Political Pundits Panicking…Republican Elites Equivocating: Trump is Still in the Lead

On January 11, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The smoke-filled backrooms adjoining the Halls of Political Power in our nation’s capital have become scenes resembling the Psych Ward in the Jack Nicholson Class, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.

Howard Kurtz, Media Analyst for the Fox News Channel, recently posted the following observations.

The Republican establishment, which has always distrusted and discounted Donald Trump, is getting increasingly nervous.

So nervous, in fact, that some of its media voices are starting to denounce their party’s front-runner in the strongest possible terms.

As in, refusing to vote for the man if he’s the nominee. As in, loudly proclaiming that he will destroy the GOP.

Viewed from one perspective, this has the smell of panic. Viewed from another, it’s a case of party stalwarts speaking out based on principle.

For decades now, there has been primary-season sniping between the establishment wing and the insurgent/hard-line/Tea Party wing. Commentators rough up their least favorite candidate, even declare them unqualified for the White House.

But if that person prevails—think Mitt Romney in 2012—the sharpest Republican critics find a way to walk it back. Well, he wasn’t my first choice, but he would be better than Barack Obama. He’s evolved on immigration/tax cuts/ObamaCare. He would pull this country out of its left-wing tailspin.

These days, the rhetoric is getting so hot that there will be no scrambling back on board. Bill Kristol has been openly musing about a third party if Trump wins the nomination.

Does the conservative media elite hope to throw some tacks under the Trump steamroller with such sharp rhetoric? Or are its members just speaking out to clear their consciences?

If it’s the former, I think it might actually help Trump to have the Beltway types arrayed against him. These are the folks he is running against, and he’s never positioned himself as a doctrinaire conservative.

Michael Gerson, a Bush White House official who writes for the Washington Post, uses sweeping language:

“Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.”

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

Gerson calls Trump a “demagogue” who “has followed some of America’s worst instincts wherever they have led, and fed ethnic and religious prejudice in the process. All presidential nominees, to some extent, shape their parties into their own image. Trump would deface the GOP beyond recognition.”

In case you missed the point, Gerson says: “Trump is disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion.”

Doug Heye has been communications chief of the RNC, a top deputy to Eric Cantor and a Bush administration official. He makes a personal declaration in the Independent Journal:

“Because of Trump’s perversion of conservatism, along with the devastating impact he would have if nominated, I cannot support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”

Heye says Trump would be “dangerous to the United States and the world at a time when the world is at risk.” His nomination, says Heye, “would be catastrophic for Republican hopes to win the White House and maintain control of the Senate and would damage the party and the conservative cause for years to come. His having the legitimacy that comes with the nomination of a major political party would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober.”

This is the New York Times’ latest version of the same story, calling it a “people’s coup”:

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at privatelunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

But a very different tack from Peggy Noonan, who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who turns the question back on the establishment:

“I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously. They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues. The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

“But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disruptor. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.”

There really isn’t much of an establishment left. It consists of some megabuck donors, elected officials, seasoned operatives and media pundits. They don’t have the power to stop Trump, and they know it.

The best they can hope for is to influence the debate. Their problem is that most of them don’t like Ted Cruz, either.

Indeed.

Just as the backlash against President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democr5at Party has reached deafening levels here in America’s Heartland, snobbishly referred to by the Political Elite as “Flyover Country”, so has the refusal of the leaders of both Political Parties to admit their culpability in creating the problems our nation is facing, which can be traced back to their failed domestic and foreign policies and failed leadership.

Why do I believe that Donald J. Trump is still the frontrunner among all the Republican Presidential Candidates?

This brash, unabashedly American, business entrepreneur and quintessential showman has dominated the media for the past several years.

The popularity of his reality program on NBC and the catch phrase that came leaping out from it, “You’re fired!”, spread across America like wildfire.

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

It is not just his flamboyance that has caught the eye of Americans.

The fact is, after almost two terms of an Administration taking the great country in the world on a scenic tour of the Highway to Hell, Donald Trump is the only Republican Candidate shouting, “Hit the brakes, you idiots!”

Trump’s straightforwardness has struck a chord in the hearts of average Americans, tired of the wussification of America, being so relentlessly pushed by both modern political parties.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment:

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality, they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

From what I’m seeing out of a lot of the Republicans right now, they’re not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The “Republican Elite”, as Kurtz refers to them, are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

If Jeb Bush and the rest of the Vichy Republicans actually believe that they will win over the Mexican vote, or the rest of the Hispanic Vote, if by then those who are now illegal are allowed to vote, in 2016, then I have two bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis to sell them.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans want Conservatives whose blood runs red, not Liberal squishes, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment does not come to that realization very soon, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push a candidate, who represents the Jello of “Liberal Moderation”, up a hill.

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

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

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

That’s the way the Founding Fathers envisioned our system of government, led by citizens, who served their terms as public servants…AND THEN WENT HOME.

But, I digress…

You know what tickles me the most about “The Donald”?

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.” – Jack Burton, Truck Driver (Kurt Russell) “Big Trouble in Little China”

…and that, boys and girls, is a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

Modern American Liberals Continue to Deny Radical Islam Exists

On January 9, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

As regards the existence and motivation of the sociopathic, barbaric followers of Radical Islam, Modern American Liberals, time and time again, are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

According to Breitbart.com,

The Muslim man who said Islam motivated him to shoot a police officer does not represent the teachings of Islam, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney stated in a press conference on Friday afternoon, following an attempted execution by a man who had reportedly pledged to the Islamic State.
A 33-year-old Philadelphia policeman, Jesse Hartnett, was ambushed late Thursday when Edward Archer, a Muslim man, reportedly tried to execute him while he was sitting in his police vehicle. Images from the incident show a man dressed in Muslim attire firing off a reported 13 rounds at officer Hartnett. The police officer was hit three times, but did not suffer life threatening injuries and is expected to recover fully, reports said.

According to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, the suspect said he had committed the attempted execution in the name of the Islamic State, the jihadi terrorist insurgent group that controls territory in the Middle East.

“According to him [the shooter], police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran,” said Commissioner Ross.

Mayor Kenney, who was inaugurated last week, took a strikingly different tone when coming to the podium.

He began by expressing his well-wishes for the officer who the Muslim man attempted to execute, but then spent the latter part of his statement distancing Islam from the shooter, who claimed he was carrying out the shooting for Islam.

“In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen,” said Mayor Kenney.

“That is abhorrent. It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion [Islam] in any way shape or form or any of its teachings,” he added. “This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

He also took to Twitter, expressing a similar statement:

“Last night’s shooting had nothing to do with any faith. It was a violent assault by a criminal. I urge all Philadelphians to stand together.”

Kenney, a Catholic, received his bachelor’s degree from La Salle University, and it remains unclear where his religious expertise concerning Islam derives from.

While running for office, Kenney consistently reached out to the Muslim community for support.

In July, he signed a “pledge to combat bigotry” at the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society. The pledge was created by the Arab American Institute, an anti-Israel organization that seeks to promote Arab politicians for higher office. In signing the pledge, Kenney, agreed to combat criticism of Islam, and to “speak out” against ‘Islamophobia.’

Gosh, Mr. Mayor. I have no idea why the overwhelming majority of Americans identify the political ideology masquerading as a religion, known as Islam, with those who self-identify as “Radical Islamists”.

Just kidding…

Pay attention, Mr. Mayor….

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

Following the discovery of a terrorist cell in Texas allegedly operated by an Iraqi who entered the United States as a refugee, the Washington Free Beacon has learned of an additional 41 individuals who have been implicated in terrorist plots in the United States since 2014, bringing the total number of terrorists discovered since that time to 113, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

Since August, however, the Obama administration has stonewalled Congressional efforts to obtain more detailed immigration histories of these individuals, prompting frustration on Capitol Hill and accusation that the administration is covering up these histories to avoid exposing flaws in the U.S. screening process.

The disclosure of these additional 41 individuals linked to terror operations—many already identified as immigrants, others’ immigration histories shrouded in secrecy—has stoked further concerns about flaws in the U.S. screening process and is likely to prompt further congressional inquiry into Obama administration efforts to withhold details about these suspects, sources said.

As the number of legal immigrants connected to terrorism continues to grow, the Obama administration has sought to quash congressional inquiries and rally its allies behind an effort to fund efforts to boost the number of immigrants and refugees from the Middle East.

Many of these immigrants have been caught by authorities planning terrorist attacks on American soil, while others were found to be involved in efforts to provide funding and material to ISIS, according to an internal list of migrant terrorists codified by congressional sources and viewed by the Free Beacon.

“A growing number of foreign-born terrorists are being identified operating within the United States, and yet the Administration will not provide any information about their immigrant histories,” said one senior congressional source apprised of the issue. “And one can only imagine that for every identified terrorist, there are many more individuals around them who are radicalized, extreme or otherwise detracting from American society in ways beyond the threat of terrorism alone.”

As congressional calls for increased screening methods go mostly ignored, local authorities are dealing with an uptick in terror-related crimes committed by legal immigrants.

On Thursday, the Justice Department accused two Iraqi refugees legally in the U.S. of conspiring to provide support to ISIS.

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a 24-year-old Palestinian born Iraqi refugee who had been living in Texas, was charged with aiding ISIS. The man had been granted legal permanent residence in Houston in 2011, though it was later determined that he “swore untruthfully on his formal application when applying to become a naturalized U.S. citizen,” according to the Justice Department.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, also a Palestinian born Iraqi, allegedly “traveled overseas to fight alongside terrorist organizations and lied to U.S. authorities about his activities,” according to the Justice Department

Al-Jayab entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2012 and later travelled back to Syria, where it is believed that he resumed “fighting with various terrorist organizations,” according to the charges.

Late Thursday, a Philadelphia police officer was reportedly ambushed by an assailant sporting “Muslim garb and wearing a mask,” according to local reports.

Additional information viewed by the Free Beacon outlines another 20 previously unknown individuals brought up on similar terrorism-related charges in 2015 alone.

Those who have been charged were legally residing in the U.S. after entering from countries such as Egypt, Uzbekistan, Albania, Pakistan, and Syria, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

“The terrorism-related arrests of two more Iraqi refugees on American soil proves once again our screening process is weak and needs to be updated,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill,) said in a statement Friday.

With incidents and indictments of this nature continuing to rise, critics of the Obama administration’s immigration policy are expressing concern about a last-minute funding effort in 2015 to fully fund refugee resettlement and visa programs.

These priorities, which were granted full funding as part of a yearly spending bill approved by Congress last year, will permit around 170,000 new migrants from Muslim-majority countries to enter the United States in 2016, according to the Senate’s immigration subcommittee.

“The omnibus gave the green light for the administration to continue this failed immigration policy over the objections of the electorate,” the senior Congressional source quoted above said.

The Senate continues to uncover dozens of cases in which individuals accused of terrorism entered the country legally.

“Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of federal agents and attorneys and billions of dollars: In effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then, on the back end, trying to stop them from carrying out their violent designs,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) warned last year as Congress considered the spending bill.

In trying to figure out the hesitance of Modern American Liberals to identify the motivation of Radical Islamist Terrorists, my mind, unique space between my ears that it is, flashed back to this famous scene between the late great Rodney Dangerfield, and the late , great Sam Kinison, in the movie Back to School. Kinison is a history professor, and Dangerfield is the successful businessman father of an under-achieving freshman, who decides to go back to school, to be there for his son.

Kinison: You remember that thing we had about thirty years ago… called the Korean conflict?

Yeah. Where we failed to achieve victory.

How come we didn’t cross the 38th parallel…and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China…and take it apart brick by brick…and nuke them back into the f!@#in’ stone age forever?

How come? Tell me? Why? Say it! Say it!

Dangerfield: All right, I’ll say it.

‘Cause Truman was too much of a p!@sy wimp…to let MacArthur go in and blow out those commie b!@#ards!

Kinison: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.

For anybody with more than 2 working brain cells, (and, I know that leaves out a lot of Liberals) once the brothers were initially identified as Muslims, it was game over.

So, why have Liberals, in the MSM, and elsewhere, been so afraid to call Muslim Terrorists, Muslim Terrorists?

Is it because of that heinous practice, known as Political Correctness?

We’ve all been a victim of it. And, it’s not just the Liberals who practice it.

A while back, a young Libertarian lady, who just happens to be Black, had posted an article in a Facebook Page for Conservatives and Libertarians, featuring Patti Davis, the Liberal (and crazy) daughter of Former President Ronald Reagan. Davis had come out as the moral arbiter of some issue, and I pointed out that she was not fit to be the “moral arbiter” in any situation, as, to torque off her Dad, and make a political statement, she had posed topless for the cover of Playboy in 1994 with a Black guy, standing behind her, cupping her…umm…chest.

Both the young lady and her husband, who happens to be White, jumped on me, like I was some sort of RAAACIIIST, because I stated the obvious.

Times were different, back in ’94. Just as they were different back in the 70s, when Bud Yorkin and Norman Lear created All in the Family, starring the great American actor, Carroll O’Connor. The misadventures of Archie Bunker and his family could not be a hit today. Our tolerant American Liberals (and others) would not allow it. And, the lessons learned from that ground-breaking television series would be lost.

Perhaps, the reticence by the Media to identify the religious/political ideology of the two brothers is something else: loyalty to President Barack Hussein Obama.

They have a lot invested in The Lightbringer. They have campaigned endlessly for him, and the majority of “Broadcast Journalists” share his vision for a Socialist Utopia America. Additionally, the White House has been known to send e-mails and make telephone calls to these bastions of journalistic integrity, when they want something swept under the Oval Office rug.

The fact that these murdering terrorists were Muslims, does not reflect well on our dhimmi President. In fact, it proves that Smart Power! is anything, but.

Additionally, the fact that these barbarians infiltrated France in the first place,and killed all the innocent people that they did, shows the folly of relaxing our already-porous Immigration Laws and the danger to human live of strict Gun Control Laws.

Even as these barbarous acts unfolded in France and the Radical Muslims of ISIS continue their genocidal jihad against Christians in Iraq, I continue to hear 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 Mister Rogers and Ted Bundy (look them up, children).

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 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.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

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

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

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

In the case of the barbarians of al Qaeda, ISIS, and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

For Liberals to deny that, and to refuse to identify Islamic Terrorism, when it rears its ugly head, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Until He Comes,

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall: “Giving Up a Little Bit of Liberty For a Little Bit of Security”

On January 8, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, continued to display his “great disconnect” from average Americans last night in an Internationally-televised “Townhall Event, featuring a hand-picked audience, selected by CNN and the White House.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama doubled down on his push for gun control Thursday at a televised town hall meeting in which he said that sales of guns have soared under his presidency because gun rights groups have convinced people “that somebody is going to come get your guns.”

“Part of the reason is that the NRA has convinced many of its members that somebody is going to come get your guns,” Obama said after admitting that his presidency had been good for gun manufacturers.

The town hall came just two days after Obama announced executive actions designed, among other goals, to broaden the scope of gun sales subject to background checks.

Obama said that he has never owned a gun but would occasionally shoot one at Camp David for skeet shootings.

He also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association — which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals — and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event, and took aim at their fiery language in response to his actions.

“If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over the top, and so overheated,” Obama said.

At the town hall, which was hosted and televised by CNN, Obama took questions from Taya Kyle, whose late husband Chris Kyle was depicted in the film “American Sniper.” Kyle told Obama that gun ownership was at an all-time high while murder rates are at an historic low, and defended her right to own a gun.

“I want the hope — and the hope that I have the right to protect myself; that I don’t end up to be one of these families; that I have the freedom to carry whatever weapon I feel I need,” Kyle said.

“There is a way for us to set up a system where you (as) a gun owner … can have a firearm to protect yourself but where it is much harder for somebody to fill up a car with guns and sell them to 13-year-old kids on the streets,” Obama replied.

Obama also took questions from Cleo Pendleton, whose daughter was shot and killed near Obama’s Chicago home, and from Sheriff Paul Babeu, an Arizona lawman and congressional candidate who has accused Obama of unconstitutional power grabs on guns.

He also took questions from controversial Chicago Catholic priest Rev. Michael Pfleger.

“The reality is that I don’t understand why we can’t title guns just like cars,” Pfleger said. “If I have a car and I give it to you, Mr. President, and I don’t transfer a title, and you’re in an accident, it’s on me.”

“Issues like licensing, registration, that’s an area where there’s just not enough national consensus at this stage to even consider it. And part of it is, is people’s concern that that becomes a prelude to taking people’s guns away,” Obama replied.

Also in the audience was former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. Kelly and Giffords became prominent gun control advocates after Giffords was shot in 2011.

Obama has come under heavy fire from Republicans and Second Amendment advocates for his actions, which they say infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

The NRA fired back at Obama while the town hall was still going on. NRA Director Chris Cox told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “This is an attempt to distract the American people away from his failed policies.”

“The NRA does more to teach safe and responsible gun ownership than this president ever has or ever will,” Cox said.

The president also published an opinion piece in Thursday’s New York Times in which he pledged not to support any candidate who is opposed to gun control.

“I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform,” Obama said, a move that could make Democratic candidates in Republican states feel unable to request the political support of the two-term president.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said before the event that Obama hoped the forum will spur a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment as well as the administration’s new push to tighten gun control rules.

So, let’s have a “serious conversation” about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, found in the section known as the “Bill of Rights”.

The Second Amendment states that

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why did our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, include this Amendment?

Dr. Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, wrote the following in an article posted at Heritage.org…

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies. Many Americans believed, on the basis of English history and their colonial experience, that central governments are prone to use armies to oppress the people. One way to reduce that danger would be to permit the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or similar emergencies, the government might be restricted to using a militia, consisting of ordinary civilians who supply their own weapons and receive a bit of part-time, unpaid military training.

…Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny. This conundrum could not be solved, and the [Constitutional] Convention did not purport to solve it. Instead, the Convention presumed that a militia would exist, but it gave Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate that militia, just as it gave the new federal government almost unfettered authority over the army and navy.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was. James Madison, for one, responded that such fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the new federal government was structured differently from European governments. But he also pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so. In The Federalist No. 46, he wrote:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”

Implicit in the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions: first, that the proposed new constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and the militia; and second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. The disagreement between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only over the narrower question of how effective an armed population could be in protecting liberty.

My purpose in reviewing history is quite simple:

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Make no mistake, if President Barack Hussein Obama had his way, we would live in a country comprised of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe.

And, as recent events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.

In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.

One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what the president does not.

Until He Comes,

Gun Control, Planned Parenthood, and Tears of Hypocrisy

On January 7, 2016January 7, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

On Tuesday, in an address televised across our nation, the President of the United States of America, appeared to “tear up” as he lamented the American Children who have become victims of “Gun Violence”.

However, there are other young lives, ended needlessly every year, that he scarcely gives a thought to.

The Christian Post reports that

America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, conducted nearly 324,000 abortions and received over $553 million from taxpayers in 2014, the organization’s latest report shows.

Planned Parenthood released its annual report for 2014-2015 which shows that although the organization performed fewer abortions, provided fewer services and saw about 200,000 fewer clients than in 2013, the organization received increased funding from the federal government.

Although the Hyde Amendment explicitly forbids federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions, the amount of taxpayer dollars that went to Planned Parenthood increased by about $25 million from 2013 to 2014, as the group received $553.7 million in 2014.

According to the report, “government health services grants and reimbursements” accounted for 43 percent of Planned Parenthood’s $1.29 billion in revenue during the reporting period.

While Planned Parenthood officials and supporters have claimed in combating attempts last year to strip the organization of its federal funding that the tax money it receives is vital for providing women with the “healthcare” they need, the report indicates that the organization is still benefiting from $61 million in “excess revenue.” In 2013-2014, the organization benefited from $127 million in excess revenue.

While Planned Parenthood maintains that abortions only consist of about 3 to 10 percent of its services, the abortion giant only issued 2,024 adoption referrals, as compared to the 323,999 abortions it conducted in 2014.

While Planned Parenthood conducted approximately 4,000 fewer abortions than it did in 2013, the report states that the organization conducted over 4.2 million STD/STI tests, over 682,000 cancer screenings and 1.1 million other women’s health services.

The pro-life group Live Action, headed by Lila Rose, found some inconsistencies with Planned Parenthood’s report.

In 2014, Planned Parenthood claimed to have prevented more unintended pregnancies than it did in 2013. Although the organization saw a decliine of more than 500,000 contraceptive services in 2014, it claims that it averted 578,681 unintended pregnancies, which is about 62,000 more than the 516,000 unintended pregnancies that the organization claimed to have averted in the 2013 report.

“So Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive services are DOWN across the board and yet they claim to have prevented MORE unintended pregnancies than the year before. How does that make sense?” the Live Action report asks. “Planned Parenthood says the number of unintended pregnancies averted is calculated using a formula from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which was founded by Planned Parenthood. Their report does not disclose the formula they used or how it apparently changed from 2013 to 2014.”

After the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos last year purporting to show high-level Planned Parenthood officials violating a number of ethical and legal codes in negotiating compensation for aborted baby body parts, conservatives renewed a call to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding.

In response to that call, the House of Representatives have actually listened to their constituency for a change.

Politico.com reports that

The House on Friday approved legislation to defund Planned Parenthood for one year and to add new medical and reporting requirements on live births resulting from an attempted abortion.

The bills were the latest in the House’s response to a series of videos that opponents of Planned Parenthood say show that the organization is making money off the trafficking of human fetal tissue and organs. Planned Parenthood denies such claims and says the videos were highly edited.

But the videos have enflamed the already contentious debate over abortion and Planned Parenthood and are threatening to hold up a bill to fund the government before it runs out of money on Oct. 1. Friday’s votes, however, are unlikely to satisfy conservative lawmakers who are pushing Republican leaders to cut off Planned Parenthood’s federal support in must-pass legislation funding the government.

The bill to defund Planned Parenthood was approved 241-187 with the support of two Democrats. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) voted present because he said the bill’s language wasn’t strong enough. The bill adding criminal penalties for not treating a baby born alive in the course of an attempted abortion passed 248-177 with the support of five Democrats. One Democrat voted present. Neither bill is expected to pass the Senate if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell were to bring them up for a vote. President Barack Obama said he would veto them.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who sponsored H.R. 3504, the bill that would add criminal penalties, says his legislation would ensure that health care providers care for a baby that is born during an attempted abortion. Any health provider who is aware of anyone who violates that law would be subject to criminal penalties if they don’t report it. But opponents say that the language is not only repetitive — any baby born alive is already treated as a person with rights to medical care — but goes further than existing law and “would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care,” the White House said in its veto threat.

The defunding bill, H.R. 3134, would eliminate about $255 million in federal funds to Planned Parenthood, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the cuts would likely result in more Medicaid spending down the road — $20 million in the first year and a total of $60 million over the next decade.

CBO, which said that its predictions were very rough, estimated that cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funds would result in less access to birth control services, leading to more pregnancies. A portion of those pregnancies and children would likely be covered by Medicaid.

“This is not about pro-choice or prolife,” said Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). “This is about the gruesome practices at an organization that receives over $500 million a year from the federal government. …I’ve seen the videos. And I can tell you that that is not health care.”

Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances. There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion. Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.

For any low information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:

Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

When you talk to Liberals about this stopping of a beathing heart, they will claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”.

From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.

In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.

From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.

As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.

A few years ago, the same President Obama who was brushing away tears on Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.

My question for you, Mr. President, is:

When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?

Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?

Until He Comes,

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

On January 6, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

President 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,

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

On January 5, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

According 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,

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

On January 4, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

His (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.

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:

The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
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,

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

On January 3, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

Do 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,

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

On January 2, 2016January 2, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Freedom 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,

Obama to Replace Out-of-Work Americans With Foreigners

On December 31, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Obama 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,

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: Barack Hussein Obama

Political Pundits Panicking…Republican Elites Equivocating: Trump is Still in the Lead

Modern American Liberals Continue to Deny Radical Islam Exists

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall: “Giving Up a Little Bit of Liberty For a Little Bit of Security”

Gun Control, Planned Parenthood, and Tears of Hypocrisy

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

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

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

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

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

Obama to Replace Out-of-Work Americans With Foreigners