially, by listing all of Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES en masse.

However, i believe that simplicity in communication is the best way to get one’s point across.

The point I have been attempting to maker today, is a rather simplistic one, in deference to the Liberals whom I know read this blog on a daily basis, attempting to catch me in some sort of “lie”, which only they can see.

Obama’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES have not only tarnished this Shining City Upon a ill, but it has endangered the continued existence of America and her citizens, with every day this past week, bringing a new example of Obama’s deliberate ineptness and shallow behavior, in the poor fulfillment of his Oath of Office, to the degree to which average Americans are concerned about their children’s’ and grandchildren’ sfuture.

Obama has failed miserably in his sworn duties as President of the United States.

But, then again, perhaps the only promise he intended to keep, was to “radically change” America.

…for the worse.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama Spys on Israel (and Congress) While Iran Tests Rockets

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

untitled (4)This is Smart Power?

The Wall Street Journal reports that

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.

In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.

Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

Israeli, German and French government officials declined to comment on NSA activities. Turkish officials didn’t respond to requests Tuesday for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA declined to comment on communications provided to the White House.

This account, stretching over two terms of the Obama administration, is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. intelligence and administration officials and reveals for the first time the extent of American spying on the Israeli prime minister.

,,,The NSA has leeway to collect and disseminate intercepted communications involving U.S. lawmakers if, for example, foreign ambassadors send messages to their foreign ministries that recount their private meetings or phone calls with members of Congress, current and former officials said.

“Either way, we got the same information,” a former official said, citing detailed reports prepared by the Israelis after exchanges with lawmakers.

During Israel’s lobbying campaign in the months before the deal cleared Congress in September, the NSA removed the names of lawmakers from intelligence reports and weeded out personal information. The agency kept out “trash talk,” officials said, such as personal attacks on the executive branch.

Administration and intelligence officials said the White House didn’t ask the NSA to identify any lawmakers during this period.

“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He declined to comment on any specific communications between lawmakers and Israel.The NSA reports allowed administration officials to peer inside Israeli efforts to turn Congress against the deal. Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.

“These allegations are total nonsense,” said a spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington.

A U.S. intelligence official familiar with the intercepts said Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

NSA intelligence reports helped the White House figure out which Israeli government officials had leaked information from confidential U.S. briefings. When confronted by the U.S., Israel denied passing on the briefing materials.

The agency’s goal was “to give us an accurate illustrative picture of what [the Israelis] were doing,” a senior U.S. official said.

Just before Mr. Netanyahu’s address to Congress in March, the NSA swept up Israeli messages that raised alarms at the White House: Mr. Netanyahu’s office wanted details from Israeli intelligence officials about the latest U.S. positions in the Iran talks, U.S. officials said.

A day before the speech, Secretary of State John Kerry made an unusual disclosure. Speaking to reporters in Switzerland, Mr. Kerry said he was concerned Mr. Netanyahu would divulge “selective details of the ongoing negotiations.”

The State Department said Mr. Kerry was responding to Israeli media reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to use his speech to make sure U.S. lawmakers knew the terms of the Iran deal.

Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress.

In the final months of the campaign, NSA intercepts yielded few surprises. Officials said the information reaffirmed what they heard directly from lawmakers and Israeli officials opposed to Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign —that the prime minister was focused on building opposition among Democratic lawmakers.The NSA intercepts, however, revealed one surprise. Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes.

While the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Secretary of State John (I served in Vietnam) Kerry continue to celebrate their “wonderful, magnificent deal” with the Rogue Radical Islamic Nation of Iran, there a four American citizens, including a Forgotten American Man of Faith, being held in the squalor of Iranian Jails.

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

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

It is a “deal” which Iran has no intention of keeping.

NBC News reports that

The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman came about 1,500 yards from an Iranian rocket in the Strait of Hormuz last week, two U.S. military officials told NBC News on Tuesday.As the Truman was transiting the strait, which connects the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf, Iranian Revolutionary Guards conducted a live-fire exercise right near the U.S. carrier Saturday, officials said.

A U.S. military official said an Iranian navy fast and short attack craft began conducting a live-fire exercise at the same time the carrier was nearing the end of the strait, firing off several unguided rockets. A French frigate, the U.S. destroyer USS Buckley and other commercial traffic were also in the area.

Obama’s concern is not with our allies nor the safety of the citizens of the United States.

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

Giving Iran the means to “kill the infidels” will definitely cement Obama’s Legacy…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”.

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

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

Obama has screwed both God’s Chosen People and the nation which he is sworn to protect…for the sake of his own ego’s contentment.

Until He Comes,

KJ

If I Were a Socialist U.S. President [December 2015 Edition]

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

 obamamywork

Prologue: A while back, I wrote a blog describing what I would do, if “I were a Socialist U.S. President”. I have since decided to add to it, since things promise to further spiral out of control, as we approach Barack Hussein Obama’s last year as President of these United States.

**In respectful honor and memory of the late, great Paul Harvey, an American Original, (September 4, 1918 – February 28,

If I were a Socialist U.S. President…

I would begin to plant seeds during my Inaugural Address, concerning the disparity between the Haves and the Have-nots. In other words, I would intentionally begin to divide the nation through the use of Racial Animus and Class Warfare.

Also, during that address I would push for a National Healthcare System, regardless of the fact that such a monstrous entity has never worked, anywhere it has been tried.

I would preach about hope and change, but like all Marxists, I would be hoping to bring subjugation and looking to “radically change” a nation, all in the name of “Fairness and Equality”.

The first thing I would do, when I took office, would be to send money around the world, to finance abortions. In this way, I would show the world that there is a new boss in the United States, who wants to radically change the Shining City on a Hill into just another country.

Next, I would push for the passage of an outrageous spending bill that would actually be a cover for paying back political favors.

I would invite the already-sycophantic Main Stream Media to come to the White House for closed-door meetings, where I would tell them to “get with the program”, if they wanted to receive any news stories from this White House at all.

I would makes speeches about how marvelous a Government-run National Healthcare  System would be, making hollow promises like,

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

…all the while knowing that I was lying my hindquarters off.

Once I got my slaves in the Congress to pass this nation-changing National Healthcare Law, I would put the pedal to the metal and continuously push for other outrageous and expensive programs designed to grow the central government.

I would convince Americans that growing the central government is the only solution to a rapidly failing economy and that being unemployed and unable to provide for your family is actually a “fun-cation”.

And, while Americans were suffering through this Economic Depression, I would rant and rave about “Income Inequality”, while my family and I would take frequent vacations, costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and throw lavish private parties at the White House, in a manner reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s Politburo.

Realizing that the Heartland of America was still Conservative in nature, I would reach out to those Americans who believe themselves to be a mistreated minority. I would reach out to those on the fringes of society. Those Americans, who because of poor upbringing, poor education, or simply making bad decisions concerning their lives, now consider themselves deprived of the American Dream.

These people would compose about 47 percent of the population. They would be my core supporters, much like Nikolai Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Having done a miserable job in my First Term as President, I would promise these Bolsheviks that if reelected, I would be their Santa Claus.

And, I would continue to blame my predecessor for the wretched state of the economy, even though, by now, it would be my responsibility.

Once I was reelected, there would be no stopping me. It would not matter to me what the popularity polls said, I would continue to claim that those who provide Americans with jobs were “the evil 1%” and identify their success in creating the Greatest Economic System in the World, as the “real reason” for the Economic Depression that America was in.

I would change the Moderate political stances which I “supposedly” held during the campaign for my first election as President, and show my true colors, following a political path pursuant to my true Far Left Radical Political Ideology.

Reverting back to the one job in my life that I was good at, that of being a “Community Organizer”, I would encourage an “Us Vs. Them” Racial Division in America, supporting out-of-control rioters over those who protect the Citizens of the United States, the Thin Blue Line, America’s Police Departments, because then, I could use the situation to create my own National Police Force.

I would alienate Conservative Christians living in America’s Heartland by vilifying them as “Bitter Clingers”, marginalizing them throughout my presidency, even to the point of lecturing them in my Easter Address, telling them to get off their “high horse”, basicially saying that the followers of Jeus Christ, the Son of God, are no better than the murderous followers of Mohammed, whose Ideological Brethren continue to murder Christians in the Middle East.

I would remove God from the Air Force Oath and forbid soldiers from speaking about Christ to others. I would also begin Military Training which would identify Evangelicals as “Terrorists”.

While I am at it, I would allow my wife to place the military on a diet plan that is similar to the one which would already be failing in America’s Public Schools.

I would push for “gay marriage”,  demonizing Bible-believing Christians, who might oppose it as “bigots” and “haters” and I would voice my support for the legalization of marijuana.

Through redefining the definition of the family unit, and eliminating Christianity from everyday American Life, I will eliminate the “backbone” of the nation…the two main barriers that will keep me from radically changing America into a socialist nation.

By legalizing marijuana, I would succeed in dumbing down the population and eliminating their desire to succeed as individuals, making them even more subservient and reliant on the Almighty State for their very existence, thus creating a new “Proletariat”.

Regarding Foreign Policy, I would bow in deference to other world leaders, demonstrating to them and the rest of the world, that I do not believe that the United States of America, whom I am supposed to be the Biggest Advocate for, is exceptional in any way.

I would not negotiate with America’s Enemies from a position of strength. Instead, I would blindly trust those who have sworn to kill us, even if they are on the threshold of building a nuclear bomb, simply because I identify with their Political Ideology, which masquerades as a religion.

I would pull out of still turbulent areas in the Middle East, encouraging the Barbaric Forces of Radical Islam to move in and conquer the very cities where our Brightest and Best sacrificed their lives in service to America.

On the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, I would sit at a solemn International Memorial Service, smacking my gum like a cow chews his cud, as if I was behind the bench at a Chicago Bulls Basketball Game, dishonoring our fallen and enraging our allies.

In other words, I would embrace America’s Enemies, and alienate America’s Friends.

I would use the finest military in the world as a subject for Social Engineering Experiments, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and moving women into combat positions, even though their lack of physical strength would endanger the American Soldiers they are fighting beside.

I would trade 5 Murderous Muslim Terrorist Generals, for one useless, traitorous, American Army Deserter, who was discharged in 2006 from the Coast Guard for Psychological Issues, who later converted to the Religious/Political Ideology of his Captors, and whose Father’s Youtube Account praised the same Radical Muslims and their Political Ideology which poses as a religion, just because I wish to make a Political Point about closing the prison in which the enemies of our country were being held.

I would use the Judicial System, The Department of Justice, the NSA, and  Internal Revenue Service as my Palace Guard, using Activist judges to overturn the will of the people and harassing political opposition through uncalled-for Tax Audits.

I would use unmanned drones and blimps for unwarranted surveillance on American Citizens.

I would push for Gun Confiscation, calling it “Gun Control”, in the “name of the children”, all the while supporting the murder of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs, because having a baby is “a punishment”.

Because, after all, as Vladimir Lenin said,

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. 

I would imperiously announce that if Congress did not pass the laws that I wanted them to pass, I would go around them and rule by Executive Order.

I would open our Southern Borders, bypassing our immigration laws, encouraging millions of illegal aliens to enter our nation, including unaccompanied minors, spurred on by propaganda intentionally leaked to their Latin American Home Nations in support of this Mexican Munchkin Migration.

All the while, pushing Congress for “Immigration Reform”, i.e., “Amnesty”, in order to assure that my Political Party would hold onto their Political Power, in order to finish the intentional “Radical Change” of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

And, if Congress refused to follow my wishes, I would attempt to grant Amnesty through “Executive Order”, bypassing the System of Checks and Blances that America’s Founding Fathers put into place, so long ago, in or5der to avoid a monarchy, such as they rebelled against.

Finally, if I were a Socialist U.S. President, I would blame others for my incompetency. I would portray myself as a victim of a Capitalist System and a Racist Ideology that was still prevalent in a nation that was too narrow-minded to allow me to lead them to a Socialist Paradise, even though my wife and I were worth millions or dollars, I was the President of the United States of America, and we took numerous vacations and went on “fact-finding missions” at the expense of the American Taxpayers.

Of course, that could never happen HERE, could it?

Norman Matoon Thomas (1884-1968) was a six-time Presidential Candidate  representing the Socialist Party of America.  In a campaign interview in 1948, he said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Aftermath of the San Bernadino Massacre: Should Mosques Be Monitored?

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Say-It-NRD-600Investigators are still following the spider’s web of contacts and information, regarding the massacre in San Bernadino, California, perpetrated by Radical Islamists.

The trail has now led them to the local mosque.

The New York Post reports that

The cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook worshipped claims he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. But phone records and other evidence uncovered by federal investigators cast suspicion on his story.

The FBI has questioned the cleric, Roshan Zamir Abbassi, about his phone communications with Farook — including a flurry of at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

Abbassi maintained at a press conference that he didn’t know Farook any better than he knew the reporters in the room. But members of the mosque say Farook was a fixture there. He had been coming to pray and study at least three times a week for two years. In fact, he memorized the Koran at there, something you cannot do without learning Arabic, a subject Abbassi teaches.

His other assertion that he never even saw Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, also strains credulity. Malik joined her husband in shooting 35 of his government co-workers at a Christmas party.

“No one knows anything about his wife,” assistant imam Mahmood Nadvi agreed. “She never came to prayer.”

But longtime mosque member Gasser Shehata, who claimed to have prayed “shoulder to shoulder” with Farook, said Dar-al-Uloom prepared a chicken-and-rice dinner to celebrate the couple’s wedding last year. Reportedly, hundreds of congregants attended the walima reception, including the mosque leadership.

Asked if Farook was radicalized at the mosque, Abbassi snapped, “Never.” He said the mosque teaches only peace, insisting no one has even an “extremist idea.”

“In Islam,” he said, “we are against innocent killing.”

Abbassi recently posted a message on Facebook condemning the United States and other Western nations for their Mideast policies, arguing they are equally guilty of violence to achieve political and religious goals. His mosque’s Web page features a video claiming that the San Bernardino shooting was carried out by the US government in a “false flag conspiracy,” and that Farook and Malik were “patsies” assassinated “by government-sponsored perpetrators.”

Another person of interest is Abbassi’s brother, Mohammad Sabir Abbassi, a Muslim activist who serves as a trustee and English teacher at the San Diego mosque once headed by the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

FBI Agent Joel Anderson said in court filings that Farook indicated he was a big fan of Awlaki and listened to a series of sermons about jihad and martyrdom called “The Hereafter.”

In his filing, Anderson says Farook studied the ultra-orthodox Islamic sect Tablighi Jamaat. US officials say the cult, with 50,000 members, is rife with jihadists, and jihadi groomers are recruiting at mosques in at least 10 states.

“We have significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States,” said Assistant FBI Director Michael Heimbach, “and we have found that al Qaeda used them for recruiting.”

Homeland Security Department veteran Philip Haney said Dar-al-Uloom was among the mosques his agency was investigating as part of a probe of the Tablighi movement.

“Individuals who were already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque,” Haney claimed in a Fox News interview.

He said he ID’d some 300 jihadists and terrorists tied to the movement in the United States before the Obama regime pulled the plug on the investigation in 2012. Known Tablighi alumni include the Lackwanna Six, the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, shoe bomber Richard Reid, dirty bomber José Padilla and would-be Brooklyn Bridge bomber Iyman Faris.

“We have nothing to hide,” Roshan Abbassi asserted.

Investigators shouldn’t take his word for it.

So, given this, should American Mosques be monitored for Terrorist Activity?

One Congressman made an excellent case for it, yesterday.

CNSNews.com reports that

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Sunday mosques in the United States should be placed under surveillance regardless of the complaints of civil libertarians since “the fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.”Fox News Sunday stand-in host Doug McKelway asked the chairman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterintelligence and terrorism about recent comments in favor of 24/7 monitoring of mosques.

“I can hear the cries of civil libertarians and constitutionalists right now, Congressman,” McKelway said.

“Yeah, listen, they can cry all they want,” King replied. “The fact is, that’s where the threat is coming from.  And we can say that 98, 99 percent of the Muslims in this country are good people. (I’m actually swearing in the first elected Muslim on Long Island into office, she’s a good friend of mine.)

“So, this is nothing against Muslims, but the fact is that is where the threat is coming from,” he continued. “And we’re kidding ourselves. We have this blind political correctness which makes no sense.

King offered several examples of cases where radical sentiment aired in U.S. mosques had allegedly not been reported to law enforcement agencies.

One of the two Boston Marathon bombers (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) had been asked to leave a mosque because of radical statements, he recalled, “but nobody in the mosque ever told the police, nobody ever told the FBI.”

King said there were incidents in his Long Island congressional district in which “we’ve had people in mosques who have spoken radically, who spoke of their intentions to be involved in jihad [and fight with al-Qaeda].

“It was never told to the police, never told to the police at all,” he said. “And when you talk to police off the record, they will tell you that they get very little cooperation from within the leaders of the Muslim community.”

Asked whether law enforcement agencies were being restricted in their ability to monitor mosques, King said Justice Department guidelines present difficulties.

“Local police, and again in New York, the NYPD, they do a phenomenal job,” he said. “The Civil Liberties Union, the New York Times have tried to cut back on that.  Mayor [Bill] de Blasio I think made too many concessions.”

“They’re still doing a great job – don’t get me wrong. But they are doing it in spite of a lot of the restraints that he’s sort of tried to put on them. But as far as the Feds, they are very limited. They basically cannot be infiltrating mosques. I think that has to be done.”

Longstanding calls for the monitoring of mosques in the U.S. grew louder following the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., the deadliest such attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

After President Obama delivered a prime-time Oval Office address four days later, King tweeted his disapproval: “Not one proposal would have prevented California attacks. Nothing about need for increased surveillance of Muslim community. Pitiful.”

During a Republican presidential debate the following week, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said the argument that monitoring mosque sermons would violate U.S. Muslims’ First Amendment rights was “utter nonsense.”

“If Islam is as wonderful and peaceful as its adherents say, shouldn’t they be begging us to all come in and listen to these peaceful sermons?” Huckabee asked.

“If there’s something so secretive going on in there that somebody isn’t allowed to go and hear it, maybe we do need for sure to send somebody in there and gather the intelligence,” he said.

Gosh. I have no idea how Americans could have ever associated Islam with Radical Islamic Terrorism.

After all, those were Southern Baptists who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, weren’t they?

What does the Islamic Book of Faith, the Koran (Quran) say about “killing in the Name of the Prophet (Mohammed)”?

  • Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
  • Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
  • Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-”  This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes.  It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle.  Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.  (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).
  • Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…”  Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
  • Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
  • Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

While I have met some very nice American Muslims, I have also been inside a mosque where I was looked at as if they wanted to take a scimitar to my neck.

If Moderate Muslims are not behind their radical brethren’s eternal jihad against us infidels, they need to get their mugs in front of the cable news networks’ TV cameras and say so…because all I see representing them when I turn on the news, are the abrasive members of CAIR, blaming America for all the world’s troubles.

Secondly, why are American liberals so naively defending these barbarians?

Are they so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge liberals on this fact, they try to equate radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

Recently, I have heard and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between an in-ground swimming pool and a garden hose.

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

What is lacking today in the Halls of Power is the Spiritual Gift of “Discernment”.

The safety of American Citizens should be the priority of our Political Leaders.

As Dr. Richard D. Land, noted Theologian and Executive Editor of The Christian Post, remarked in a recent op ed,

It should be remembered that being “compassionate” includes being compassionate to all concerned, both those who are here in the U.S. as well as those who want to come. Being compassionate does not require, or even allow us, to voluntarily expose our neighbors’ jugular veins to those who would do them harm without our neighbors’ prior expressed permission.

Until He Comes,

KJ