The San Bernadino Massacre, Barack Hussein Obama, and Misplaced Priorities

On December 12, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

As the FBI continues its investigation of the horrible massacre, perpetrated by Radical Islamists in San Bernadino, California, some new and distressing information has been brought to light.

Foxnews.com reports that

The former neighbor of San Bernardino gunman Syed Rizwan Farook reportedly spoke to regulars at his job about “sleeper cells just waiting” to attack the United States.

A frequent customer at Morgan’s Tavern, where Enrique Marquez worked, told The New York Times on Friday that nobody took Marquez seriously when he spoke of terror attacks and had no clue he was involved in the massacre at an Inland Regional Center office building that left 14 people dead.

“We took it as a joke. When you look at the kid and talk to him, no one would take him seriously about that,” Nick Rodriguez told The Times.

Federal authorities are expected to bring charges against Marquez, 24, who supplied Farook at least two of the weapons used in the attack. He legally purchased the AR-15 rifles Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik used on their killing spree on Dec. 2. He will likely be indicted after spending hours talking to investigators about Farook and Malik.

Authorities believe Farook and Marquez discussed executing an attack somewhere in the Los Angeles area in 2012, but decided not to go through with it after four people were arrested in nearby Riverside County in an unrelated terror case. Investigators believe Marquez bought the rifles and gave them or sold them to Farook in preparation for that planned attack. It’s unclear what the target of the attack would’ve been.

It was not immediately clear what specific charges Marquez would face, but Fox News has learned that he is the only person expected to be indicted anytime soon in connection with the attack. However, authorities say that other subjects are being monitored.

Marquez began speaking with federal authorities after they raided his mother’s home over the weekend. Right after the shootings, Marquez called his mother to say he was safe, but that he wouldn’t be coming home, neighbor Lorena Aguirre told the Associated Press. He later checked into a mental health facility. It’s unclear where he is now.

Marquez is also related to Farook by marriage, having wed the sister-in-law of the gunman’s older brother, state records show. The Associated Press reported that Marquez and and his bride, Mariya Chernykh listed their address on the marriage license at the same Corona home where Syed Raheel and Tatiana Farook live. Viviana Ramirez, a friend of Marquez, told the Los Angeles Times that Marquez rarely spoke about his family or his marriage.

Azmi Hasan, the mosque’s facilities manager, said Wednesday that he understood Marquez had converted to Islam, but said he was not a member of that mosque. Marquez had only worshipped there three to four times over seven years, said Hasan, who hadn’t seen him in about four years.

Marquez had a security guard license in California for several years, but it expired last year. He had worked at Wal-Mart since May, but has since been fired, spokesman Brian Nick told the Associated Press.

He spoke of wanting to join the military, a fellow student at Riverside Community College told the Los Angeles Times. His brother-in-law, Raheel Farook, is a Navy veteran, serving from 2003 to 2007 and earning the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, among other awards.

Investigators were also examining the digital footprint left by the shooters, who tried to destroy their computer hard drives and cell phones prior to carrying out the attack. Investigators tell Fox News the data that has been recovered shows that Farook posted multiple messages online expressing support for Islamist groups like Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, while also expressing hatred for Israel. Investigators have also expressed concern that Farook may have been in contact with other terror groups.

Authorities used dive teams to search a lake in San Bernardino on Thursday and Friday. Investigators apparently found something in the lake, but have not announced what the object was. Investigators are looking for a hard drive that may have been dumped in the lake, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told The Associated Press.

The FBI investigation into the mass shooting has been one of the most comprehensive in the bureau’s recent history. Law enforcement sources tell Fox News that more than 300 interviews related to the shooting have taken place in the U.S. An FBI team has also been dispatched to Europe as part of the investigation.

So, Terrorist “Sleeper Cells”, are standing by to perpetrate “Man-caused Disasters” on our Sovereign Nation” and its citizens.

Why is this happening?

It all starts at the top.

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 trips to haul a.. …well, you know.)

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.

Let’s examine the President’s MISPLACED PRIORITIES by using the three words which I underlined in the Oath of Office as topic headings, shall we?

To begin with, let’s examine the word PRESERVE.

It is a conflict of interest to swear to “preserve” a country which you have already promised to “radically change”.

As we have discovered, since Obama’s First Inauguration, all those long years ago, Obama has no intention of “preserving” the Land of our Founding Fathers and of hard-working Patriotic Americans, who sacrificed so much, for this Shining City Upon a Hill.

That includes his on-going attempt to strip Americans of our Second Amendment Right, by implementing more “Gun Control Laws” by Executive Order.

Because, after all, Muslim Terrorists’ number one priority is to obey our laws.

Yes, Mrs. Obama. Those before us, sacrificed “All this for a flag.”

Then, there is Obama’s Domestic Policy, in keeping with his promise to “radically change” this country, which has resulted in over 92,000,000 Americans “dropping out” of our Work Force, because they cannot find meaningful jobs in a stagnant economy, controlled by a huge all-powerful Central Government, who rewards the slackers, by giving them FREE STUFF from cradle to grave and punishes those Entrepreneurial Americans who actually hire Americans,with onerous tax burdens, slifling competitiveness and creativity, literally bringing to a halt America’s Engine of Economic Growth.

And, finally, under this “PRESERVE” heading, there is Obama and his Administration’s misplaced priority of establishing a “Tyranny of the Minority”, when it comes to imposing the immorality and situational ethics of a very small minority of Americans on the overwhelming majority of the rest of us, through the use of “Push Polls” perpetuated by the sycophantic Main Stream Media and Liberal Activist Judges, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America, whose sole purpose, seemingly, is to further Obama’s original promise to “radically change” our country, including the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for thousands of years.

Next, Obama swore an oath to PROTECT America.

Obama started his presidency by bowing in front of America’s enemies, during his World Apology Tour.

No President of the United States has every effectively protected our nation from a POSITION OF WEAKNESS.

Ask Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, whose milksop endeavors in Foreign Policy led to increased attacks by the Radical Adherents of the “Religion of Peace’, otherwise known as Muslim Terrorism, or as Obama’s staff immediately renamed these wanton acts of violence, “Man-caused Disasters”, like the subject of this blog, which are increasing in frequency on our very shores.

Also, how can you “protect” a nation whose Southern Border is WIDE OPEN, presently allowing entrance to our Sovereign Nation by our enemies and virulent disease, alike?

By allowing the ongoing Illegal Alien Invasion and the resettlement of the Syrian “Refugees”, Obama is saying to the world,

Hey, C’mon in! Our Estados Unidos es tu Estados Unidos! Sit a spell. Unstrap your sidearm. Take us over.

And, that leads us to our final topic heading, DEFEND.

How can the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave be defended by a President and his Administration who are so naive that they actually believe that they can effectively defend our Soverien Nation by cutting down our Military to pre-World War II Levels?

Our soldiers have been, even as I write this, being handed, their “pink slips” in the field. (And, no, I am not talking about the repeal of DADT. Our Brightest and Best have been receiving “Termination Notices” while on Active Duty).

Brilliant, huh?

Former Congressman and retired Lt. Col. Allen B. West thought so, too. He wrote that

For Obama and [Secretary of Defense Chuck] Hagel to believe taking the US Army down to pre-World War II levels is a smart decision evidences their abject stupidity in comprehending the global conflagrations in which we are embroiled — the enemy has a vote. This whole inane statement about “pivoting to the Asian-Pacific rim” is more empty rhetoric as we decimate our US Naval strength while China builds theirs.

Barack Hussein Obama cannot be seen as a Commander-in-Chief and I will never refer to him that way. His fundamental transformation of America means weakening our nation and leaving our Republic less secure. I can just imagine how appreciative and elated his Muslim Brotherhood friends are at this point, to include Turkey’s President Erdogan, as well as the mad mullahs in Iran.

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 Hill, 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,

Donald J. Trump, White House Hypocrisy, and the Immigration Act of 1924

On December 9, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

The hang-wringing and blowback from the suggestion by Donald J. Trump to implement a pause in the immigration of Muslims to the United States of America, has been everything that the consummate showman now doubt hoped for…and more.

White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest was positively apoplectic at yesterday’s Daily Press Conference, as Breitbart.com reports…

President Barack Obama’s spokesman angrily lashed out at Donald Trump for proposing a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, and accused him of “offensive bluster” and “grotesque and offensive” language.

“The fact is, that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president,” spokesman Josh Earnest said, suggesting to reporters that his words were fundamentally anti-American.

Earnest denounced Trump’s “carnival barker routine” which included “outright lies” and mocked the Republican frontrunner for having “fake hair.” He said:

The Trump campaign, for months now, has had a dustbin of history-like quality to it, from the vacuous sloganeering to the outright lies to even the fake hair, the whole carnival barker routine that we’ve seen for some time now.
Earnest also denounced other Republicans for continuing to say that they would support the nominee of the Republican party even it was Donald Trump.

Earnest suggested the Republican Party is racist for failing to denounce Trump’s presidential campaign, and he reminded reporters that House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
once called himself “David Duke without the baggage.” He said:

“Earlier this year, House Republicans elected to their leadership somebody who famously bragged to a reporter that he’s David Duke without the baggage.”

“They should say right now that they will not support him for president,” Earnest said, as he called Trump’s proposal “morally reprehensible.”

Earnest said Republicans leaders should:

“Say right now that they would not support Donald Trump for president. What he said is disqualifying and any Republican who’s too fearful of the Republican base to admit it has no business serving as president either. OK?”

When asked why the White House had decided to weigh in on Trump’s hair, Earnest defended the topic as an important part of the campaign.

“Well I guess I was describing why it would be easy for people to dismiss the Trump campaign as not particularly serious,” he said.

“Because of his hair?” one reporter asked in disbelief.

“Well because he’s got a rather outrageous appearance, that’s the hallmark of his campaign and his identity, though, that’s the point I’m trying to cite there,” he said.

“How do you know that it’s fake?” asked a second reporter.

“Well I guess I’m happy to be fact checked,” Earnest replied.

Suspending immigration is not a new concept.

It’s been done before…for over 40 years.

The following information is courtesy of u-s-history.com…

During the Harding administration, a stop-gap immigration measure was passed by Congress in 1921 for the purpose of slowing the flood of immigrants entering the United States.

A more thorough law was signed by President Coolidge in May 1924. It provided for the following:

The quota for immigrants entering the U.S. was set at two percent of the total of any given nation`s residents in the U.S. as reported in the 1890 census;
after July 1, 1927, the two percent rule was to be replaced by an overall cap of 150,000 immigrants annually and quotas determined by “national origins” as revealed in the 1920 census.

College students, professors and ministers were exempted from the quotas. Initially immigration from the other Americas was allowed, but measures were quickly developed to deny legal entry to Mexican laborers.

The clear aim of this law was to restrict the entry of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, while welcoming relatively large numbers of newcomers from Britain, Ireland, and Northern Europe.

The 1921 law had used the 1910 census to determine the base for the quotas; by changing to the 1890 census when fewer Italians or Bulgarians lived in the U.S., more of the “dangerous` and “different” elements were kept out. This legislation reflected discriminatory sentiments that had surfaced earlier during the Red Scare of 1919-20.

Total Entering U.S.	Country of Origin
Total Entering U.S.	Great Britain	Eastern Europe*	Italy
1920	430,001	38,471	3,913	95,145
1921	805,228	51,142	32,793	222,260
1922	309,556	25,153	12,244	40,319
1923	522,919	45,759	16,082	46,674
1924	706,896	59,490	13,173	56,246
1925	294,314	27,172	1,566	6,203
1926	304,488	25,528	1,596	8,253

*Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. 56.

A provision in the 1924 law barred entry to those ineligible for citizenship — effectively ending the immigration of all Asians into the United States and undermining the earlier “Gentlemen`s Agreement” with Japan. Efforts by Secretary of State Hughes to change this provision were not successful and actually inflamed the passions of the anti-Japanese press, which was especially strong on the West Coast.

Heated protests were issued by the Japanese government and a citizen committed seppuku outside the American embassy in Tokyo. May 26, the effective date of the legislation, was declared a day of national humiliation in Japan, adding another in a growing list of grievances against the U.S.

(The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing these quotas.)

In 1965, the Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured America`s immigration policy since the 1920`s, replacing it with a preference system that emphasized immigrants` skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the United States.

Additionally, in April of 1980, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Jimmy Carter cancelled all visas issued to Iranians for entry into the United States and warned that they would be revalidated only for “compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest requires.”

So, what Trump proposed has been done before

Evidently, no one ever told Obama and his Administration that when you point your finger at someone, there are 4 other fingers pointing back at you.

On January 7th of this year, Abraham H. Miller wrote the following blog, featured on thehill.com…

At the end of World War II, the Jewish survivors of Europe’s Holocaust found that nearly every door was closed to them. “Tell Me Where Can I Go?” was a popular Yiddish song at the time. Decades later, the Christians of the Middle East face the same problem, and the Obama administration is keeping the door shut.

America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.

Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.

The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East’s Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe’s Jewish refugees.

We have seen in the last several weeks that President Obama has no difficulty using his “phone and his pen,” as he dramatically boasts, to circumvent the law. When it comes to immigration, he had no difficulty enacting an amnesty that a federal judge subsequently ruled unconstitutional. He has had no problem circumventing Congress to change the relationship with Cuba. This president has shown that he will push back on the constraints of law when he wants to get something done.

But there are not even such constraints when it comes to the Middle East’s Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians? Christians are still be slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along—as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust—and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?

The Christians would barely have to be vetted for ties to terror organizations, which by their very nature do not take Christians. Meanwhile, there is the uncomfortable issue that among the Sunni refugees there are some in league with the Sunni terror militias. And beyond that there is the equally uncomfortable question of the acculturation of segments of the Muslim community.

That our Muslim neighbors are as worthy of being good Americans as anyone else is not an issue. That a highly active and prominent minority in the Muslim community seeks to transform America is an issue and one that cannot be overlooked, when taking in Muslim refugees. Will they be vetted for seeking the transformation of America through jihad?

Whether the recent violence in Australia, the murder of two New York policemen, the Boston Marathon bombings, the growing list of victims of honor killings in Western societies, the forced closing of streets in Paris for Muslim prayers, the Muslim no-go and Sharia patrol areas of Britain, the rape of infidel women in Sweden, or the call by Council on Islamic American Relations that Islam is not in America to be another religion but to transform America, there is a Muslim problem. That it is not a problem precipitated by a majority of Muslims does not lessen its dangers.

No doubt the majority of the Muslim refugees will become good American citizens, but the real concern is that a significant minority will not. Yet, the Middle East Christians, even as a minority, do not pose remotely the same kind of threat.

With Christmas fresh in our minds, it is time for all people of good will to say to the Obama administration that telling Christians awaiting death that there is no room for them in the inn is not only unacceptable, it is also, to use President Obama’s own words, “not who we are.” This season, Christians need to make their voice heard. They should not act as the Jews did, waiting for a president who had no intention of doing anything, to do something.

If you were watching Saturday morning cartoons in 1977 on ABC, you would have seen this Schoolhouse Rock musical cartoon titled The Great American Melting Pot. It extolled the unique greatness of our American heritage.

For a while now, that heritage has been under attack.

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

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

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

As the article from thehill.com shows, Obama and his Administration are themselves being restrictive in whom they allow to immigrate to America.

The only reason that they are mad at Donald J. Trump is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of Muslims, and potential Democrat Voters, into our country.

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

Until He Comes,

Obama Speaks to the Nation…and “Removes All Doubt”

On December 7, 2015 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. – Abraham Lincoln

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama on Sunday night said the U.S. military will “continue to hunt down terrorists” and the country is indeed at war with terrorism, following a series of deadly terror attacks on American soil and around the world.

However, he also said the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., were an act of terrorism but so far does not appear connected to a larger terror network.

“This was an act of terrorism,” Obama said in his first Oval Office address since 2010, showing the magnitude of the situation.

He spoke four days after terrorists apparently associated with the Islamic State fatally shot 14 people and wounded dozens more in the San Bernardino attack and after last month’s Paris bombing attacks that killed 130.

The Islamic State group has also claimed responsibility for several other smaller-scale attacks in recent weeks.

The president announced no significant shift in U.S. strategy and offered no new policy prescriptions for defeating the Islamic State, underscoring both his confidence in his current approach and the lack of easy options for countering the extremist group.

He did call on Congress to tighten America’s visa waiver program and to pass a new authorization for military actions underway against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The president also reiterated his call for tightening U.S. gun laws, saying no matter how effective law enforcement and intelligence are, they can’t identify every would-be shooter. He called it a matter of national security to prevent potential killers from getting guns.

Additionally, Foxnews.com reports that

A new intelligence report commissioned by the White House says that the ISIS terror group will grow in numbers and territory unless it suffers significant losses in Iraq and Syria.The findings sharply contradict previous statements by President Obama and other White House officials that ISIS has been “contained” by a program of U.S.-led airstrikes and the deployment of approximately 3,500 U.S. forces to train and otherwise aid moderate Syrian rebels and Kurdish fighters.

On Sunday, a U.S. official told Fox News that ISIS has been able to effectively recruit and attract affiliates despite losses on the ground, and has now supplanted Al Qaeda as the primary global jihadist threat.The official said that going forward, the entirety of the ISIS threat must be addressed, and the group’s main base of operations in Syria must be “degraded.”

The findings were first reported by The Daily Beast, which said the White House asked for the assessment prior to the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris, in which ISIS militants killed 130 people in a series of coordinated shootings and suicide bombings.

In response to the report, The Daily Beast said President Obama had directed Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford to come up with new strategies against ISIS.

One recommendation, announced by Carter Tuesday, is a special operations cell with the ability to capture senior ISIS leaders in the hope of finding out more about their networks.

However, the Daily Beast reported that Carter’s announcement took military planners by surprise, since they had yet to finalize important details, including the rules of engagement under which such raids would be carried out.

The eight-page report was compiled by a team of analysts from the CIA, NSA, and other agencies, the website reported.

“This intel report didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know,” an official told The Daily Beast. “It was lots of great charts showing countries highlighted across the globe, with some groups having pledged allegiance to ISIS and others leaning towards it.”

The report also described how the terrorist group with aspirations of founding an extremist Islamic caliphate already has a network of groups that have pledged allegiance or are vying for membership in a dozen countries.

A President of the United States, living in a constant state of denial, is a danger to the entire Free World.

Last night, why didn’t the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, acknowledge that “Radical Islam” is a part of Islam?

When Barack Obama, Jr. was 3-years-old, his parents divorced. Obama only saw his father one time after that. Dad moved to Kenya and his mother married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro. From ages six to 10, Barack Obama, Jr., attended a private school for well-off Islamic families in Jakarta.

Obama once said in a New York Times article posted March 3, 2007:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

On October2. 2008, Rick Moran wrote the following article for americanthinker.org…

Just how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a “criminal investigation” and would impact the coming election.

The anonymous investigator (who won’t reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler writes:

The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign’s fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. “Without formal approval, I can’t get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking.” And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system.

“The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?” says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. “There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.

Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign’s website – a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East – not surprising given Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light.

Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans.

There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn’t even taking into account Obama’s strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.

There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign.

And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won’t do a damn thing about it until after the election.

They never did.

In September of 2010, pewforum.org, published the following…

A substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.

A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama’s recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.

The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. But even among many of his supporters and allies, less than half now say Obama is a Christian. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).

When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.

So, why do Liberals, who, unlike, Obama, having not been educated in Islam, still refuse to admit that America is at WAR with Radical Islam?

On April 20, 2013, in the aftermath of the bombing of the Boston Marathon by two Radical Islamic Brothers, who were “Refugees” from Chechnya, I wrote

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 short time 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 are Muslims, does not reflect well on our dhimmi President. In fact, it proves that Smart Power! is anything, but.

Additionally, the fact that these two got into our sovereign land in the first place, shows the folly of relaxing our already-porous Immigration Laws (Sorry, Sen. Rubio.).

With the resounding defeat of Obama’s Gun Confiscation Bill, and now, in the aftermath of the New Boston Massacre, the Obama Administration and their Main Stream Media lackeys are bailing, just as fast as they can, in order to save Obama’s sinking Ship of State.

Oh, but, just wait.You ain’t seen nothin’, yet.

Last night, my prophecy reached it’s apex.

The President of the United States of America not only refused to identify our enemy by name….he told us that we were bigots if we did.

And, instead of punishing them, he plans on restricting OUR Second Amendment Rights.

Obama confirmed last night what the majority of Americans already knew.

He is our first anti-American President.

Until He Comes,

The San Bernadino Massacre, Sharia Law, and the U.S. Constitution (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

On December 6, 2015December 6, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

Tonight, the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to deliver a speech from the Oval office, to address this past week’s massacre of innocent Americans in San Bernadino, California, as the result of a merciless attack by Radical Islamists.

As has been his pattern, I look for Obama to 1. Deny that Radical Islam is actually a part of Islam and 2. Draw a false equivalency between the Christians who founded our Sovereign Nation and the Syrian Muslim “Refugees”, whom he is forcing our states to take in.

This past year, Pope Francis paid a visit to the United States of America.

During his visit, while addressing the Congress of the United States of America, he basically said that we have an “obligation” to take in the Syrian Refugees, among them Radical Muslims, who are presently rioting in Europe.

Pope Francis, like President Obama and other Liberals, has been pushing a false equivalency, in equating Islam to Christianity, for a while now.

Back in June, The Washington Times reported that

On Monday, the Bishop Of Rome addressed Catholic followers regarding the dire importance of exhibiting religious tolerance. During his hour-long speech, a smiling Pope Francis was quoted telling the Vatican’s guests that the Koran, and the spiritual teachings contained therein, are just as valid as the Holy Bible.

“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith. Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.”

The pontiff drew harsh criticisms in December (2014) after photos of the 78-year-old Catholic leader was released depicting Pope Francis kissing a Koran. The Muslim Holy Book was given to Francis during a meeting with Muslim leaders after a lengthy Muslim prayer held at the Vatican.

Last February 5th, after President Barack Hussein Obama’s incendiary and decidedly anti-Christian remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, Reverend Franklin Graham spoke truth to power:

Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, the President implied that what ISIS is doing is equivalent to what happened over 1000 years ago during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Mr. President–Many people in history have used the name of Jesus Christ to accomplish evil things for their own desires. But Jesus taught peace, love and forgiveness. He came to give His life for the sins of mankind, not to take life. Mohammad on the contrary was a warrior and killed many innocent people. True followers of Christ emulate Christ—true followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.

As Rev. Graham said so eloquently, 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.

Not too long ago, Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Dr. Ben Carson, got a lot of attention from hang-wringing Liberals in the Main Stream Media, the Democratic Party and among the Vichy Republicans, also, when he said that a Muslim should never be President of the United States of America., because Sharia Law in incompatible with The United States Constitution.

He was absolutely right.

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

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

Constitution: Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”

Shariah: “The source of legal rulings for all acts of those who are morally responsible is Allah.” (a1.1, Umdat al-salik or The Reliance of the Traveller, commonly accepted work of Shariah jurisprudence); “There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” (Seyed Qutb); “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program.” (Seyed Abul A’ala Maududi)

First Amendment: Freedom of religion

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”

Shariah: “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.” Quran 4:89 ; “Whoever changed his [Islamic] religion, then kill him” Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57. In historic and modern Shariah states, Shariah law enforces dhimmi status (second-class citizen, apartheid-type laws) on nonMuslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, building or repairing churches, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells; if dhimmi laws are violated in the Shariah State, penalties are those used for prisoners of war: death, slavery, release or ransom.(o9.14, o11.0-o11.11, Umdat al-salik).

First Amendment: Freedom of speech

Constitution: First Amendment: Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech.”

Shariah: Speech defaming Islam or Muhammad is considered “blasphemy” and is punishable by death or imprisonment.

First Amendment: Freedom to dissent

Constitution: First Amendment: “Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Shariah: Non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

Second Amendment: Right to self-defense

Constitution: Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Shariah: Under historic and modern dhimmi laws, non-Muslims cannot possess swords, firearms or weapons of any kind.

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

Constitution: Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime… without due process of law.” Sixth Amendment: guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury.” Seventh Amendment: “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”

Shariah: Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari: Muhammad said, “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” Non-Muslims are prohibited from testifying against Muslims. A woman’s testimony is equal to half of a man’s.

Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment

Constitution: Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Shariah: Under Shariah punishments are barbaric: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” Quran 5:38; A raped woman is punished:”The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes” (Sura 24:2).

Fourteenth Amendment: Right to equal protection and due process

Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “

Shariah: Under dhimmi laws enforced in modern Shariah states, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims before the law. Under Shariah law, women, girls, apostates, homosexuals and “blasphemers” are all denied equality under the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Liberals, including Pope Francis, to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain dangerous at worst.

It becomes even more dangerous when that Liberal is the President of the United States of America.

Until He Comes,

The San Bernadino Massacre: Average Americans Proven Right About It, All Along.

On December 5, 2015December 5, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

As more information is revealed about the motives behind the attack in San Bernadino, California, it appears that the instincts of average Americans, concerning the purpose of the attack were right all along.

Foxnews.com reports that

Three days after a heavily armed Muslim couple who lived in a home investigators described as “an IED factory” burst into a Southern California office building and gunned down 14 people, the FBI finally — and awkwardly — acknowledged Friday that it is treating the case as an act of terrorism.

In an unusual and brief address to reporters at which Attorney General Loretta Lynch appeared and questions were not taken on camera, FBI Director James Comey affirmed the bureau’s LA office’s characterization earlier in the day.

“This is now a federal terrorism investigation,” Comey said, alluding to evidence collected from electronic devices and reports that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik may have been sympathetic to radical terrorist groups prior to the attack. After his comments, Comey asked pool reporters if they had any questions, but the pre-taped event, which was later distributed to media outlets, was cut off abruptly and no questions were permitted.

The director, a Republican appointed in 2013 and a former deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush,” did not allude to the Muslim faith of suspects Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. But in pronouncing it a case of terrorism, he seemed to be stating the obvious while at the same time going farther than President Obama has been willing to go and possibly hinting at some behind-the-scenes dissent. Sources told Fox News Lynch was there to “ensure [Comey] didn’t take it too far” in his characterization of the attacks.

On Thursday, in the face of mounting evidence of a terror motive, President Obama refused to rule out an office dispute as the possible motive for the attack. The equivocation stoked outrage among many of Obama’s critics, who noted his insistence on labelling as “workplace violence” the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, in which a Muslim Army major killed 13 people and injured another 30 while shouting “Allahu Akbar” and his ongoing refusal to characterize acts of terror as driven by radical interpretations of Islam.

“If you can’t come to a conclusion at this point that this was an act of terror, you should find something else to do for a living than being in law enforcement. I mean, you’re a moron,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who led the city during the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath, thundered hours later on Fox News.

Then, on Friday, hours before the FBI announcement, Fox New confirmed that Malik had pledged her allegiance to ISIS as the morning attack began. She and her husband were killed hours later in a shootout with police just two miles away. Those developments confirmed the suspicions of many, and left it obvious that Malik, at least, was driven by radical Islam.

“We are investigating it as an act of terrorism, for good reason,” David Bowdich, the assistant FBI director in charge of the Los Angeles office, told reporters in an afternoon news conference before his boss spoke.

Bowdich, who said neither of the two were on law enforcement’s radar prior to the attack, cited several factors for the focus on terrorism, including “extensive planning” that went into the attack. The pair attempted to cover up their digital trail, damaging hard drives and other electronic devices, Bowdich said. Investigators did find two cell phones recovered from trash cans near the couple’s Redlands home, and recovered evidence of communications with others who are now being investigated.

“They tried to wipe out their digital fingerprints,” he said, adding that digital communications will likely provide further substantiation of the motive, but “it’s not a three-day process.”

The post by Malik, in which she pledged allegiance to ISIS leader and self-proclaimed “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was confirmed by Facebook official. They said she posted the pledge just before she and Farook stormed a San Bernardino party for his co-workers before escaping. The couple died hours later in a shootout with police, and in the aftermath the 29-year-old Pakistani woman has remained largely a name without a face. No confirmed pictures of her have surfaced, and few details have emerged. The aura of mystery surrounding Malik has given rise to suspicions she may have been the radicalizing force who turned Farook from an aloof county restaurant inspector into her cohort in carnage, an Islamist fanatic capable of murdering co-workers who had embraced him for years.

“Usually it’s ISIS supporters trying to radicalize young girls online as they try to find new wives, but this may be the first case I know of where the opposite happened,” said Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst for Clarion Project, which tracks international terrorism.

Mauro noted that Farook’s older brother, who shares his name, served in the U.S. Navy, which would seem to indicate that Farook’s radical leanings did not come from within his own family.

“It is possible that she radicalized him or that suspected terrorists inside America he was communicating with are responsible for the radicalization, which led him to be attracted to a more hardline Salafi girl,” Mauro said.

What is known is that Malik met Farook online and that the two became engaged after Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia in September 2013. Malik applied for a K-1 visa at the American embassy in Islamabad in May, 2014 and two months later Farook again traveled to Saudi Arabia, met her there and brought her to the U.S. on a K-1 visa, a 90-day visa given to fiancés planning to marry Americans.

“Tashfeen remains the biggest mystery,” said a leader of the area’s Pakistani-American Muslim community. “She’s the one no one knows anything about and has little to no presence on the Internet or having interacted with others in the Muslim community.”

They were married on Aug. 16, 2014, in nearby Riverside County, Calif. according to their marriage license. The marriage and passage of criminal and national security background checks using FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases resulted in a conditional green card for Malik in July 2015, two months after she gave birth to their baby daughter.

Malik and Farook, an American citizen born in Chicago and raised in Southern California by parents of Pakistani descent, lived with their daughter and his mother, Rafia Farook, in a Redlands, Calif., apartment described by one investigator as an “IED factory” and ammo arsenal.

The last several days have been absolutely maddening, from this Christian American Conservative’s view of all that transpired.

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, the Main Stream Media, Internet “Tough Guys”, and self-proclaimed pundits, have all joined together in a concerted effort to try to convince average Americans that we did not really witness what we actually saw with our own eyes.

Obama, even though it is a certainty that he had much more information on this attack than we shall ever be privy to, was ambivalent at best, when he spoke to the America Public about the massacre, refusing to identify it for what it has actually turned out to be.

Can’t you just see the late Sam Kinison up in Obama’s face, telling him to

SAY IT!!! SAY IT!!! ?

Heck, one ignorant little CNN Anchor even tried to blame the massacre on “Post-Partum Depression”.

As, I have written, the President of our country believes that the answer is to enact new Gun Law by Executive Order, because, as we all know, Radical Islamists revere the laws of the United States of America, above their own Political Ideology, which masquerades as a religion.

For whatever reason, the Obama Administration has been less than truthful with the American Public. The San Bernadino Massacre is just the latest example.

Whether it’s the influence of Obama’s years in Indonesia, his 20 years sitting under a Former American Black Muslim in the person of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the influence of Valerie Jarrett, and the rest of the Muslims in his Administration, this willful denial of the existence of Radical Islam has led to a situation which finds our nation facing unparalleled danger, from enemies foreign and domestic.

Now is not the time for Political Correctness, denial, and deflection.

It is time to face our enemies and stand up to them as Americans always have.

And, not through stupid Climate Change Seminars, either.

Until He Comes,

Escalation in Iraqi-Nam: Obama Sending Special Forces to Fight ISIS. So Much for “No Boots on the Ground”.

On December 2, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

T“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. – Admiral Josh Painter (Fred Thompson), “The Hunt For Red October”

Nationalreview.com reports that

President Obama is sending an “expeditionary force” of U.S. military special operators to carry out raids against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, a move that expands on their decision to send about 50 special operators to Syria to coordinate air strikes. “In full coordination with the Government of Iraq, we’re deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on [ISIS],” Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the House Armed Services Committee in announcing the new deployment on Tuesday. Although the term “expeditionary force” evokes large-scale mobilizations such as those seen in World War II or the Iraq War, Carter outlined a more limited deployment. But his announcement still provoked questions about the legal basis for the move, and caused one Democrat to warn of the specter of nuclear war with Russia. In arguing for the additional force, Carter invoked the recent rescue of ISIS prisoners in Iraq and the raid in Syria that killed a top commander in charge of the terrorist group’s oil and gas operations. “Imagine . . . on a standing basis, being able when occasions arise . . . to conduct raids like that anywhere in the territory of Syria and Iraq. That is what we’re talking about.”

He couldn’t, however, claim the legal authority to make such a deployment under the terms of the 2001 legislation that authorized the use of military force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq — the only such congressional authorization on the books. “I can’t speak to [that],” Carter told Representative Bradley Byrne (R., Ala.).

White House press secretary Josh Earnest urged lawmakers to pass new legislation providing Obama with the explicit authority to counter ISIS. “This effort is serious, and should be the focus of serious debate,” Earnest told reporters during his Tuesday briefing. “It will take more than three weeks to pass an AUMF, but Congress, in each of these cases, must stop using the fact that these issues are difficult as an excuse for doing nothing.”

Carter got a hint of just how difficult it may be to sell Congress on such legislation when Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii) suggested that Obama’s decision to place American fighter jets equipped “to target Russian planes” on the border between Turkey and Syria, and his stated opposition to Russian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, could lead the U.S. into a nuclear war with Vladimir Putin’s regime.

“Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of — whether it’s intentional or even an accidental event — where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane,” Gabbard told Carter. “And that’s really where the potential is for this devastating nuclear war.” Carter characterized the U.S. disagreement with Russia as a diplomatic problem, not a military danger. “We have a different view, a very different view from Russia about what would be constructive for them to do in Syria,” he said. “That’s not the same as the United States and Russia clashing.”

Once again, as he has in the 7 years since he took office, President Barack Hussein Obama is “leading from behind”.

The fact that Vladimir Putin has taken the lead in the Middle East is testimony to the dangerous, mass confusion that Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, euphemistically dubbed “Smart Power!” has turned out to be.

And, “Smart Power!” has illuminated the fact, once again, that ALL of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

September 11, 2014 – The New York Times reported that

After enduring harsh criticism for saying in a news conference two weeks ago that he did not have a strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria, Mr. Obama sketched out a plan that will involve heightened American training and arming of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the militants. Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide bases for the training of those forces.

The White House has asked Congress to authorize the plan to train and equip rebels — something the Central Intelligence Agency has been doing covertly and on a much smaller scale — but Mr. Obama said he had the authority necessary to expand the broader campaign.

“These American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” Mr. Obama pledged, adding that the broader mission he was outlining for American military forces “will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; it will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Setpember 16, 2014 – ABCnews.go.com reported that

American ground troops may be needed to battle Islamic State forces in the Middle East if President Barack Obama’s current strategy fails, the nation’s top military officer said Tuesday as Congress plunged into an election-year debate of Obama’s plan to expand airstrikes and train Syrian rebels.

A White House spokesman said quickly the president “will not” send ground forces into combat, but Gen. Martin Dempsey said Obama had personally told him to come back on a “case by case basis” if the military situation changed.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He referred to the militants by an alternative name.

Pressed later by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the panel’s chairman, the four-star general said if Obama’s current approach isn’t enough to prevail, he might “go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces.”

Dempsey’s testimony underscored the dilemma confronting many lawmakers as the House moves through its own debate on authorizing the Pentagon to implement the policy Obama announced last week. In Iraq on Tuesday, the U.S. continued its expanded military campaign, carrying out two airstrikes northwest of Irbil and three southwest of Baghdad.

After the hearing, Dempsey told reporters traveling with him to Paris that the Pentagon had concluded that about half of Iraq’s army was incapable of partnering effectively with the U.S. to roll back the Islamic State group’s territorial gains in western and northern Iraq, and the other half needs to be partially rebuilt with U.S. training and additional equipment.

September 17, 2014 – According to politico.com,

“U.S. ground troops will not be sent into combat in this conflict,” Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Instead, they will support Iraq forces on the ground as they fight for their country.”

…Kerry’s testimony comes as Congress races toward a critical vote to give the Obama administration the green light to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The House is set to vote on the measure later Wednesday, with the Senate to take up the legislation later this week. The measure has run into considerable opposition from both the right and the left but is expected to pass before lawmakers left Washington until after the midterm elections.

President Barack Obama reiterated earlier Wednesday in a speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, that he will not send U.S. combat troops to fight ISIL in Iraq, following testimony from Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey that opened the door to that option earlier this week.

And later during the Foreign Relations hearing, Kerry declined to move off that position, despite questioning from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whom Kerry told: “I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals.”

“The president has made a judgment as commander-in-chief that that’s not in the cards,” Kerry said, referring to ground troops.

Shortly before the hearing began before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, protesters from the anti- war group Code Pink – a prevalent sight on the Hill in recent days as lawmakers engaged in debate about arming Syrian rebels – stood up, held signs and chanted “No more war!”

Deviating from his prepared remarks, Kerry turned his attention to the protesters, seated in the front row of the hearing room, and told them that while he was sympathetic to their opposition to war, if they believed in the broader mission of Code Pink, “then you ought to care about fighting ISIL.”

Stressing that the Islamic State was “killing and raping and mutilating women” and “making a mockery of a peaceful religion,” Kerry told the protesters: “There is no negotiation with ISIL.”

Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) stressed that if the military campaign continues for an extended period of time – like he expects – lawmakers will need to pass a new authorization for the use of military force that focuses narrowly on ISIL. He signaled last week that the panel will begin drafting one.

“I am personally not comfortable with reliance on either the 2001 AUMF that relies on a thin theory that ISIL is associated with Al Qaeda, and certainly not the 2002 Iraq AUMF which relied on misinformation,” Menendez said.

Later as he questioned Kerry, Menendez told the secretary of state that “you’re going to need a new AUMF, and it’ll have to be more tailored.” Kerry responded that the administration would “welcome” it.

The panel’s top Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, expressed deep skepticism about the Obama administration’s strategy to fight Islamic State extremists, telling Kerry: “We know the Free Syrian Army can’t take on ISIL. You know that.”

“I do want us to deal with this,” Corker told Kerry “You’ve not laid it out in a way that meets that test.”

Later in the day on September 17, 2014 – According to FoxNews.com,

The White House acknowledged Wednesday that President Obama would consider putting U.S. troops in “forward-deployed positions” to advise Iraqi forces in the fight against the Islamic State — even while insisting U.S. troops would not be sent back into a “combat role” in Iraq.

Obama and his top advisers appeared to be threading a needle as they carefully clarified how exactly U.S. troops might be used, a day after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey opened the door to approving “U.S. military ground forces.”

The White House continued to insist Wednesday that a “combat” role has in fact been ruled out, and that U.S. troops will not be engaging the Islamic State on the ground.

Speaking at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, after visiting U.S. Central Command, Obama told troops: “I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”

He vowed that the U.S. forces currently deployed to Iraq to advise Iraqi forces “will not have a combat mission.” Instead, he said, they will continue to support Iraqi forces on the ground, through a combination of U.S. air power, training assistance and other means.

But shortly afterward, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest clarified that Dempsey was talking about the possible need to put U.S. troops already in Iraq into “forward-deployed positions with Iraqi troops.”

Earnest said that step has not yet been necessary, but if Dempsey asks to “forward deploy” American advisers, “the president said he would consider it on a case-by-case basis.”

He said, in that scenario, U.S. troops “would be providing tactical advice to Iraqi security forces” or be in position to call in airstrikes.

“They would not have a combat role. They would not be personally or directly engaging the enemy,” Earnest stressed.

So, now, we will officially have “boots on the ground”, even though we already have “Military Advisors” in Iraq.

What is this? Leadership by ‘three blind men describing an elephant”?

This is what happens when you have a President more interested in “fighting a war” against a disease breaking out in his father’s home country, than protecting the country that he is supposed to be leading, from Muslim Terrorists.

Years ago, the local ABC Affiliate in Memphis used to run The Benny Hill Show at 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays. For those of you sheltered younger readers, Benny Hill was a wonderful British comedian and entertainer. “The Lad Himself” wrote a lot of his own hilarious material, including such memorable characters as Cap’n Scuttle, and songs that would literally have you busting your gut in laughter. However, one of the things that Benny will forever be remembered for, happened at the end of every show, when one thing would lead to another, culminating in a rip-roaring chase scene, set to the saxophone-led accompaniment of the incomparable Boots Randolph’s “Yakety Sax”.

The chaotic, amateurish manner in which the administration has attempted to “prosecute” the limited war against the Muslim Terrorist Group, now numbering almost 32,000 members, known as ISIS or ISIL, is very reminiscent of a Benny Hill Show Chase Scene.

Except…there’s nothing funny about it.

Until He Comes,

Obama Apologizes For America Again, Ushers in the “Breakthrough Energy Coalition”. Shades of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

On December 1, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Well, Petulant President Pantywaist has apologized to other countries on behalf of America…again.

And…just like every time before…no level-headed American asked him to.

The Times of India reports that

President Barack Obama told world leaders who gathered northeast of Paris on Monday for a climate conference that the United States is at least partly to blame for the life-threatening damage that environmental change has wrought, and he urged world leaders to join him in fixing the problem.

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

In a speech interrupted by repeated beeps warning that he had exceeded his time limit, Obama said in Le Bourget that the climate conference represented an important turning point in world history because the leaders attending the meeting now recognize the urgency of the problem.

“No nation — large or small, wealthy or poor — is immune,” he said.

The greatest threat to reaching a binding climate accord may be a loose coalition of developing nations, led by India, who argue that they should not be asked to limit their economic growth as a way of fixing a problem that was largely created by the others, and Obama conceded that point.

“We know the truth that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its most destructive effects,” he said.

He promised money to help the poorest nations transition to economies that depend less on burning fossil fuels, but he said a delay was not acceptable.

“For I believe, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that there is such a thing as being too late,” Obama said. “And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us.”

Obama also repeated an argument, lampooned by some Republicans, that the climate conference was a fitting response to the terrorist attacks that cost the lives of 130 people in and around Paris on Nov. 13.

“What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it,” he said.

About 150 world leaders were expected to gather at the opening of the talks in a heavily guarded convention center as a show of encouragement and support for efforts to forge a historic agreement to jointly curb greenhouse-gas emissions, in an effort to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Obama has staked much of his legacy on ensuring success here, spending much of the past year courting the leaders of China, India and other major emitters in hopes they would finally agree to slow their rapidly rising use of coal and other carbon-intensive fuels.

President Francois Hollande of France greeted Obama just eight hours after the two paid a surprise late-night visit to the Bataclan, the concert hall where dozens of people were killed on Nov. 13, as part of a coordinated series of attacks in and around Paris.

At the brief visit last night, Obama, Hollande and Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, each laid a white rose before standing in silence in front of the building for several minutes.

Shortly after his arrival, Obama met with President Xi Jinping of China in a meeting of the leaders of the world’s two largest carbon-polluting countries.

Citing climate change as “a huge challenge,” Xi said it was “very important for China and the United States to be firmly committed to the right direction of building a new model of major country relations,” including by “partnering with each other to help the climate conference deliver its expected targets.”

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group of business and philanthropy leaders led by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates who have a combined total of $350 billion in private wealth, have pledged to invest in moving clean-energy technologies from laboratories to the marketplace.

About this “Breakthrough Energy Coalition”…

The Business Insider reports that

Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and a roster of other high-profile tech figures are launching a new organisation designed to invest in renewable energy technologies.

It is called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, and says its aim is to create “a network of private capital committed to building a structure that will allow informed decisions to help accelerate the change to the advanced energy future our planet needs.”

Announced ahead of a major UN climate change conference in Paris this week, the coalition’s members say that enough isn’t being done from established organisations to drive forward research and investment into clean energy.

Writing on Facebook late Sunday night, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that “solving the clean energy problem is an essential part of building a better world … yet progress towards a sustainable energy system is too slow, and the current system doesn’t encourage the kind of innovation that will get us there faster.”

Likewise, the Coalition’s website says that “the existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles.”

In short: Established investors are moving much too slowly towards the renewable energy, and it’s too important to wait for that to sort itself out naturally.

Among the other “Investors” in this new “coalition” are the Puppetmaster himself, George Soros and fellow “Billionaire Philanthropist” Tom Steyer.

Which is interesting, because Breitbart.com’s Steve Milloy reported back on August 17th that

U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.

Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.

Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.

Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

What a difference a few months makes, especially when those months have seen coal company stocks fall to fire sale prices. So far the size of Soros’ coal investment seems so far relatively small (Peabody has 248 million shares of stock outstanding), but the reports available only cover up to the quarter ending on June 30.

It’s possible that Soros is only looking for a “dead cat bounce” from his Peabody and Arch Coal investments, but the companies together have provable coal reserves of about 11 billion tons, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. I doubt the shrewd Soros is looking to make just a few million dollars on these investments.

Soros isn’t the only leftist shark in the water.

There’s billionaire hedge fund operator Tom Steyer who committed to spend $100 million in 2014 to elect anti-coal, climate alarmist-friendly politicians. Though he failed miserably, he has re-upped for the same program in 2016. Yet Steyer’s dirty secret is that, despite his protestations of concern about the climate, he’s made a fortune from coal production in Indonesia over the past 15 years. It’s easy to imagine some Steyer-steered investment vehicle rescuing sinking coal companies under the guise of turning coal into “clean energy” business. Though the current coal industry trial and failed miserably to do re-brand itself as “clean,” with the right politics and the right payoffs, Steyer no doubt could pull off that trick.

Boys and girls, as the late, great Yogi Berra used to say, this may very well be

Deja vu…all over again.

The Chicago Climate Exchange was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

It all began with the Joyce Foundation. This foundation started as the financial back-up plan of a widow whose family had made millions in the lumber industry.

After her death, it was run by philanthropic people who increasingly dedicated their giving to Liberal causes, including gun control, environmentalism and school changes. It has grown over the years until it is now bigger than the TIDES Foundation and actually funds it.

The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the capitol outlay to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it traded was, believe it or not, air.

Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 . What a coincidence, that, as president, pushing cap-and-trade was one of his highest priorities, huh?

Back on 6/29/09, canadafreepress.com reported that

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Fortunately for our nation, Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill failed to leave the Senate in July of 2010, leading the Chicago Climate Exchange to close up shop in November of 2010.

However. to this very day, Obama is still relentlessly pursuing “Climate Change”, which the majority of Americans, in poll after poll, have stated is not a National Priority.

And, a group of Investors, among whose number are friends and benefactors of Obama, have formed another group, for the stated purpose of “Duty and Humanity”, in order to, as the Chicago Climate Exchange was going to, “assist in the fight against Climate Change”.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Until He Comes,

Obama Goes to Paris Climate Change Summit To Pledge OUR Money. Congress to Fight.

On November 29, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, is about to spend a boatload of American Taxpayers’ money on a psuedo-science that the majority of Americans do not believe is an important issue at all.

The New York Times reports the following

WASHINGTON — At a joint news conference here Tuesday with President François Hollande of France, President Obama veered from his focus on the terrorist attacks in Paris to bring up the huge international gathering beginning in the French capital on Monday to hammer out a global response to climate change.

“What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children,” Mr. Obama said of the climate conference.

The segue brought mockery, even castigation, from the political right, but it was a reminder of the importance Mr. Obama places on climate change in shaping his legacy. During his 2012 re-election campaign, he barely mentioned global warming, but the issue has become a hallmark of his second term.

And on Sunday night he arrives in Paris, hoping to make climate policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency.

“He comes to Paris with a moral authority that no other president has had on the issue of climate change,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University who noted that Mr. Obama’s domestic climate efforts already stand alone in American history. “No other president has had a climate change policy. It makes him unique.”

In Paris, Mr. Obama will join more than 120 world leaders to kick off two weeks of negotiations aimed at forging a new climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit almost every country on Earth to lowering its greenhouse gas pollution. All year, Mr. Obama’s negotiators have worked behind the scenes to fashion a Paris deal.

Crucial to Mr. Obama’s leverage has been the release of his domestic climate change regulations, which he then pushed other countries to emulate. So far, at least 170 countries have put forth emission reduction plans.

But even as Mr. Obama presses for a deal in Paris, it faces steep obstacles, not least the legal and legislative assault on his own regulations at home. During the course of the Paris talks, Republicans in Congress are planning a series of votes to fight Mr. Obama’s climate agenda. More than half the states are suing the administration on the legality of his climate plan. And all the Republican presidential candidates have said that they would undo the regulations if elected.

On Nov. 19, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, chairman of the environment committee and the Senate’s most vocal skeptic on climate change science, and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming sent a letter to Mr. Obama, signed by 35 other senators, promising to block the funding for any climate deal unless the Paris pact is sent to Congress for ratification. A vote on the deal would fail in the Republican-controlled Congress.

“Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers,” the senators wrote. “They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard-earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Obama is pushing forward. He unveiled the rules on curbing heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions with a tight timeline, ensuring that they would be finalized before he leaves office. He has raised the issue of climate change in dozens of speeches and with every recent visiting foreign leader. In Washington, a team of environmental lawyers is preparing to defend the rules in court, while at the State Department, climate envoys are in constant contact with their counterparts around the world

If his domestic regulations and a Paris accord withstand efforts to gut them, “climate change will become the heart and soul of his presidency,” Mr. Brinkley said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, why is Obama on this Quixotic Crusade to make a belief in a pseudo-science his legacy?

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

There is a sucker born every minute.

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

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

3. Hey, look! Squirrel! – Obama needs to grasp for whatever national distraction he can come up with bringing in Syrian Refugees by the tens of thousand into our country, imbedded with possible Islamic Terrorists from ISIS, he desperately needs a distraction. The Planned Parenthood Attack in Colorado by a nut job, didn’t provide near enough cover.

4. Well, he sure can’t make his failed Foreign Policy his legacy.

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

So, there you go. I wonder what argument Obama is going to present to these World Leaders that he is meeting with?

Perhaps, he will present a showing of “The Day After Tomorrow”, the movie starring Dennis Quaid, which bombed spectacularly, in which the ice was chasing everybody.

ROFL!

Until He Comes,

Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet. Kills Pilots in the Air. Obama to “Rebuke” ISIS By Attending Climate Change Summit. “Hello, McFly!!!”

On November 25, 2015 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

And, you don’t believe we’re on the Eve of Destruction… – Barry McGuire (1965)

The Washington Post reports that

BEIRUT — NATO faced being thrust into a new Middle Eastern crisis on Tuesday after warplanes from member state Turkey shot down a Russian jet that Turkish officials said had violated their country’s airspace on the border with Syria.The incident marked a serious escalation that is likely to further strain relations between Russia and the NATO alliance.

Russian officials confirmed that a Russian Su-24 attack aircraft was shot down Tuesday morning but insisted it had not violated Turkey’s airspace.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said one of at least two pilots probably died during the incident, and a marine also was killed by apparent Syrian insurgent fire during a helicopter rescue operation to retrieve the downed airmen.

The downing brings renewed attention to a scenario feared for months by the Pentagon and its partners: a potential conflict arising from overlapping air missions over Syria — with Russia backing the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State.

Turkish officials have accused Russia of repeated airspace violations since it launched airstrikes against Assad’s armed opposition in late September.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had strong words for Turkey, calling the incident a “stab in the back.”

In Washington, President Obama called for de-escalation but said Turkey had the right to defend its airspace.

Turkey’s military said the Russian jet was warned multiple times before it was targeted by two F-16 fighter jets in the border zone in western Syria in mountains not far from the Mediterranean coast.

Turkey called for an emergency NATO session to discuss the incident but has not invoked alliance provisions that would involve other members in its defense.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said after the meeting that NATO allies with intelligence assets near where Turkey shot down the Russian warplane had confirmed Turkey’s version of events and rejected Russia’s claim that its aircraft was flying over Syria and had not crossed into Turkish airspace.

“The information we have from other allies is consistent with what we have got from Turkey,” Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels.

“This is a serious situation” that calls for prudence and de-escalation, Stoltenberg said. “We have to avoid that situations, incidents, accidents spiral out of control.”

A U.S. military spokesman confirmed that Turkish pilots issued 10 notifications to their Russian counterparts warning that they were in Turkish airspace and that the Russians did not respond.

“On the radio . . . we were able to hear everything that was going on,” said Col. Steve Warren, spokesman at the Baghdad headquarters for U.S. forces operating in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, NATO decried a “troubling escalation” by Russian forces in Syria and raised concerns about attack missions within sight of the Western alliance’s borders.

Although Turkey and the United States oppose Assad, their warplanes have avoided the Syrian leader’s military and are instead bombarding the Islamic State militant group, which controls parts of Syria and Iraq. Russian aircraft have primarily hit non-Islamic State rebels, including some groups that are backed by the United States and Turkey.

The fallout could complicate a diplomatic push to bring greater international coordination to the fight against the Islamic State. The radical group has claimed responsibility for the Nov. 13 Paris attacks that killed at least 130, as well as the Oct. 31 downing of a Russian passenger plane over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula that killed all 224 aboard.

French President François Hollande met with Obama in Washington on Tuesday to discuss strategies against the Islamic State and parallel efforts to seek a negotiated end to Syria’s nearly five-year civil war. Hollande is expected to meet later in the week with Putin and other world leaders.

In the Russian resort city of Sochi, Putin said the plane “did not threaten the territory of Turkey” and that it was “pursuing operations” against the Islamic State in mountainous areas north of the Syrian port of Latakia.

“Today’s tragic cases will have significant consequences for the relations between Russia and Turkey,” Putin told reporters after talks with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, whose nation is part of the U.S.-led coalition.

Some Russian lawmakers have called for retaliation against Turkey by evacuating Russian tourists from popular vacation destinations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov canceled a scheduled trip to Turkey.

Video footage of the incident showed a warplane on fire before crashing on a hill and two crew members apparently parachuting down. But a video purportedly posted by Syrian rebels appeared to show the body of a Russian pilot.

Sergei Rudskoi, an officer in the Russian army’s General Staff, said a rescue helicopter sent to retrieve the pilots came under heavy fire. “During the operation, one of the helicopters due to gunfire was damaged and forced to make an emergency landing on neutral territory,” Rudskoi said in a briefing with Russian journalists. “One marine was killed.”

Rebel forces released video footage showing an anti-government fighter using a surface-to-surface missile to destroy what appears to be a Russian helicopter. The authenticity of the video could not be confirmed.

Some rebels have been using U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW missiles as part of a covert program coordinated between the United States and its allies.

In early November, the United States deployed additional fighter aircraft to Turkey’s Incirlik air base to help the country protect its airspace.

Friction between Ankara and Moscow has also intensified over alleged Russian airstrikes on Syrian villages dominated by Turkmen, an ethnic minority with cultural ties to Turkey.

Last month, Turkey’s military downed an unmanned aerial vehicle near the border with Syria that military analysts said appeared to be Russian-made. Officials in Moscow denied connection to that downed aircraft and sent a delegation to Turkey to smooth over concerns.

Russia issued a formal apology to Turkey in early October when a jet violated Turkish airspace and Turkish F-16s were scrambled to intercept the plane. The Russians called the mistake “a navigational error.”

Russia has carried out more than 4,000 airstrikes since the beginning of its intervention in Syria, using a force of modern and modified Soviet-era aircraft. Russia has at least 32 fixed-wing aircraft and 16 helicopters at the Khmeimim air base near Latakia, an Assad stronghold on the Mediterranean Sea just 30 miles from the Turkish border.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, said the following about this ominous incident…

This is a mess. This is a total mess. And it’s not hard to pinpoint why. But if I were to say it, I would be accused of the same thing I’m accusing all these Drive-Bys of, drawing this comparison. Well, if Obama was providing standard, ordinary, expected American leadership in the last seven years, we wouldn’t even be here. There wouldn’t even be an ISIS. There wouldn’t be an Iran ascending to run the entire Middle East because they wouldn’t have been enabled to create a military weapons program. None of this would have happened it’s safe to say if anybody else had been elected president.

Now, if Hillary had won the Democrat nomination, I don’t know. But we’re dealing with a dangerous set of circumstances. On the one hand we’ve got leadership incompetence, or maybe leadership absence on the part of Obama. It’s just not something he wants to do. And, by the way, don’t get on me. It was Obama who said it last week at that press conference he had in Turkey where he said he’s not into sloganeering and these concepts of American leadership and American victory, winning. Those are things that make him uncomfortable. It’s not what this is really all about.

You can interpret that in any number of ways, but one thing, he doesn’t want to lead, he doesn’t want the US in a leadership or dominant position. And the reasons for that are multi. He doesn’t think that we deserve it. We are not the world’s superpower. We’re illegitimate. You know the drill. What my opinion of Obama’s opinion of the United States is. So a lot of people are understandably worried about what comes next because this is Vladimir Putin who has been attacked, and Putin is interested in winning, and Putin is interested in Russian leadership, and Putin does want to be allied with whoever ends up running the Middle East. Winning and victory and leadership are not concepts that Putin finds nervous or embarrassing. He finds them challenging. So this could go any number of places. We just have to sit and watch, see how it plays out.

In a memo e-mailed the week of March 25th, 2009, in the middle of the World Apology Tour, to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review proclaimed that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

And so it began.

On Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at the University of Cairo, Obama addressed the Muslim World. Here is an excerpt from the 6:35 a.m. speech:

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith-based lives upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Scooter believed that by reaching out to the Muslim world through changing and softening our terminology as it pertained to the Jihad declared against the United States by Muslim Extremists, his administration would make huge inroads in America’s relationship with the Islamic World. This action did nothing but encourage our enemies.

As I have written before, Obama’s insistence that Radical Islam does not exist, even now, in the face of the possible beginning of a global Conflict, is either naiveté, stemming from a livelong dhimmitude, or being an intellectual lightweight.

A recent Fox News Poll reveal that the overwhelming majority of Americans view Muslim Terrorist as the number one thing that they are concerned with. Obama’s obsession, Climate Change was down toward the bottom of the list.

And yet, the President of the United States of America, yesterday said that he was going to “strongly rebuke” ISIS by attending the Climate Change summit.

Obama must still be hanging with the Choom Gang, partaking of “herb”, as he did in high school.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

Obama’s “JV Team” Causes Worldwide Travel Alert. How Did We Get Here?

On November 23, 2015November 24, 2015 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. – Admiral Josh Painter (Fred Thompson), “The Hunt For Red October”

WPIX Channel 11 reports that

WASHINGTON — The State Department issued a rare worldwide travel alert Monday evening for U.S. citizens amid several terror threats overseas.

” Current information suggests that ISIL (aka Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, Boko Haram, and other terrorist groups continue to plan terrorist attacks in multiple regions,” a statement from the department read. “These attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics, using conventional and non-conventional weapons and targeting both official and private interests.”

“Authorities believe the likelihood of terror attacks will continue as members of ISIL/Da’esh return from Syria and Iraq. Additionally, there is a continuing threat from unaffiliated persons planning attacks inspired by major terrorist organizations but conducted on an individual basis. Extremists have targeted large sporting events, theatres, open markets, and aviation services. In the past year, there have been multiple attacks in France, Nigeria, Denmark, Turkey, and Mali. ISIL/Da’esh has claimed responsibility for the bombing of a Russian airliner in Egypt.”

The department says all U.S. citizens should remain vigilant when in public places or using transportation.

Last week, ISIS released a video making threats against New York City. The video showed Times Square, Herald Square and images of terrorists wearing suicide belts.

“We understand it is the goal of terrorists to intimidate and disrupt our democratic society,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said. “We will not submit. It’s crucial that people go about their normal business recognizing the NYPD is providing extraordinary protection for the people of this city.”

To stay informed, people should watch local media and other information sources when making travel plans. Anyone with concerns about their safety should call local police.

People are urged to have a heightened awareness while traveling for the holidays.

The alert expires on February 24, 2016.

So, how did we get here?

The United States of America and our allies being threatened worldwide by the Radical Islamic Barbarians of ISIS?

#1 – Underestimation…and Obfuscation

The President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, said the following about the Radical Islamic Terrorist Organization, ISIS, in a interview with The New Yorker Magazine, published on January 27th, 2014:

The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

Catherine Herridge reports for foxnews.com that

Analysts at U.S. Central Command were pressured to ease off negative assessments about the Islamic State threat and were even told in an email to “cut it out,” Fox News has learned – as an investigation expands into whether intelligence reports were altered to present a more positive picture.

Fox News is told by a source close to the CENTCOM analysts that the pressure on them included at least two emails saying they needed to “cut it out” and “toe the line.”

Separately, a former Pentagon official told Fox News there apparently was an attempt to destroy the communications. The Pentagon official said the email warnings were “not well received” by the analysts.

Those emails, among others, are now in the possession of the Pentagon inspector general. The IG’s probe is expanding into whether intelligence assessments were changed to give a more positive picture of the anti-ISIS campaign.

The former Pentagon official said there were “multiple assessments” from military intelligence and the CIA regarding the “rapid rise” of ISIS in Iraq and North Africa in the year leading up to the group’s territory grab in 2014.

Similar intelligence was included in the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB – the intelligence community’s most authoritative product — during the same time period. Yet the official, who was part of the White House discussions, said the administration kept “kicking the can down the road.” The official said there was no discussion of the military involvement needed to make a difference.

The IG probe started earlier this year amid complaints that information was changed to make ISIS look more degraded than it really was.

Among the complaints is that after the U.S. air campaign started in August 2014, the metrics to measure progress changed. They were modified to use measures such as the number of sorties and body counts — a metric not used since the Vietnam War — to paint a more positive picture.

Critics say this “activity-based approach” to tracking the effectiveness of strikes does not paint a comprehensive picture of whether ISIS is being degraded and contained.

The New York Times first reported on Sunday that the IG investigation was expanding and adding more investigators, and that the office had taken possession of a trove of documents and emails as part of that probe.

Asked about the report, House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said Sunday that his committee and others are involved in the investigation.

“We heard from a lot of whistle-blowers and other informants who have given us information. And not just … related strictly to the latest allegations,” Nunes said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Citing the renewed focus on ISIS after the Paris terror attacks, he added: “So the president, to have a successful strategy, is going to admit that they’ve got it wrong and they need to relook at a larger strategy that deals with north Africa, the Middle East, all the way over to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and then work closely with our NATO allies with what appears to be a command and control structure that ISIS has created successfully in Europe.”

President Obama, speaking at a press conference in Malaysia over the weekend, said he expects to “get to the bottom” of whether ISIS intelligence reports were altered – and has told his top military officials as much.

“One of the things I insisted on the day I walked into the Oval Office was that I don’t want intelligence shaded by politics. I don’t want it shaded by the desire to tell a feel-good story,” Obama said Sunday. “I believe that the Department of Defense and all those who head up our intelligence agencies understand that, and that I have made it repeatedly clear to all my top national security advisers that I never want them to hold back, even if the intelligence or their opinions about the intelligence, their analysis or interpretations of the data contradict current policy.”

At the same time, he said, “As a consumer of this intelligence, it’s not as if I’ve been receiving wonderfully rosy, glowing portraits of what’s been happening in Iraq and Syria over the last year and a half. … [I]t feels to me like, at my level at least, we’ve had a pretty clear-eyed, sober assessment.”

The president’s call for a thorough investigation was greeted with cynicism by those involved in the 2014 intelligence assessments, since the administration did not act on the earlier raw intelligence that painted a dire picture of developments, especially in Iraq.

#2- “Smart Power!”…alienating our friends and empowering our enemies…

In his zeal to appease his American voting base, and those whom he has worked so hard to “organize”, Obama pulled our troops out of the unstable, Radical Muslim nation of Iraq, in a “premature evacuation”.

Proudly announcing that “al Qaeda was on the run”, Scooter (my pet name for Obama) turned his attention to giving campaign speeches and rallying his Liberal Base, even though he was a President presiding over a tanking economy, with over 92 million Americans already gone from our workforce.

Back on July 7, 2013, I wrote

“Now, I’m just spitballin’ here…but, shouldn’t the President of the United States of America be standing for Freedom, not for Oppression?

Is this never-ending Arab Spring in the Middle East a direct result of his June 4, 2009 suck-up to the Muslim World?

Is Meghan McCain useless?

If you will remember, gentle reader, at the same time Obama was kissing the posteriors of the Muslim World, his State Department Spokespeople were telling us that the “War on Terror” was over with, and there were no such thing as Islamic Terrorist Attacks any more, just “Man-Caused Disasters”.

The kissing up to the Muslim World continues in Obama’s Second Term as, just in the past several months, Obama has hosted representatives off the MB, the ISNA, and Radical Islamic Cleric, Sheik Abdullah bin Bayyahm, who had actually been barred from entering our country!

Shouldn’t Obama be protecting us from our sworn enemies, not inviting them to OUR White House and hugging their necks?

While Obama’s DOJ and IRS have been harassing Christian and Conservative Groups alike, Obama has been welcoming those who wish to behead us Infidels, with open arms.

Think about something, did the gigantic bonfire, known as Arab Spring, happen under President Ronald Reagan? Did it happen under President George W. Bush? NO.

The responsibility for what is going on in the Middle East and its potential threat to our allies in Israel and to this sacred land, as well, lies on the narrow shoulders of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).”

Lord, I hate it when I’m right.

Then, it happened.

ISIS/ISIL, a Radical Muslim Terrorist Organization, with over 32 thousand adherents, invaded Iraq, killing innocent Muslims and Christians, and threatening to flood Baghdad, by blowing up an essential dam on the Euphrates River.

Obama sprang into “Community Organizing” mode once again. He sent “military advisors” to Iraq, and sent Secretary of State John “I served in Vietnam” Kerry on a European and Middle Tour to trying to get a consensus to support our actions, and to try to form a coalition to assist in the “prosecution” of ISIS/ISIL, in order for Obama to keep his promise to his Far Left Supporters that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq.

Think of it as General Custer sending the Scouts first into Little Big Horn, while he sat on his horse, watching from a hill.

Yeah. The Europeans wanted no part of it, either.

However, some of the Middle Eastern Nations decided that they would join in, for their own self-protecting, mercenary reasons (Remember the Hessians in the Revolutionary War?).

President Barack Hussein Obama’s International “Street Cred” has been tarnished beyond repair after the abysmal consequences, as regards the stability of the Middle East, of his failed Foreign Policy of “Smart Power!”

The terrifying results of Obama’s attempt at “Community Organizing” the Muslim World, including the lost of life of both innocent civilians and of America’s Brightest and best, which has dwarfed the war casualties which occurred under his predecessor, President George W. Bush, now have begun to arrive at our own shores, with Korans and prayer rugs being found at our open Southern Border, honor killings and attacks by Radical Muslims, labeled as “work place violence” by the Obama Administration. and now, thousands of Syrian “Refugees”, with members of ISIS probably embedded among them, being transported to our cities by President Barack Hussein Obama, himself.

It is time for Obama to stop being the world’s “Community Organizer” and to perform his duties as the President of the United States.

…While we still have a country.

Until He Comes,

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: Barack Hussein Obama

The San Bernadino Massacre, Barack Hussein Obama, and Misplaced Priorities

Donald J. Trump, White House Hypocrisy, and the Immigration Act of 1924

Obama Speaks to the Nation…and “Removes All Doubt”

The San Bernadino Massacre, Sharia Law, and the U.S. Constitution (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

The San Bernadino Massacre: Average Americans Proven Right About It, All Along.

Escalation in Iraqi-Nam: Obama Sending Special Forces to Fight ISIS. So Much for “No Boots on the Ground”.

Obama Apologizes For America Again, Ushers in the “Breakthrough Energy Coalition”. Shades of the Chicago Climate Exchange?

Obama Goes to Paris Climate Change Summit To Pledge OUR Money. Congress to Fight.

Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet. Kills Pilots in the Air. Obama to “Rebuke” ISIS By Attending Climate Change Summit. “Hello, McFly!!!”

Obama’s “JV Team” Causes Worldwide Travel Alert. How Did We Get Here?