America’s Culture War: This Encroaching Darkness

American FreedomFor we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. – Ephesians 6:12

Am I insane? (Don’t answer that.) Or, have you noticed that, beginning back in January of 2009, the doors of decency and Old Fashioned American Values began coming off at the hinges even faster than they were before?

The internet is abuzz everyday with the left’s banshee screams for Gun Control , the “enlightened ones” incessant cries for Marijuana Legalization and all of their drug-addled, naivete-laden arguments in favor of it, and the whining and strawman arguments associated with the push to change the definition of the word “marriage”, so that Adam and Steve may be viewed as “normal”, and live, as least for a couple or years, as “husband” and…err…umm…”husband”.

Globally, our allies are swiftly becoming our enemies, as this Administration embraces and panders to a Political Ideology masquerading as a religion, whose avid followers want to kill each and every one of us “infidels.” In fact, Obama and his Administration want our strongest ally, God’s Chosen People, Israel, to give up half of their country to a nomadic people, the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, in a related story, earthquakes and violent weather have become commonplace in our nation and “the smartest people in the room” can not figure out why.

All this mayhem continues to dominate the 24-hour News Cycle, as Americans, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, either continue the struggle to find employment, or simply give up.

Yet, this nation re-elected, as I referred to him once, “an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, card-carrying Communist”.

Has God taken His hand of providence and protection off this country?

A man, who would be considered a cornball by the standards of today’s Socially-Liberal Fiscally Conservative Liberals, Moderates, and “Libertarians”, wrote a prophetic analysis of today’s current events.

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. 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”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

John Adams, the second President of these United States, delivered the following message to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts on October 11, 1798:

Gentleman,

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. In the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The scripture I quoted at the beginning of today’s Blog is one of my favorites.  You see, both of these great Americans, Paul Harvey and John Adams, knew that there is spiritual warfare happening every moment of the day,  around each and every one of us.

Are the Powers of Darkness winning?

For example. if  you look at Horror Movies nowadays, all of them seem to seek to glorify the Powers of Darkness….and they seem to be very popular with young Americans.

Why is the Occult, including Satan and his Demons so fascinating to impressionable Americans?

Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church offers some background in answer to that question:

His knowledge, presence, and power are limited because he is an angelic being (a guardian cherub according to Ezekiel 28:14) created by God for the purpose of glorifying and serving God. However, he became proud in his heart and desired to be worshiped and exalted like God. So, he declared war on God and one-third of the angels joined his army to oppose God. Judged by God for his sin, the Serpent was then cast down to the earth (Isa. 14:11–23; Ezek. 28:1–19). Upon the earth he appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve by twisting God’s word and lying (Gen. 3:1–24). After successfully tempting Adam and Eve to sin, he was judged and cursed by God for his sin and told that Jesus would ultimately come to completely defeat him, though Jesus would suffer physical harm in their conflict (Gen. 3:14–15).

The motivation for all of the Serpent’s work is pride and self-glory instead of humility and God-glory (Ezek. 28:2; James 4:6–7). Subsequently, one of his most powerful allies in opposing God’s people is their own pride.

A lot of Americans have been raised to believe that they are their own God, and even some of them that were raised in the church have become victims of this popular culture. So, now, as God’s Word tells us, they want their “ears tickled”.

Were Paul Harvey and John Adams speaking about the situation we find our country in on January 19, 2014?

Do you see it? Or, is it just me?

Until He Comes,

KJ

In Defense of “Lone Survivor” and Our Brightest and Best: An Open Letter to Amy Nicholson From an Average American

Lone SurvivorPREFACE:  Yesterday, as I was surfing the web at lunch, I came across a headline from TheBlaze.com, which stated that Glenn Beck had challenged a LA Times Writer to say what she had written about the more popular movie in America, the heroic tale of the self-sacrificing Navy Seals, led by Marcus Luttrell, who, except for Luttrell, all gave their lives in the call of duty, to the face of the “Lone Survivor” himself, Marcus Luttrell.

The writer in question is Amy Nocholson, an unabashedly Liberal hack.

In order for you to complete understand the epic rant which I am about to unleash, I chose to reprint the article in question in its entirety. I hope you have a strong stomach.

SYNOPIS:  Based on The New York Times bestselling true story of heroism, courage and survival, Lone Survivor tells the heroic, patriotic tale of four Navy SEALs, led by Marcus Luttrell,  on a covert mission to neutralize a high-level al-Qaeda operative who are ambushed by the enemy in the mountains of Afghanistan and are left to fight for their lives in one of the most valiant efforts of modern warfare.. Faced with an impossible moral decision, the small band is isolated from help and surrounded by a much larger force of Taliban ready for war. As they confront unthinkable odds together, the four men find reserves of strength and resilience as they stay in the fight to the finish.

THE ARTICLE: 

Here’s a movie that’ll flop in Kabul. Lone Survivor, the latest by Battleship director Peter Berg, is a jingoistic snuff film about a Navy SEAL squadron outgunned by the Taliban in the mountainous Kunar province. After four soldiers — played with muscles and machismo by Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster — get ID’d by Afghan goat herders, they’re in a race to climb to the top of the nearest summit and summon an airlift before these civilians can sprint to the nearest village and alert local leader Ahmad Shah. It doesn’t go well. 

Berg’s flick bleeds blood red, bone-fracture white, and bruise blue. It’s based on the memoir Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 by sole evacuee Marcus Luttrell (played by Wahlberg) — and that’s only a spoiler if you’ve ignored the title. Luttrell didn’t exactly write his book. Rather than sitting in front of a word processor, he was back in action in Iraq. Instead, the United States Navy hired British novelist Patrick Robinson, who, among other embellishments, upped the number of enemy Taliban fighters from 10 to 200. Hey, whatever, man. Those aliens in Battleship weren’t real, either. 

Lone Survivor’s problems are more complex than its Rambo-esque exuberance for machine-gun fire. The near-wordless second half is a deadly dubstep of bullets and snare drums punctuated with the occasional curse. Here’s 90 seconds of dialogue transcribed in its entirety: “Goddamn, this sucks!” “Fuck you!” “Fuck!” “Damn, fucking burns!” This doesn’t help advance the plot, which can pretty much be summed up as: Don’t die. And the film actually gets worse when the guys open their mouths.

These four men were heroes. But these heroes were also men. As the film portrays them, their attitudes to the incredibly complex War on Terror, fought hillside by bloody hillside in the Afghan frontier with both U.S. and Taliban forces contributing to an unconscionably high civilian body count, were simple: Brown people bad, American people good. When the guys debate whether to kill the three goat herders who’ve stumbled onto their hiding place — a dilemma that, morality aside, could have been solved if any of them had recalled that middle school logic problem about the fox, the chicken, the feed, and the too-small boat — Foster grabs an unarmed teenager by the face and insists, “That’s death. Look at death.” And when the firefight starts, he bellows, “You can die for your country — I’m going to live for mine.”

We’re meant to cheer, not that anyone in my theater did. But there will be audiences who do, and I’m not entirely sure I’m comfortable with what they’re cheering for. This is death. Look at death. 

Berg is no dummy. He’s done the right thing by refusing to whitewash these guys as saints, although three of the four are depicted as devoted husbands and fiancées, and the fourth gets to be Mark Wahlberg. And Berg is justified in hoisting these guys up as real-life action stars, building his case with an opening montage of actual Navy SEAL training footage in which screaming instructors winnow a pack of athletes into an all-for-one-one-for-all band of badass brothers who, when forced to float in freezing ocean waves, link arms and sing “Silent Night.”

They were ready for action. “We wanted that fight at the highest volume,” Wahlberg says, “the loudest, coldest, darkest, most unpleasant of the unpleasant fights.” OK, but did the local villagers whom we see get caught in the crossfire want that fight? Each, like Wahlberg’s Luttrell, had families and friends and a full life, and each gets dispatched without a second thought.

I’d like to think that, on some level, Berg is questioning the sense of a film — and a foreign policy — that makes target practice of our magnificent teams of hard-bodied, hairy-chested, rootin’-tootin’, shootin’, parachutin’, double-cap-crimpin’ frogmen, these soldiers who decorate their bunks with baby pictures of themselves next to an American flag and are so nobly eager to sacrifice their lives for each other and their country. But the ammo doesn’t stop blasting long enough for their deaths to have weight. Instead, Lone Survivor just reads like a quasi-political exaggeration of a slasher film: the cellphones that don’t work, the rescuers just out of reach, the killers chasing our victims through the woods.

What are we meant to learn from this waste of life? Who is even to blame? All Lone Survivor offers is the queasiest apology of the year. Grunts a battered Wahlberg to his even more-battered best buddy, “I’m sorry that we didn’t kill more of these motherfuckers.” Replies his fellow soldier, “Oh, don’t be f!@king sorry. We’re going to kill way more of them.”

KJ’S RANT…err…RESPONSE:

Exactly when did Liberals lose their cotton-pickin’ minds?

Well, I believe that this present-day Liberal ungrateful insanity can be traced back to the 1960s. During the days of the Vietnam “Conflict”, even though Adult Liberals were opposed to the war, they were respectful of our Brightest and Best. It was Collegians and under who acted like a bunch of idiots, disrespecting our Armed Forces, and traditional American Values.

As this generation moved through Adulthood, their children had children, and produced the mindless zombies we confront everyday, who classify themselves as Liberals or “Socially-Liberal Libertarians”.

Ms. Nicholson is one of those zombies.

Please note her use of the word “Jingoistic” This is a derisive word which has been in vogue with Liberals for a while now to describe the emotion which normal Americans feel, called “Patriotism”.

Liberals, such as Ms. Nicholson, are selfish, cravenly creatures. They do not seem to, nor care to understand that they live in the greatest country on Earth. They are too narrow-minded to fathom the sacrifices which brave American men and women have made and are making, on their behalf.

Just as an infant  knows that if they cry loud enough, some one will pay attention to them and give them what they want, so do Liberals understand that if they are anti-American enough in their statements and actions, then they will receive the attention that they so crave from the rest of the “smartest people in the room.”

Ms. Nicholson, believing in her own “superior intelligence ” and “moral superiority”, decided to do a hatchet job on this movie and the brave men who protected her freedom to denigrate them in print.

Ms. Nicholson is representative of those same effete snobs who believe that any movie, such as the Box Office Bomb “Redacted”, which attacked our Armed Forces, will be a sure-fire hit, and then, cannot understand why such a movie is welcomed by the sound of crickets in America’s movie theaters.

I have ranted before that there is a Culture War going on in our country…one between the effete Liberal slobs, located in the Northeast and on the Left Coast, and average Americans, like you and me, struggling to cope with the consequences of their stupidity, here in the Heartland.

You and I would never disrepect our Fallen Warriors, like this ignorant hack has. We were raised right.

The respect we have for patriotic men of courage, like the Lone Survivor, the Patriot, Marcus Luttrell, and all of our Fallen Warriors, is immeasurable.

Ms. Nicholson, you haven’t got a clue.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Former Secretary of Defense Gates Spills the Beans About America’s Prevaricator-In-Chief

ObamalyingThe hottest story in the News today revolves around the revealing White House Insider Information from a soon-to-be published memoir by Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

To set up these stunning revelations properly, let’s hop in the Wayback machine, Sherman,so that we can ponder the words of a rising young wunderkind…a certain Democrat Senator from the great state of Illinois…

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

– then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., January 10 2007, discussing then-President Bush’s proposal for a surge of troops in Iraq

Today, 1518 days after it began, the war in Iraq rages on, with no sign of a resolution. The Iraqi people appear no closer to the settling their differences. The Iraqi government is more divided and dysfunctional than ever. The Iraqi parliament speaks of adjourning for the summer, without addressing the major issues standing in the way of a ceasefire. And our brave young servicemen and women are still fighting and dying to police someone else’s civil war… In January, I introduced a plan that already would have begun redeploying our troops out of Iraq, with the goal of removing all of our combat troops by March 31. But it also would offer enough flexibility to delay our exit in the event that the Iraqis responded with meaningful steps toward peace. I still believe in that approach, which the President vetoed earlier this month. Ultimately, I think it will become the framework for a bipartisan coalition the President can’t resist.

Today, I have reintroduced that plan.

Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin’s proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding.

I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly.

– Statement of Sen. Obama on May 15, 2007, before voting to withdrawal US combat troops from Iraq within four months, with all troops gone by March 31, 2008

The surge is not working.

– Obama for American website changed in July 2008

Now, I’m certain that Sen. Obama gathered all the pertinent facts about the proposed surge before he made those statements, aren’t you?

Are you kiddin’?

Dailymail.co.uk reports that

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a likely Democratic Party standard-bearer in the 2016 presidential contest, staked out her military-related positions in the 2008 race based on how they would play politically, according to a former secretary of defense who served in both the Obama and Bush administrations.

Describing a ‘remarkable’ exchange he witnessed, Robert Gates writes in a book due out next week that ‘Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.’

Obama, too, ‘conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political,’ Gates recounts. ‘To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.’

And Gates recounts how, as the president lost faith in Gen. David Petraeus’s handling of hostilities in Afghanistan, he – Gates – lost faith in Obama’s commitment to accomplishing much of anything.

‘As I sat there,’ he recalls, ‘I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand [President Hamid] Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his.’

‘For him, it’s all about getting out.’

Hillary Clinton staked out her Iraq policy in late 2006 not on a military calculation, but based on how she could aid her soon-to-come presidential campaign, according to Gates’ memoir.

Gates puts on paper his reflections about Obama’s own troop surge, a move of 30,000 armed personnel into Afghanistan meant to stabilize the country in advance of a final all-out troop withdrawal.

The commander-in-chief, he says, was ‘skeptical if not outright convinced it would fail.’

‘I never doubted Obama’s support for the troops,’ Gates insists, ‘only his support for their mission.’

Ultimately, Gates nearly quit over Obama’s hand-wringing about Afghanistan, he writes.

The Bush administration hold-over reveals in his memoir that he was ‘deeply uneasy with the Obama White House’s lack of appreciation – from the top down – of the uncertainties and unpredictability of war.’

Describing a contentious day when Obama evaluated his Afghanistan strategy, Gates recalls: ‘I came closer to resigning that day than at any other time in my tenure, though no one knew it.’

Mrs. Clinton’s cameo in the book is more brief but equally damning.

While a U.S. senator and former first lady, she announced in the days leading up to her entry in the 2008 White House race that that she opposed the George W. Bush administration’s ‘surge’ of 20,000 troops in Iraq. 

At the time, she proposed a freeze in the number of active military troops there, and suggested instead that more U.S. forces should be sent to Afghanistan to protect against a feared Taliban offensive. 

In late 2006, nearly two years before the Democrats’ nominating convention, Clinton could not afford to be seen as hawkish when other Democrats – especially Obama, her presumed principal opponent – were blaming President Bush for putting ever-more boots on the ground in the Middle East.

In the Senate, she had voted in favor of an October 2002 use-of-force resolution that put the United States on war footing against Iraq, following allegations that the dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

So, Obama, a Former Collegiate Protester and Far Left Radical, can’t stand our Brightest and Best.

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

The feeling is mutual. Back on October 23rd, 2013, theblaze.com reported that

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is underway.

Retired generals and current senior commanders that have spoken with TheBlaze say the administration is not only purging the military of commanders they don’t agree with, but is striking fear in the hearts of those still serving.

The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.

“I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not tow the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis,” a senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution.

“Even as a retired general, it’s still possible for the administration to make life miserable for us. If we’re working with the government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us,” he said.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

I don’t know why the Major General is so concerned. I’m sure that Obama’s firing of America’s Military Leadership was nothing personal.

Like his opposition to the Iraq Surge…it was strictly political.

Now…doesn’t that make everyone feel better? …And, safer?

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Obama Vs. The Little Sisters of the Poor

American FreedomWhen I was a child, I was taught by my parents to respect others. Quite frankly, I was raised to be a Southern Gentleman.

Any slip in saying “Yes, ma’am” or “No, sir” was met by a swift correction by my mother.

That same respect went out to everyone, regardless of their religion. I suppose that it was because my folks were members of America’s Greatest Generation, as I have recorded before, who all pulled together in the dark days of the Depression, the terrifying days of Word War II, and the uncertain days of the Cold War, when there was a nuke hidden around every corner.

They had to work hard, and with one another, for everything they had, and, in doing so, they became determined that their children would be raised with American values, principles, and ethics.

A couple of examples that I remember of that “mutual respect”, centered around my Mother. When I was in Second Grade, around 1965, she came down with severe Diabetes. Her doctor was a wonderful, old Jewish gentleman, whom my Mother had worked the Front Desk for.  He made sure that she got the best of care in the hospital, because she was not only his past employee, but his friend, as well.

While I was visiting my Mother in St. Joseph Hospital, in Memphis, TN, in walked this big, Black man, wearing a suit, with a red liturgical shirt and collar. His name was Parker, and he worked the loading dock at the 20 story Sears Building in Midtown Memphis, where my folks worked. He was another friend of their’s.

I remember his big old smile, and soft gentle demeanor, as his huge hands enveloped mine and my Mother’s, as he led us in a prayer for her recovery.

Not to beat a dead horse, but, please remember, this was Memphis, TN, in 1965.

Blows your Southern Stereotypes all to Hades, doesn’t it?

But, I digress…

Anyway, I was sitting at my desk in my office at work yesterday, when a Bing Update flashed across the top of my computer screen that President Barack Hussein Obama, still blowing $4,000,0000 OF OUR MONEY in Hawaii on his Family Vay-cay and his Administration, were urging the Supreme court to ignore Justice Sotomayor’s unexpected temporary injunction, stopping the Administration from forcing Catholic Institutions to provide free Birth Control, including abortiafacients, under Obamacare.

Politico.com summarizes the situation…

On New Year’s Eve, Sotomayor granted the Denver nursing home a last-minute, temporary reprieve from the health care law requirement that health coverage for employees include contraception. She will now have to decide whether to keep the temporary order in place, dissolve it, or take the issue to the other justices, who could decide to review the whole case in the coming months.

Justice Department lawyers in their response Friday said that the Little Sisters for the Poor Home for the Aged uses a Christian health insurer that is recognized as a church under U.S. employment law — and is already exempt from the Affordable Care Act contraception requirement.

“Applicants have no legal basis to … complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage,” government lawyers wrote to the court.“This case involves a church plan that is exempt from regulation” under a 1974 labor law that predates the president’s health care law.

The Little Sisters, in their reply to the government’s brief on Friday afternoon, said that signing a piece of paper allowing contraception — even if it doesn’t result in contraception being handed out —is itself a violation of their religious protections. That certification is part of the current legal process for religious non-profits that object to providing the contraception.

No matter which path Sotomayor takes, the central questions on contraception and religious nonprofits could eventually work their way through the legal system and return to the high court through this case or a different one.

The court has already agreed to take two separate challenges to the contraceptive requirement, but they involve religious owners of for-profit businesses, not religious nonprofits like this Denver nursing home. Dozens of religious-affiliated groups, dissatisfied with the Obama administration’s attempts to address their concerns, have petitioned federal courts to eliminate the requirement.

Anything the court does in the Little Sisters case could also affect nearly 500 religious non-profits that work with the Little Sisters and others on the lawsuit.

In all, more than 90 legal challenges have been filed around the country. A Supreme Court decision against the contraceptive rule would undercut but not cripple the health law. The birth control rule is a small piece of the overall law, but it’s been another source of ongoing political controversy for President Barack Obama’s signature law.

The Obama administration argues that employer health plans need to include contraception to ensure that women and their babies are healthy. Opponents of the policy — notably, the Catholic bishops — say that the administration is requiring some businesses to forgo religious beliefs against the use of contraception.

The case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged falls into an unexpected loophole in the ACA’s contraception coverage.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration tried through regulations to accommodate religious-affiliated nonprofits over contraception. It allowed groups like the Little Sisters to tell their insurance company or third-party administrator that they objected on religious grounds. The insurer or administrator would then have to provide contraceptives to the employees at no charge.

The premise was that an insurer or administrator would not have the same objection to providing such products. But the catch here is that the Little Sisters’ administrator — the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust — is also run by a religious order.

The Christian Brothers, who joined the Little Sisters on the lawsuit, qualify as a church under employment law known as ERISA. And under that law, if they don’t want to provide contraception, the federal government has no recourse to force them to do so.

So, why is the Obama Administration so desperately trying to make Catholic Institutions provide services which are diametrically opposed tho the tenents of their faith?

I believe that it is all about respect for Americans’ Faith.

With this Administration, more so than any Administration which has gone before, the insensitivity and, downright blatant opposition to the role of Christianity in American Everyday Life, has led to the heretofore unthinkable situation of the Department of Justice and the American Court System being used as a bludgeon to keep us “uppity” Christians in line, so that we do not interfere with the plans of a Secular All-powerful State.

Sound familiar?

The Obama Administration’s ongoing war with the Catholic Church over providing these services is just one example of a deliberate movement to isolate Christianity from American’s Everyday Lives and regulate our relationship and following of Jesus Christ to a 2-hour window on Sunday Mornings.

However, try as it may, this Administration may have Pyrrhic Victories, but in the long run, it will not succeed.

Y’see….I know how this thing ends.  I’ve read The Book.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

The Rise of the Gay Mafia: Judicial Activism Vs. The Will of the American People

judicial activismFollowing on the heels of an Activist Judge’s Ruling, forcing a Christian Baker in Phoenix to bake a “Wedding Cake” for a Lesbian Couple, who could have gone to another baker, but, who were Gay Activists making a political point, once again, Activist Judges have circumvented the will of the American people, declaring as “unconstitutional”, laws against “gay marriage”, passed by the citizens of New Mexico and Utah.

According to the judges in the New Mexico Ruling, the law violated the Equal Protection Law, in their State Constitution,as Fox News reports…

“We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law,” Justice Edward L. Chavez wrote.

With that ruling, New Mexico joined 16 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage either through legislation, court rulings or voter referendums in a trend that has dramatically shifted in just a few years nationally.

“At first, I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime,” Rand said. “But over the last few years you began noticing a change in public opinion and I thought…maybe.”

Before the ruling, eight of New Mexico’s 33 counties had already started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

County officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage. Historically, county clerks have denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples because state statutes include a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Measures to ban same-sex marriage also have failed.

Advocacy groups and supporters hailed the decision.

“I can’t get past happy, happy, happy at the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that rules in favor of freedom and equality for everyone to marry the person they love,” Santa Fe Mayor David Coss said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented same-sex couples in the Supreme Court case. They contended gay marriage must be allowed because of constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law and a state constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Meanwhile groups like the Flora Vista-based Voices for Family Values vowed to fight on. The group said its members already are gathering signatures for petitions to present to lawmakers during the upcoming session in January.

“The Catholic Church respects and loves the gay and lesbian members of our community,” the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement. “We will continue to promote Catholic teaching of the Biblical definition of marriage to be that of one man and one woman.”

Under the ruling, clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage can decline to perform wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.

Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican and who has opposed same-sex marriage, said she would have preferred voters deciding the issue rather than the courts. But she urged New Mexicans to “respect one another in their discourse” and turn their focus onto other issues facing the state.

“As we move forward, I am hopeful that we will not be divided, as we must come together to tackle very pressing issues, like reforming education and growing our economy, in the weeks and months ahead,” Martinez said.

In the case of the Utah Ruling, it was a Federal Judge who struck down the law passed by the citizens of Utah. Per Fox News,

A federal judge struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban Friday in a decision that brings an increasing nationwide shift toward allowing gay marriage to a conservative state where the Mormon church has long been against it.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling saying Utah’s law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples’ rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.

“In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens,” Shelby wrote.

Late Friday, the state filed both a notice of appeal of the ruling and a request for an emergency stay that would stop marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples. It’s unknown when the judge will make a decision on whether to grant the stay.

“It will probably take a little bit of time to get everything in place,” said Ryan Bruckman, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office. He said the judge told the attorney general’s office it would be a couple of days before any request for an emergency stay would be reviewed.

Gov. Gary Herbert vowed to “defend traditional marriage” in light of the ruling.

“I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah,” Herbert said in a statement. “I am working with my legal counsel and the acting attorney general to determine the best course to defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah.”

The Salt Lake County clerk’s office started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Deputy Clerk Dahnelle Burton-Lee said the district attorney authorized her office to begin issuing the licenses but she couldn’t immediately say how many have been issued so far.

Utah’s lawsuit was brought by three gay and lesbian couples. One of the couples was legally married in Iowa and just wants that license recognized in Utah.

Regardless of what weighted polls, and opinion-makers in the Northeast and the Left Coast try to put forward as fact, the majority of Americans, living in America’s Heartland, oppose “gay marriage”.

Just look  at a map denoting the states who allow “gay marriage” and those who have voted against it.

And, in a related issue, ask Walmart if they have any Duck Dynasty Merchandise left on their shelves. Just sayin’…

The truth is, Gay Activists could not get their way by going to the American people, so now, they, and the Liberals who walk the Halls of Power in Washington, DC, are usurping the will of the people by using Activist Judges, on both the State and Federal level, to attempt to force a change in the cultural mores or America.

The brilliant Economist and Conservative Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following about Judicial Activism:

The ultimate issue between judicial activism and judicial restraint is the institutional locus of discretion, and no amount of insistence on the desirability of change or morality answers the question as to who is to decide what specific changes or what specific morality is needed. The institutional security of federal judges, appointed for life, may provide temptations for assuming this prerogative, without providing either moral or pragmatic justification. If no authorization is needed for judges to introduce “change,” neither is it needed for generals and admirals to do the same– as in fact happens in a number of countries. Judges can conduct limited coups d’etat surreptitiously, while a military coup is usually overt and sweeping. Nevertheless, the dangers to constitutional government are no less real in the long run from judicial activism– both because of the cumulative effect of small usurpations and because small usurpations both generate pressures and provide the precedents for larger usurpations by others with different social visions.

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

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

It’s those “long-run consequences” that’ll get you every time.

Just ask the citizens of the Roman Empire.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Duck Dynasty, A & E, and Liberal Hypocrisy

duck dynastyThe Leader of the hottest Reality Show in America, a self-made millionaire, has been, at least temporarily, taken off of the show he helped build into a ratings Dynamo. His crime?He identified homosexuality as a sin.

The Hollywood Reporter has the story:

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

During a discussion about repentance and God, Robertson is asked what he finds sinful.

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Let’s examine exactly what Commander Phil said. He called homosexuality a sin…because it is.

Concerning the quote from the Bible that Commander Phil was paraphrasing, it reads the following way, in the original King James Version:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6: 9 – 10

He spoke his mind…based on the tenets of his faith.

Of course, Commander Phil’s remarks offended the always politically-correct Liberals, otherwise known as the Gay Mafia, who went whining like a bunch of little wussies to the Arts & Entertainment Channel, who then immediately decided that having Commander Phil continue to appear on his own show, would cause them to lose whatever Liberal viewers are watching “Duck Dynasty”, who are probably watching the program just to make fun of us “Inbred Southerners”.

A&E had approached Commander Phil before, concerned that the Robertsons’ Christianity, and their active Prayer Life would “offend” viewers.

They were looking for an excuse.

Evidently, these arbitrators of what is offensive to Americans have never watched “Blue Bloods”, the excellent, high-rated drama starring Conservative Tom Selleck as the New York City Police Commissioner, whose dad is a retired Police Commissioner, and whose two sons are cops and his daughter, an Assistant District Attorney. On every show, the family, including the grandchildren, gather after Mass on Sunday afternoon, for a family dinner, where, before they eat, the pray, or, as we refer to it in the Real World, here in America’s Heartland, they ” Say Grace”.

I am positive that the Liberal idiots at CBS continue to raise you-know-what about that, also.

On a related subject, it knocked me off the couch Tuesday night, when the characters said “Merry Christmas” several times during “NCIS” and “NCIS:LA”. CBS did not allow them to do that last year. They could only say “Happy Holidays”.

But, I digress…

It amazes me how completely over-run by the Liberal mantra of ambivalent morality and situational ethics the “Blue Areas” (the NE Corridor and the Left Coast) of our nation have become.

Their thought processes (and, I’m being kind) are polar opposites to those of Americans here in the Heartland, or, as they have always pompously referred to us, “Flyover Country”.

The reason Commander Phil and his family have been so overwhelmingly popular with Americans, is because they are self-made millionaires, who act like normal, everyday, Working Class Americans.

As I mentioned earlier, Liberals look down on them. I believe that A&E launched the show with the idea of the Robertsons being a “sideshow” for “the smartest people in the room” to point and laugh at.

It turned out that the joke was on them, because…

1. The Robinsons became loved, and laughed with, not at.

2. They, in fact, turned out to be “the smartest people in the room”

Oh yeah, about this “homophobia” you accuse me and other Christian American Conservatives of having…

1. We love the sinner. We hate the sin.

2. Tell that to the Liberal who described me as a “B@ll S#cking  Tea Bagger” in response to my posting of yesterday’s Blog on Ted Cruz’s Facebook Page.

A & E, like the rest of America’s Liberals, who ignore their own hypocrisy, should remember the old maxim concerning glass houses.

As demonstrated by the implosion of their fallen messiah’s Presidency, their “house” is already beginning to crumble around them.

And, this, too, shall pass…

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Why This “Unholy Crusade” Against Christianity in American and Why Don’t Atheists Attack Muslims?

charlie brown ChristmasAs we approach the celebration of the Nativity, you have probably been seeing on television and the Internet, and hearing on the radio, about all the attacks by the Progressives and Atheists (But, I repeat myself…) in our country against the 78% of our population who still identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ.

Within the last several months, we’ve seen those in charge of our nation’s Brightest and best, start taking references to Christianity on uniforms, taking out any reference to “God” from the solemn Oath that Air Force Cadets pledge upon joining, and even disciplining those who fight and die for us, for sharing their Christian Faith.

And, on top of that, there is a movement to install Atheist “Chaplains” in the United States Armed Forces!

So much for Atheists insisting that their belief system is not a religion.

And, if that’s not enough…check out this assault against Christianity, as reported by breitbart.com:

After 24 years of litigation, a federal court revealed in an emotional hearing that it has ordered the famous Mount Soledad Cross removed from a veterans memorial, holding it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Since 1913, a cross has stood as the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, surrounded by nearly 3,000 granite plaques, individually honoring war heroes from every American war, from the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The structure is a 29-foot Latin cross, which was erected in 1954. For much of this time, it was in a city park in the La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego. Then, in 1989, the ACLU filed a lawsuit, arguing that allowing a cross on government land violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This memorial has been embroiled in litigation ever since.

In 2004, Congress passed a law making this city-owned display a “national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces,” dedicated as a tribute to those service members “who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States.” Congress officially found that the “patriotic and inspirational symbolism of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial provides solace to the families and comrades of the veterans it memorializes.” Although the Latin cross is identifiably a Christian symbol, Congress noted that the memorial is also “replete with secular symbols” and symbols of other faiths, such as 18 Stars of David. In this pluralistic context, the cross plays the role of commemorating veterans’ service and death.

That law sparked the latest round of litigation in federal court. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision on this display, holding that because of the cross, the memorial “primarily conveys a message of endorsement of religion.” Specifically, it “projects a government endorsement of Christianity.”

The United States Supreme Court denied review in 2012 but sent a written message noting that the lower courts were still considering whether the memorial could be modified in a way that preserves its character. In a statement by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court signaled that it would seriously consider taking the case if these additional efforts did not produce a positive outcome.

After almost two years of additional proceedings, on Dec. 12 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California reluctantly held that under controlling precedent from the Ninth Circuit, the district judge still had no choice but to declare the cross an endorsement of Christianity. He has ordered it removed within 90 days.

Judge Larry Alan Burns read the order from the bench in court and appeared to choke up as he ordered the memorial’s destruction, observers told Breitbart News. Burns then issued a stay of his decision to give the memorial cross’s lawyers time to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally, the U.S. Justice Department defended the cross memorial. However, when President Barack Obama was elected, the government’s defense of the memorial under Attorney General Eric Holder seemed to become lackluster, and the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association stepped in to bolster the defense.

So, it’s not just the Military who are being attacked. It is Christianity in Everyday American Life. Otherwise, why would you attack a cross at a war memorial on a mountaintop, which has stood there since 1913?

School Administrators  have been attempting to block Christmas Songs which reference Christianity and the Triune God in any way from school programs.

Retail stores, who, in years past, joyfully wished customer a “Merry Christmas”, now instead, air commercials, which sing “That’s my kind of holiday.” and greet you in their stores with “Happy Holidays!”

So, why this full-blown attack on the Faith which our Founding Fathers wrote so eloquently about, and which has sustained this “shining city on a hill” through times of internal and external strife?

In other words, why are activist Atheists (and Progressives) so intent to either limit or completely eliminate Christianity’s influence on everyday American Life?

Why don’t they attack the political/religious ideology of Islam with the same fervor?

The answer to this question is simple:  Cowards will always tell you whom they are afraid of. They will avoid them, like one avoids a child with Chicken Pox.

Additionally, they expect Christians to allow them to take control by “turning the other cheek.” Evidently, they never read the scriptures which describe Jesus running the “money lenders” out of the temple, overturning tables and expressing his righteous indignation in a way in which no one con mistake it for anything else.

Or, perhaps, it’s the overwhelming overestimation in their own intelligence, which results from ignoring the influence of the God of Abraham in their life.

So, what drives them in this “Unholy Crusade”?

Bitterness, emptiness, and an unfulfilled hungering in their soul which they cannot put a finger on, is the only explanation.

Otherwise, why would you fight so hard against the influence of and worship of Someone you don’t personally believe in?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obamacare Imploding: Harry Reid…His Staff…and America’s Young People…Don’t Want it.

obamacaremoeAs I was riding to and from work yesterday, I noticed that Obamacare is still leading the news. There is no escaping it.  The Signature Legislation of  President Barack Hussein Obama installed by a totally Democratic Congressional Vote, taken in the middle of a cold winter’s night, has literally taken the Finest Healthcare System in the entire world and is turning it into an inefficient State-run, soon-to-be Single Payer, Ball of Confusion (with a nod to the great Temptations) .

But, wait…it’s not the President’s fault!!! (At least that’s what the Loony Left is saying.)

According to The Formerly Semi-sane Juan Williams, a Liberal Pundit seen on Fox News,

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

The government did not “force” insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.

Ummm…what code? You mean the code arbitrarily set by the Affordable Care Act?  That code?

As a Former Independent Health Insurance Agent, I can tell you that all policies that are now being declared “bad” under Obamacare were all approved by State Insurance Commissioners’ Offices. Otherwise, they would have never been sold.

But, please, little Juanito, carry on…

…your insurance company must cover what are called “essential health benefits.”

What are “essential health benefits?”

They are clearly defined on HealthCare.gov:

“Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.”

Hold on there, Hoss! Are you saying that the Free Birth Control which Obama is attempting to force Christian Employers to carry and which the Supreme Court will shortly decide on, is not an “essential health benefit”?

Don’t look now…but…you’re right.

Y’know…I have a question. If Obamacare is good enough for us average American Citizens…why isn’t it good enough for the people who voted for it…and their staffs?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is allowing some staffers to keep their health insurance instead of making them buy it through an ObamaCare exchange, although he was one of the strongest Capitol Hill supporters of the 2010 law.

The Nevada Democrat is exercising his discretion under the president’s signature law to designate which staffers can keep their federal insurance plan and which must now purchase a policy through the District of Columbia’s health-care exchange.

However, he purportedly is the only top congressional leader to exercise that option, which resulted in sharp criticism Wednesday from Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, perhaps the staunchest ObamaCare opponent on the Hill.

“Sen. Reid’s decision to exempt his staff … is the clearest example yet of ObamaCare’s failures and Washington hypocrisy,” he said. “His staff worked to pass it and continue to promote it, now they don’t want to be part of it because it’s a disaster.”

The distinction is between personnel staff, forced onto the exchange, and leadership and committee staff, who are allowed to keep their federal plan.

However, drawing a distinction is difficult because some duties overlap,” a Reid staffer told Fox News.

The staffer could not give a breakdown. But Reid is going on the exchange and says he is happy with its options.

An amendment to ObamaCare by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley forced staffers onto the exchanges, but additional changes allow for some flexibility. Still, the final rules, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, leave some discretion with the lawmaker. 

Discretion? Dinghy Harry is to discretion as Rosanne Barr is to Beverly Sills. (Look her up, children.)

In order for Obamacare to work, 18-29 year olds must buy into it, in order to fund the cost of older Americans. Unfortunately, for Obama and his minions…

The Harvard “Millennials” poll found only 22 percent of young Americans — defined in the survey as between 18 and 29 years old — plan to sign up for ObamaCare. Even more troubling for the administration, fewer than a third — only 29 percent — of people who currently do not have health insurance plan to enroll.

“Actuarially, the [Affordable Care Act] depends upon these young Americans signing up,” Trey Greyson, director of Harvard’s Institute Of Politics, said. “Our survey shows that the administration has a lot of work to do to get them on board.”

Indeed, the Affordable Care Act relies on a large pool of young, healthy enrollees to pay for older, sicker Americans. Without their premium support, the entire system is at risk of collapse.

As I wrote yesterday, Obama is in the middle of a huge Youth Push, trying desperately to get America’s “yutes” to buy into his Ponzi Scheme.

So far, it looks like Obama and the Dems have misjudged America’s Young People.

They seem to want no part of Obamacare.

Gosh. It’s almost like they were actually raised here. 

Until He Comes,

KJ

Thanksgiving 2013: The Anchor Holds.

Thanksgiving2013Thanksgiving Day.

Simply saying the words to myself brings back a flood of precious memories…memories of Thanksgivings past, as a child, surrounded by aunts, uncles, cousins, my sisters, and my Mother and Daddy…smells of sage dressing and oven-roasted turkey..followed by the feeling of having an over-stuffed stomach…all topped by the sounds of laughter and the sight of my aunts and uncles, all members of America’s Greatest Generation, being led in a penny-ante poker game after the Thanksgiving meal by my Daddy, the finest man I have ever known…all of them enjoying each other’s company as they reveled in the wonderful completeness of being a family.

Thanksgiving is a uniquely American Holiday…as unique as the nation which celebrates it.

In 1621, a small group of Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians shared a feast celebrating the autumn harvest. This is acknowledged today as one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the colonies.

However, Thanksgiving is much more than this.

Thanksgiving is a day when Americans thank their Creator for the blessings they have received during the year, while holding hope and expetation in their hearts for the blessings yet to come.

The Father of Our Country expressed his thankfulness concerning God and America, when he announced this holiday in 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor – and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war –for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions – to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually – to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed – to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord – To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us – and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789. – United States President George Washington.

On October 3, 1863, in the middle of the darkness and strife of a Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the following…

By the President of the United States

A Proclamation

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict; while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a Day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United Stated States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-eighth. 

Abraham Lincoln

The intestinal fortitude that is our heritage as Americans…along with that still, small voice which still resides in each and every one of us, will continue, I pray, to guide our nation, and spur us on, to stay vigilant and protect our American Freedom, just as my Parents’ Generation did, against the Axis of Evil.

This Thanksgiving Day 2013, I’m thankful for Americans who are still making a difference.  Americans who still love God and country, and stand on principle with their feet planted on a Solid Rock, and not on shifting sands.

They are the reason we remain, in spite of all that has befallen us in the last 5 years, the greatest country on Earth.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Michelle Obama, “There But For the Grace of God Go I”. Invoking God to Sell Obamacare

michelleobama2The First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, has been called into action to try and help salvage the rapidly-tanking Affordable Care Act, known throughout America as “Obamacare”.  And, the Separation of Church and State that her and her fellow Progressives are always clamoring about, evidently, does not apply to the Ruling class.

According to the Washington Examiner,

The president has dispatched first lady Michelle Obama to rally Democrats around his beleaguered Obamacare which she has boiled down to one religious phrase: “There but for the grace of God go I.”

At a New York City fundraiser for Senate Democrats Monday, the first lady opened with a long defense of Obamacare, suggesting her audience lives by the principle that everyone should have insurance.

“We don’t believe in handouts. We don’t think anyone should get a free ride,” she said Monday afternoon in a speech at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers.

“But we also understand one simple principle — that there but for the grace of God go I; that in the blink of an eye, any of us — any of us — could be faced with a terrible diagnosis. Any of us could be injured in a horrible accident. Any of us could lose the job we count on to support our family — any of us,” she said.

“And when that happens, it shouldn’t mean falling off a cliff. It shouldn’t mean having to go without food, or medicine, or a roof over our heads — not here in the United States of America. Not in the greatest country on the planet. That is not who we are,” Obama added.

She conceded that political fights over the years, including over Obamacare, haven’t been a cakewalk. “I know it hasn’t always been easy. I know that there have been plenty of ups and downs over these years,” she said.

But, she added, the fight to keep Obamacare is something Democrats should join, not quit as it is besieged with problems. “What happened last month reminded us that the folks that we send to Washington make decisions about some very important issues — issues that affect our lives every single day. Will we be able to see a doctor when we’re sick? Will our businesses have what they need to create good jobs? Will our kids have what they need to learn and grow — things like decent nutrition, safe streets, good schools?”

Interesting. So, who is The Great Provider, Mrs. Obama, Jehovah Jireh, the Federal Government, Allah, or Diwali, the Hindu God of Wealth and Prosperity, whom you hosted an event for at the White House, 2 weeks ago last night?

Mrs. Obama’s officially-approved bio, found on The Biography Channel, reads

Michelle was raised on Chicago’s South Side in a one-bedroom apartment. Her father, Fraser Robinson, was a city pump operator and a Democratic precinct captain. Her mother, Marian, was a Spiegel’s secretary who later stayed home to raise Michelle and her older brother, Craig. The family has been described as a close-knit one that shared family meals, read and played games together.

What you won’t see, in any “approved” biography, is a little tidbit reported by TheBlaze.com on 10/30/12…

Princeton, 1984.

Michelle Obama attends and promotes a “Black Solidarity” event for guest lecturer Manning Marable, who was, according to Cornel West, probably “the best known black Marxist in the country.” The event is the work of the Third World Center (TWC), a campus group whose board membership is exclusively reserved for minorities.

Michelle Obama (Robinson at the time) was one of those 19 board members and a leader of the organization. She helped to dispense what was, in today’s dollars, a $30,000 budget. Of the 19 elected positions on the board, there were two reserved spots for each of the five ethnic groups TWC purported to represent: Asian, Black, Chicano, Puerto Rican, and Native American.

The board also had representatives from the various minority organizations on campus, including Accion Puertorriquena y Amigos, the Asian-American Students Association, the Black Graduate Caucus, and the Chicano Caucus, among others. She also fundraised for the TWC by participating in its African-themed fashion show and fundraisers. It was a controversial and racially-charged organization.

Moving forward 24 years, on February 8, 2008, Jake Tapper reported the following for ABC News…

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Then in Madison, she said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Some conservatives out there seem to find Mrs. Obama’s quote offensive, wondering why a 44 year old woman never felt proud before today.

Asked for a response to the remark, Obama campaign spox Bill Burton said, “Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change.”

What was that Mooch…err…Michelle said Monday? Oh, yeah…

“And when that happens, it shouldn’t mean falling off a cliff. It shouldn’t mean having to go without food, or medicine, or a roof over our heads — not here in the United States of America. Not in the greatest country on the planet. That is not who we are,” Obama added.

So, who are we, Mrs. Obama? The country you were not proud of? The racist, bigoted country whom you railed against at Princeton?

Or, the Socialist Utopia, which you and your husband are so fervently trying to create, against the wishes of the American People, through the State-run Healthcare System, known as Obamacare?

Actually, America is neither, Mrs. Obama. Ronald Reagan, on January 25, 1974, in his “Shining City on a Hill” Speech, told us exactly who America is…

One-half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic. We have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. Ninety-five percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients — and a part of the five percent that don’t are trying to lose weight! Ninety-nine percent have gas or electric refrigeration, 92 percent have televisions, and an equal number have telephones. There are 120 million cars on our streets and highways — and all of them are on the street at once when you are trying to get home at night. But isn’t this just proof of our materialism — the very thing that we are charged with? Well, we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras, and opera companies, non-profit theaters, and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together.

Somehow America has bred a kindliness into our people unmatched anywhere, as has been pointed out in that best-selling record by a Canadian journalist. We are not a sick society. A sick society could not produce the men that set foot on the moon, or who are now circling the earth above us in the Skylab. A sick society bereft of morality and courage did not produce the men who went through those year of torture and captivity in Vietnam. Where did we find such men? They are typical of this land as the Founding Fathers were typical. We found them in our streets, in the offices, the shops and the working places of our country and on the farms.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.

America was already the most charitable country on Earth, Mrs. Obama. What you, your husband, and the rest of your Progressive (i.e., Marxist) comrades want is to replace God’s Grace and Charity with Man’s Governmental Control.

And, that never works.

Until he Comes,

KJ