Iran to Berth Warships at Ports in the Atlantic Ocean…Some “Deal”. Smart Power!

Israel-Tied-600-LIAnd you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. – Matthew 24:6 (ESV)

About that “Agreement of Iran” and how they are “co-operating”…

The Times of Israel reports that

Iran intends to dispatch “a fleet of warships” to the Atlantic Ocean shortly, the semi-state Fars news agency reported Thursday, quoting the regime’s navy chief.

“Our warships will soon berth at ports in the Atlantic Ocean,” Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari promised at a ceremony on Wednesday marking the return to port of Iranian warships that Fars said had taken part in joint drills with the Russian navy.

Sayyari said the Iranian vessels had been in the Caspian Sea and at the Russian port of Astrakhan. “The presence of Iranian warships in international ports shows the Iranian Navy’s prowess,” Fars quoted him saying.

Sayyari made a similar pledge to deploy warships in the Atlantic in early 2014. At the time, Iran promised to send its fleet close to American maritime borders as a counter to the US navy’s presence in the Gulf. But in April, the navy chief said the move had been canceled “due to a change in schedule.”

The US-Iran relationship remains tense and friction-filled, despite the US-led world powers’ deal with Iran, sealed in July, on curbing its nuclear program.

Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly rejected any future talks on other issues, and ruled out normalization with the United States.

The former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani was reported to have admitted this week that the country’s nuclear program was started with the intent of building a nuclear weapon, with the express consent and participation of Khamenei. “Our basic doctrine was peaceful usage of the nuclear technology although we never abandoned the idea that if one day we are threatened and it is imperative, we would have the capability for going the other path [to nuclear weapon] as well,” Rafsanjani reportedly said.

Regarding the “Agreement” which President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry reached with the Largest State Sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the World, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty reported  on August 15th of this year that

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said the Islamic republic’s opposition to the “arrogant” United States “will not change” despite a landmark nuclear agreement reached earlier this week with world powers.

The comments, broadcast live on state television on July 18, were greeted by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” at a ceremony at Tehran’s Mosala Mosque on the occasion of the Eid al-Fitr festival, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama defended the accord amid skepticism from congressmen reviewing the deal.

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state affairs in Iran, said U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Iran’s strategy and that Tehran will continue to support its allies in the region, including Lebanon’s Hizballah militant group and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Whether this [nuclear deal] is approved or disapproved, we won’t stop supporting our friends in the region,” he said. “The oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, the honest resistance fighters in Lebanon and Palestine will enjoy our constant support.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei added.

Khamenei maintained that Iran’s engagement with six world powers was solely to reach a nuclear deal that was in its national interest.

“We do not negotiate with the United States on various global, regional, or bilateral issues,” Khamenei said. “Sometimes — based on expedience — we have talked to them on exceptional matters, such as the nuclear issue, and it has not been only this one time.”

“U.S. policies in the region are 180 degrees in contrast to Iran’s policies,” he added.

Under the deal agreed in Vienna on July 14 after years of negotiations, sanctions against Tehran, which have hampered Iran’s economy, will be gradually removed in return for the Persian Gulf state accepting long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The talks involved Iran and the five veto-wielding Security Council members — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France — as well as Germany and the European Union.

Western countries accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran denies.

Khamenei reiterated that position on July 18, mentioning a fatwa, or religious edict, he himself issued against any action seeking the bomb.

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They know it’s not true.”

There was another famous “bad deal” in history, made by a “World Leader”, who also sacrificed his country’s safety, in his purposeful obtuseness and naiveté.

The speech, “Peace in Our Time”, was delivered by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938, in defense of the Munich Agreement, which he made with those infamous barbarians, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party, or as the world came to call them, the Nazis, and Hitler’s good buddy, the Italian Fascist, Benito Mussolini.

The following is an excerpt:

…I would like to say a few words in respect of the various other participants, besides ourselves, in the Munich Agreement. After everything that has been said about the German Chancellor today and in the past, I do feel that the House ought to recognise the difficulty for a man in that position to take back such emphatic declarations as he had already made amidst the enthusiastic cheers of his supporters, and to recognise that in consenting, even though it were only at the last moment, to discuss with the representatives of other Powers those things which he had declared he had already decided once for all, was a real and a substantial contribution on his part. With regard to Signor Mussolini, . . . I think that Europe and the world have reason to be grateful to the head of the Italian government for his work in contributing to a peaceful solution.

In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made. I know the House will want to hear what I am sure it does not doubt, that throughout these discussions the Dominions, the Governments of the Dominions, have been kept in the closest touch with the march of events by telegraph and by personal contact, and I would like to say how greatly I was encouraged on each of the journeys I made to Germany by the knowledge that I went with the good wishes of the Governments of the Dominions. They shared all our anxieties and all our hopes. They rejoiced with us that peace was preserved, and with us they look forward to further efforts to consolidate what has been done.

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

That’s what happens when you strike an “Gentlemen’s Agreement” with barbarians, liars, and madmen.

As I have written before, I believe that Obama’s zeal to leave some sort of enormous historical legacy has led to a purposeful naiveté and obtuseness on his part, not only to history, but also, to the present wishes and wellbeing of not only those who have be maimed, slaughtered, and who still live under these repressive regimes that he has dealt with, but, also, to the continued sovereignty and very existence of the United States of America.

The Mad Mullahs of Iran do not play by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules, like “civilized countries” do.

They only respect strength and resolve.

Unfortunately, Obama and Kerry showed them neither of those qualities, during their negotiations.

Hence, their continued rhetoric, the threatened dispatching of a fleet of warships.

…and, the faint sound of uncontrollable laughter.

God protect His Chosen People …and us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Republican Candidates Fight Each Other…and the Moderators…at CNBC Debate

republican-debate-20161There were fireworks at the Republican Presidential Candidate Debate on CNBC, last night. However, a lot of the fireworks were not the kind that the network hoped for.

Realclearpolitics.com has the story…

At the Republican debate hosted by CNBC in Boulder, Colorado Wednesday night, presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the moderators, particularly John Harwood of The New York Times, and the media for their treatment and characterization of himself and his competitors.

“The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” Cruz at Wednesday’s Republican debate. “Everyone home tonight knows that the moderators have no intention of voting in a Republican primary.”

Cruz later went tete-a-tete with Harwood, a CNBC contributor, for cutting him off and wanting to move on.

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

“Let me say something at the outset,” the Senator from Texas said. “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”

“This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues,” Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience.

“Do we get credit for this one,” Quintanilla asked Cruz?

“And Carl, I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?” Cruz asked and then paused to cough.

“You have 30 seconds left to answer should you choose to do so,” Quintanilla told the candidate.

“Let me be clear,” Cruz said. “The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than ever participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.”

“Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary,” Cruz said.

“The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“I asked you about the debt limit and got no answer,” Quintanilla said.

“You want an answer to that question?” Cruz asked. “I’d be happy to answer your question.”

Cruz was interrupted this time by John Harwood who said “we’re moving on.”

“Senator [Rand] Paul, I’ve got a question for you,” Harwood said in his attempt to move on.

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

“I’m interested in an answer from Senator Paul,” Harwood retorted.

Sen. Cruz was not the only one who was not pleased with the blatant hostility and bias of the CNBC Moderators…as businessinsider.com reports…

The audience at the third Republican presidential debate booed CNBC’s moderators Wednesday night when one challenged retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson about a controversial association.

Carson has been tied to Mannatech, a nutritional-supplement company based in Texas. He appeared in a promotional video and spoke at two conferences hosted by the company, whose supplements have come under fire.

“This is a company called Mannatech, a maker of nutritional supplement, with which you had a 10-year relationship. They offered claims that they could cure autism, cancer. They paid $7 million to settle a deceptive marketing lawsuit in Texas. And yet your involvement continued, why?” CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla asked Carson, also questioning whether it spoke to his “vetting process or judgment.”

Carson dismissed the question.

“That’s easy to answer. I didn’t have an involvement with them. Total propaganda. I did a couple speeches for them. I did speeches for other people — they were paid speeches. It is absolutely absurd to say that I had any kind of relationship with them. Do I take the product? Yes. I think it’s a good product,” he said.

The moderator then pointed out that Carson was on the company’s webpage. Carson said he didn’t give them permission to do that.

After the audience loudly booed the follow-up question, Carson simply said: “They know.”

The audience cheered.

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often fallen way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2015, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the upstart Fox News Channel in informing America’s population in the Heartland, and that has been their undoing, much to Obama’s consternation.

Every night of the week, the Fox News Channel beats the mainstream outlets in popularity. There is a reason for that.

Fox News is exactly what it claims to be: fair and balanced.

The Mainstream News Channels are so far up Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s backsides that they wouldn’t know the truth if it French-kissed them.

Just as it was during the Russian Revolution, when Vladimir Leninn seized control of Russia from the Czar, and just as it was during the era of the National Socialist Party in Germany, when a former altar boy and house painter named Adolf Hitler took over, the first thing that totalitarian governments do is to take control of media, for propaganda purposes.

Through threats, coercion, and promises of reward, that is exactly what Obama did when he took office.

Of course, he did not have to try very hard. The Main Stream Media were already Obama Fanboys, their staffs being made up of a majority of Liberals.

Heck, they were posting fictitious propaganda about Barack Hussein Obama, before he was even elected president.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Fox News Channel. It has solidified their position as the Leader in Cable News.

And, the thing about it, is the fact that Fox News is not the only source by which average Americans can obtain the truth about Obama and his administration. The New Media, the Internet, has proven to be an invaluable source for dissemination of information.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, turned up the heat on both Obama and the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

With their performance last night, the CNBC Debate Moderators, while doing the will of their Masters at the Network and the Democratic Party, the self-proclaimed “Broadcast Journalists” allowed the entire country to witness them practice, on live television, their actual jobs: being junkyard dogs and purveyors of propaganda , in service to a political party and ideology, who once stood for the “Working Man and Woman”, but who now stand for the worst kind  of state-sponsored fascism, racial division exacerbated by the Rhetoric of Class Warfare, and greed-inspired socialism.

It was refreshing to see them called out by both the candidates and the audience.

It is time to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Welcome to Iraqi-Nam! Obama Sends Troops to Fight ISIS. So Much For “No Boots on the Ground”.

untitled (9)Have you ever played the “Gossip Game”?

We used to do it all the time on Church Youth Retreats. You line up a long row of chairs and sit your group down in them. Somebody whispers a sentence into the ear of the person in the first chair, who then whispers it in the ear of the person in the second chair, and so forth. By the time the sentence is whispered in the ear of the person in the last chair, it sounds nothing like the original sentence.

The message that Obama and his Administration communicated, over a year ago, about how they are going to prosecute the “limited engagement” against ISIS/ISIL reminded me, at the time, of the “Gossip Game”.

Let’s examine the Administration’s disjointed message, shall we?

To the Wayback Machine, Sherman!

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. 

Fast forward to the present.

As someone once famously said,

All of Barack Hussein Obama’s promises come with an expiration date.

It might have been Mooch (Michelle).

But, I digress…

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

NBC News reports that

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin “direct action on the ground” against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.”We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,” Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter pointed to last week’s rescue operation with Kurdish forces in northern Iraq to free hostages held by ISIS.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects “more raids of this kind” and that the rescue mission “represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission.”

This may mean some American soldiers “will be in harm’s way, no question about it,” Carter said last week.advertisement
 
After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

“This is combat and things are complicated,” Carter said.

During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Carter said Wheeler “was killed in combat.”

White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Tuesday said the administration has “no intention of long term ground combat”. He added that U.S. forces will continue to robustly train, advise and assist.

A feisty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services committee hearing that the U.S. effort in Syria is a “half-assed strategy at best,” and said that the U.S. is not doing a “damn thing” to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Carter on Tuesday pushed back against that notion.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the “balance of forces” has tilted in Assad’s favor.

This is what happens when you have a President that is more interested in “fighting a war” against our country’s municipal police departments, and a disease which broke 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 manner in which the administration is attempting to “prosecute” a “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,

KJ

 

 

Obama Defends “Black Lives Matter” Movement. Will Speak to National Police Chiefs’ Convention Tomorrow

th30IL8Z61

Black Lives Matter is quickly turning into a new generation of Westboro Baptist Church. Protesting during the funeral of a fallen officer? Despicable. – CJ Pearson, Black American Conservative and Facebook Celebrity, 13 years old!

Tomorrow, the eyes of municipal police departments all over the nation will be trained on Chicago, IL.

TheBlaze.com reports that

During Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Chicago Saturday, one protester scaled a flagpole in front of a national police chiefs’ convention, took down the American flag —

— and replaced it with a flag that read “Unapologetically Black,” WLS-TV reported.

Most of the 66 arrests came when protesters staged a sit-in in the middle of the street, WLS reported, in order to disrupt the International Association of Chiefs of Police gathering.

More from WLS:

“What we’re looking for today is to have our voices heard, to show the coalition of voices, to show that black lives matter, to make our voices heard to this very powerful organization that sets policies,” protester Maria Hadden told the station. “We want less money for policing and more money for community services.”

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy left the gathering to check on things outside, WLS said, then he returned to deliver his remarks.

“We’re in a tough time for policing right now and I believe we’re at a crossroads. I don’t think this climate has ever existed in the history of American policing,” he told the other chiefs. “But at the same time I honestly believe this scrutiny and this environment presents an opportunity for us.”

President Barack Obama will address the conference on Tuesday.

Ironically, President Barack Hussein Obama, last Thursday, proclaimed his support for the very same movement that disrupted the Chicago Conference.

FoxNews.com  has the story…

WASHINGTON –  Defending the Black Lives Matter movement, President Obama said Thursday the protests are giving voice to a problem happening only in African-American communities, adding, “We, as a society, particularly given our history, have to take this seriously.”

Obama said the movement, which sprung up after the deaths of unarmed black men in Florida, Missouri and elsewhere, quickly came to be viewed as being opposed to police and suggesting that other people’s lives don’t matter. Opponents have countered that “all lives matter.”

At  the conclusion of a White House forum on criminal justice, Obama said he wanted to make a final point about the nexus of race and the criminal justice system before launching into his defense of the movement. “I think everybody understands all lives matter,” Obama said. “I think the reason that the organizers used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities.

“And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

Police relations with minority communities and the deaths of unarmed black men have been topics of great interest since the shootings of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012 in Florida and 18-year-old Michael Brown in 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Those deaths, and others of black women, have inspired protests around the country under the “Black Lives Matter” moniker.

Obama paired his defense of the Black Lives Matter movement with praise for police and other law enforcement officials. Some police groups have been unhappy with Obama’s response to the deaths of the unarmed black men. The president lately seems to be making the extra effort to publicly praise police officers for willingly taking on a dangerous assignment.

He did so while participating in a forum on drug abuse Wednesday in Charleston, West Virginia, and next week he’s scheduled to address the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

At the White House, Obama said there are specific concerns about whether blacks in certain areas are treated unfairly or are more frequently subjected to excessive force by police.

But the president said people should also “understand the overwhelming majority of law enforcement’s doing the right thing and wants to do the right thing” and “recognize that police officers have a really tough job and we’re sending them into really tough neighborhoods that sometimes are really dangerous and they’ve got to make split-second decisions.”

He said people shouldn’t be “too sanctimonious” about situations that can sometimes be ambiguous.

“But having said all that, we as a society, particularly given our history, have to take this seriously,” Obama said. “And one of the ways of avoiding the politics of this and losing the moment is everybody just stepping back for a second and understanding that the African-American community is not just making this up.”

“It’s not just something being politicized. It’s real and there’s a history behind it and we have to take it seriously,” he said.

In a separate development, the Black Lives Matter organization on Thursday rejected a town hall-style forum it had been offered by the Democratic National Committee, in lieu of a sanctioned debate it had requested. The group said a town hall wouldn’t “sufficiently respond to the concerns raised by our members.” The DNC said it has approved only six debates, and all have been scheduled.

Is it just me, or do you also remember that we are supposed to be living under the first post-racial president?

It sure does not seem that way. Ever since Obama got into office, all I have heard from him is the Rhetoric of Racial Division and Class Warfare.

It reminded me of all the historical conflicts which I used to read about, during the course in college which I took, titled “The Rhetoric of Social Protest“.

Karl Marx knew long ago that all you needed to do to touch the heart of the common man was to convince him of a shared struggle.

Vladimir Lenin took this a step further, by using the concept of a shared struggle to convince the Bolsheviks to help him overthrow the Czar of Russia and murder him and his family during the Russian Revolution.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but fiery rhetoric spoken by a national leader has consequences.

President Barack Hussein Obama is as responsible for what happened in Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore as any thug wannabe in those cities.

However, he is not alone in his responsibility.

Also responsible are the black political leaders, who make their living and get their 15 minutes of fame by exacerbating racially-divided situations. Their silence speaks volumes.

For example, by the Mayor of Baltimore, purposely giving carte blanche to the rioters to destroy her city by ordering the police to stand down, she, like the Roman Emperor Nero, lit the match that has set her kingdom ablaze.

I remember, as a 9 year old in Memphis, Tennessee, watching my parents’ black and white television as the National Guard was called into action on the night that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

I remember after that Civil Defense Announcement that President Lyndon Johnson come on national television to make the announcement of Dr. King’s death. I remember a feeling of helplessness and of fear, as a nine-year-old, that I had not felt before.

It wasn’t just the fact that we were living in Midtown Memphis, that made me afraid.

It wasn’t just the fact of the out-of-control violence itself, that caused my consternation.

It was watching my beloved Hometown on the verge of going up in flames.

And now, 46 years later, Memphis is the #2 Most Dangerous City in America, as ranked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Words can hurt or words can heal.

A President who was supposed to bridge the Racial Divide in this nation…has, instead, widened it.

And, with every divisive word he speaks, further creates a chasm that has created a gaping hole in the fabric of American Society.

Words mean things.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Uncle Joe Announces That He Will Not Run…Or, Is He Just “Biden” His Time?

thG0DEG5PPThe Vice-President of the United States of America, Joe Biden, made what was billed, beforehand, as a historic announcement , yesterday, live from the Rose Garden.

Foxnews.com reports that

Vice President Biden announced Wednesday he will not run for president, ending months of feverish speculation over his 2016 plans and likely settling the Democratic field. 

Speaking in the Rose Garden alongside his wife Jill and President Obama, Biden said the window of opportunity to mount a viable campaign “has closed.” He has been weighing a decision since summer, but cautioned all along that he and his family were grieving over the loss of his son Beau Biden — and said Wednesday he knew that process could outlast the window for making a decision.  

“Unfortunately, I believe we’re out of time, the time necessary to mount a winning campaign for the nomination,” Biden said. 

He added, “While I will not be a candidate, I will not be silent.” Biden went on to urge Democrats to run on Obama’s record, while decrying the current partisanship in Washington. 

The decision would appear to bolster front-runner Hillary Clinton — whom Biden had been urged by supporters to challenge as she grappled with slipping poll numbers and a widening scandal over her email use in her capacity as secretary of state. 

After Biden’s remarks, Clinton tweeted: 

“@VP is a good friend and a great man. Today and always, inspired by his optimism and commitment to change the world for the better. -H”

Biden, though, seemed to take a parting shot Wednesday at her and other Democratic candidates, after some suggested Republicans are their enemy at last week’s debate. 

“I don’t think we should look at Republicans as our enemy. They’re the opposition,” Biden said, urging lawmakers to find “consensus.” 

“Four more years of this kind of pitched battle may be more than this country can take,” he said. “We have to change it.” 

According to a senior administration official, the vice president made his decision Tuesday night. 

His choice is a blow to former staffers and others who were building a virtual campaign in waiting, ready to go if he decided to enter. Draft Biden, the most vocal organization urging the VP to run, put out a brief statement after his announcement: “We are so grateful for the gigantic outpouring of support from hundreds of thousands of Americans around the country in our effort to encourage the Vice President to run. While the Vice President has decided not to run, we know that over the next year he will stand up for all Americans and articulate a vision for America’s future that will leave no one behind.” 

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement that Biden’s decision will hurt Democrats. 

“The Vice President’s decision not to enter the 2016 race is a major blow for Democrats, who now will almost certainly be saddled with their unpopular and scandal plagued front-runner Hillary Clinton,” he said. 

Democratic National Committee leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, said she appreciates Biden’s “thoughtful consideration,” adding “his unwavering commitment to America’s working families is a legacy each of our candidates will proudly carry forward.”

How…sweet.

There was something that just did not ring true about Crazy Uncle Joe’s announcement, yesterday.

Rush Limbaugh made the following observation during his program, yesterday on Wednesday…

He makes this announcement, this big announcement in the Rose Garden with Obama standing next to him, his wife standing on the other side, the day before Hillary testifies on the Benghazi hearing, clears the way for her. He did not endorse her, did not mention her, did not throw his support to her, but this set of remarks that we got would have been — the media would proclaim this is one of the greatest coming-out speeches ever for a candidate announcing his intentions to run for president.  It went on.  In fact, I’ll tell you something, folks. 

He kept talking and kept talking, and I was worried that he was gonna change his mind in the middle of this and talk himself into running after all.  And I think Obama was a little worried about that, too.  This did not sound like somebody that was announcing he wasn’t gonna do something.  You know, we all like to peek behind the curtain.  We all like to get into the room where we’re not permitted and wonder what really went on in there.  And this was so odd that it makes me think he really wanted to do it and powerful forces warned him not to. I couldn’t answer the question, “Well, why? Why would that happen?” But this was just so incongruent. And then you add to it this litany of defects that he cited in the country, as though these people haven’t been in power.  It’s just confusing.  It’s classic of leftists, in that sense.  But this speech — I want to reiterate this point.  This speech was an “I’m running for president” speech.  I’m convinced he wanted to do it.  Well, not “convinced.”  But this is so much like a speech by somebody that’s going to do something, and it would have been said to be one of the best ever such speeches.  And yet it’s to announce he wasn’t gonna do this. 

I think he really probably wanted to and somebody leaned on him and said, “Nope, nope, nope.”  And the deal was, “Okay, well, I get to go out and say what I wanted to say anyway.” And he did, and that’s why Obama went out there with him, ’cause, believe me, folks, old Joe is old Joe, and he’s a walking gaffe machine.  And I think they had Obama out there as a living guardrail if you will, a living restraint. 

Okay, boys and girls. Please allow me to do some supposin’ (as we say in Dixie).

Now, suppose that word got out to the Clinton Campaign that Uncle Joe had decided to throw his hair plugs into the ring.

Upon hearing of this, Hil calls up Scooter (Obama) and threatens to spill the beans, concerning the president’s knowledge about what went on that fateful night of September 11, 2012 at the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, if Biden enters the Democratic Primary.

In fact, it didn’t have to be about Benghazi. Hil knows where all of “the bodies are buried” at the Obama White House.

…And, Arkansas, too.

But, I digress…

If Joe was truly resigned to the fact that he waited too late to enter the race, would he still be making catty little comments about Hil and what he would have done, if it would have been up to him, at the time?

I don’t think so.

A second scenario occurred to me, and probably to all of you, as well.

What if Biden is “bidin'” his time, to see if Hillary gets damaged during Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Hearings?

Hillary gets nailed and, then Uncle Joe will swoop in like Superman to save the day for the Democratic Party, who by then would be left with the crazy, dried-up old Socialist from Vermont as the leading Candidate for their Party’s Nomination.

Yikes.

Stay alert over the next several days.

I have this feeling that Crazy Uncle Joe isn’t going anywhere.

This is too big a F_____ deal, as he would say.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama Signs “Deal” With Iran Before Congress Has the Chance to Approve It

Missing-Piece-600-LIPresident Barack Hussein Obama spat in the face of Congress and the American People, yesterday.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama on Sunday signed the Iran nuclear deal, officially putting the international agreement into effect.

The president’s signature opens the way for Iran to make major changes to an underground nuclear facility, a heavy water reactor and a site for enriching uranium.

However, the rogue nation will need months to meet those goals and get relief from the crippling economic sanction that will be lifted as part of deal, despite the pact going into effect Sunday.  

The seven-nation deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was reached on July 14, after roughly two years of negotiations.

The so-called “Adoption Day” on Sunday also requires the United States and other participating countries to make the necessary arrangements and preparations for implementation” of the deal, the president said.

“Today marks an important milestone toward preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensuring its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful going forward,” Obama said. “I welcome this important step forward. And we, together with our partners, must now focus on the critical work of fully implementing this comprehensive resolution that addresses our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.” 

Senior administration officials said Saturday they understand it’s in Iran’s best interest to work quickly, but they are only concerned that the work is done correctly.

They insisted that no relief from the penalties will occur until the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency has verified Iran’s compliance with the terms of the agreement. They said Iran’s work will almost certainly take more than the two months Iran has projected.

The administration officials spoke on a conference call with reporters, but under the condition that they not be identified by name.

As part of the nuclear agreement, Obama on Sunday also issued provisional waivers and a memorandum instructing U.S. agencies to lay the groundwork for relieving sanctions on Iran.

In Iran, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told state TV: “On implementation, all should be watchful that Westerners, particularly Americans, to keep their promises.”

Velayati said Iran expects that the United States and other Western countries that negotiated the deal will show their “good will” through lifting sanctions.

Iran’s atomic energy chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, told state TV that Tehran was ready to begin taking steps to comply, and awaited an order from President Hassan Rouhani. “We are hopeful to begin in the current or next week,” he said.

The IAEA said Sunday that Iran has agreed to allow greater monitoring of its commitment to the deal, going beyond basic oversight provided by the safeguards agreement that IAEA member nations have with the agency. For instance, it allows short-notice inspections of sites the IAEA may suspect of undeclared nuclear activities.

Even as the terms of the deal begin taking effect, recent developments have shown the wide gulf between the U.S. and Iran on other issues.

Fighters from Iran have been working in concert with Russia in Syria, and a Revolutionary Court convicted a Washington Post reporter who has been held more than a year on charges including espionage. The court has not provided details on the verdict or sentence. Further, two other Americans are being detained, and the U.S. has asked for the Iranian government’s assistance in finding a former FBI agent who disappeared in 2007 while working for the CIA on an unapproved intelligence mission.

Also, Iran successfully test-fired a guided long-range ballistic surface-to-surface missile.

But the U.S. officials asserted that those actions would be worse if they were backed up by a nation with a nuclear weapon. The officials emphasized that the seven-nation pact is focused solely on resolving the nuclear issue.

The steps being taken by the U.S. come 90 days after the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal.

So, Obama went around our System of Checks and Balances, and spit in the face of public opinion , running to the UN, in order to cement his Presidential Legacy, by reaching a “deal” with a country that hates our ever-lovin’ guts.

Per politico.com,

Ted Cruz’s worst fear about the nuclear deal with Iran? That “millions of Americans will be murdered by radical theocratic zealots.”

Speaking to reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon, the Texas senator and conservative presidential aspirant laid out several doomsday scenarios of what would happen if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, which Cruz and many GOP critics charge is more likely under the agreement negotiated by Tehran’s leaders and the international community.

President Barack Obama and his administration argue that under the deal Iran’s ability to quickly make a bomb will be hamstrung, and that doing nothing would actually accelerate Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

But Cruz said if Iran were to acquire a bomb, he fears the detonation of a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv, Israel’s second-largest city, that would “murder vast numbers of Palestinians” and Israeli Jews.

“The odds are unacceptably high that they would view the murder of those Palestinians is perfectly acceptable collateral damage to annihilating millions of Jews,” Cruz said.

The second scenario that Cruz said is a “really real risk” is Iran loading a nuclear bomb onto a ship, guiding it to the Atlantic Ocean and detonating it in the atmosphere to “shut down the entire electrical grid on the Eastern Seaboard.”

“It could take down our stock market, our financial systems, but even more importantly, could take down food delivery, water delivery, heat, air conditioning, transportation. The projections are that one nuclear warhead in the atmosphere over the Eastern Seaboard could result in tens of millions Americans dying,” Cruz said, responding to a question of what is the biggest risk under Obama’s nuclear deal. “The greatest risk to this Iranian deal, it is that millions of Americans will be murdered by radical theocratic zealots.” 

Cruz also weighed in on Secretary of State John Kerry’s reaction to remarks by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that he will “trample” the United States. Kerry said the comments were “disturbing” but wasn’t sure how to interpret them.

“John Kerry said something to the effect of: I don’t know what to make of Khamenei’s comment,” Cruz said. “There’s not a great deal of ambiguity in death to America. He’s not hiding his desired outcome and only a fool would desire to see radical theocratic zealots who are pledging to murder Americans to have nuclear weapons and the capability to murder millions of Americans in one flash of light.”

The Senate will vote on the Iran nuclear agreement in September.

So, just who did Obama feel was more important than the Legislative Branch of OUR Government?

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members:

There are five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date): Angola (2016), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Nigeria (2015), Spain (2016), and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016)

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Let me inform any idiotic individuals who might support Obama’s going to the United Nations first, instead of the Congress of the United States of America, with this simplistic work of naiveté, which Obama and Kerry are trying to pass of as a “treaty”, the way I feel about “answering” to the United Nations.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above you in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where you are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

To summarize, we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of President Barack Hussein’s efforts to make us “just another country”.

Congress needs to tell Obama to roll up that document of his capitulation, disguised as a treaty, and place it between him and the camel he rode in on.

Until He Comes,

KJ

An American Genocide: It’s Time for Christians to Speak Out From the Pulpit and On the Street

Abortion punishment 1052014But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.  – Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

The Christian Post reports that

Christian ethicist Russell Moore has said that congregations too afraid of being political to speak out against acts of immorality, like abortion, are similar to churches in the 1800s that remained silent on the issue of slavery.

As the featured speaker at the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s fifth annual Diane Knippers memorial lecture, Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, criticized mainstream Christian congregations that have relaxed their teachings on key issues of sexual morality and other social issues in order to blend in with the “ambient culture” and appeal to today’s society. 
 
Moore explained that religious conservatives need to “preserve” the biblical truth for future generations. Although secular society likes to claim that Christian conservatives are on the “wrong side of history,” Moore told the audience that Christian conservatives should not be afraid to have their biblical convictions conflict with mainstream society and that they should really embrace the distinctive Christian message.

“This is something that Diane Knippers saw Mainline denominations losing as they believed that the best way to connect with the generations around them was to assimilate into the sameness of the ambient culture. That is a recipe for death,” Moore argued.

“It’s a recipe for death, precisely for the same reasons that Jesus is speaking to Pilate about a Kingdom that does not originate from the world. Christianity always thrives the best when we have a distinctive word and a distinctive word that is rooted in a specific view of authority. Jesus said, ‘I have come to bear witness for the truth.'”

“The arguments that we see happening right now over issues of human sexuality are not really about human sexuality,” Moore continued. “These are debates of apostolic authority.”

Despite the fact that religious conservative views on issues like gay marriage and abortion directly conflict with the views of a secular world, Moore assured that the historic Christian message has always conflicted with the world’s understanding.

Although many congregations in the last 50 years have altered their views and teachings to accommodate the modern worldviews, Moore warned that churches that have historically distanced themselves from the biblical truth eventually failed to exist.

“The miraculous was startling in the first century and in every other century, so the churches who discarded it no longer had anything distinctive to say and withered and died into obscurity,” Moore stated. “The churches who were willing to speak with a voice of authority about resurrection, the coming of Christ, supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit are the churches who had a witness to be able to bring forward.”

Moore further argued that secularism is not the world’s final “stopping point.”

“Secularism is just a stop along the path,” Moore said. “We must have a distinctive word in terms of claim to authority, and we must be willing to bear witness. We must be a conversionist people, which means that if we truly believe that the spirit of God is able to transform someone from sinner to saint, we will be the people who will not hesitate to speak the truth and to speak what often will be unpopular truths.”

Churches have long been responsible for speaking the unpopular truths on social issues, not just in today’s world where abortion and gay marriage are the hotly contested subjects, Moore said.

“The churches in 1845 Georgia that did not speak to slavery, were speaking to slavery,” Moore said. “If you stand in the pulpit and call people to repentance for drunkenness and sexual immorality, but you do not call them to repentance for man-stealing and kidnapping and pretending to own another human being, you have spoken to that issue by saying that it will not be something for which one must give an account at the judgement.”

“The churches in 1925 Mississippi that spoke about drunkenness and adultery, but did not speak about lynching, were speaking to lynching,” Moore continued. “They were baptizing the status quo by not calling people to repentance for a grave sin against God and against a neighbor.”

“The churches in 21st century America that do not speak to the personhood of the unborn are speaking to the personhood of the unborn by baptising the status quo and leaving consciences that are wounded and in need of Gospel liberation exactly where they are under accusation, rather than freeing them with a witness that is thought to be political.”

Russell Moore makes a good point.

However, I wish to take it a step further.

Christian Americans are not in a struggle against just Christianity vs. Secularism.

We are involved in a struggle of Good vs. Evil.

In 2003, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), spoke in front of his colleagues in defense of the infanticide known as Late-Term Abortion…

I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

While The Lightbringer was in the Illinois State Senate, he opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill which would make sure that babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.

This measure also protected babies who were “aborted” through a purposeful premature birth and left to die afterwards.

During Obama’s U.S. Senatorial Campaign in 2004, his opponent attacked him for supporting infanticide by voting against the above-mentioned bill. Obama responded by claiming that he had opposed the state bill because it lacked the neutrality clause found in the federal version.

The Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004,

Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal.

During Obama’s 2008 run for President, he stood by those claims.

In March, 2008, during a Townhall Meeting in Western Pennsylvania, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) said,

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

Of course, Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States. When he was “radically changing” everything about our sacred land, blood was being spilled across the fruited plains. Especially, in that same state of Pennsylvania:

On February 18, 2010, the FBI raided the “Women’s Medical Society,” run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a butcher, euphemistically killing babies under the title of “Abortion Doctor”.

The FBI entered the office about 8:30 p.m. expecting to find to find evidence that it was illegally selling prescription drugs. What they found was America’s Auschwitz:

There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff. They also found out that a patient had died there several months earlier.

Until 2009, Gosnell reportedly performed mostly first and second trimester abortions. But his clinic had come to develop a bad reputation, and could attract only women who couldn’t get an abortion elsewhere, former employees have said. “Steven Massof estimated that in 40 percent of the second-trimester abortions performed by Gosnell, the fetuses were beyond 24 weeks gestational age,” the grand jury states. “Latosha Lewis testified that Gosnell performed procedures over 24 weeks ‘too much to count,’ and ones up to 26 weeks ‘very often.’ …in the last few years, she testified, Gosnell increasingly saw out-of-state referrals, which were all second-trimester, or beyond. By these estimates, Gosnell performed at least four or five illegal abortions every week.”

On January 22, 2013, Obama said,

On the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we reaffirm its historic commitment to protect the health and reproductive freedom of women across this country and stand by its guiding principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters, and women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care.

The Liberal mind is fascinating.  Sick and twisted…but, fascinating. On the one hand, Obama is saying that children are to be cherished and protected. I agree.

At, the same time, he stands by a woman’s right to kill her baby. I can hear the Liberals screeching right now.

That’s not a baby. It’s a fetus! It’s not the same thing! You chauvinist pig!

(Fetus is Latin for BABY)

If cherishing God’s gift of life makes me a “chauvinist pig”, you’re darned skippy I am! Yay, pigs! Sooey! That’s not a puppy growing in there, y’all.

The blatant hypocrisy shown by Obama, his loyal minions in Congress, and the MSM, the Liberal pundits on TV and Radio, and ignorant “seminar” callers and posters on Conservative websites, in defense of  “their rights “not to be punished with a baby” and their silence regarding the American Auschwitz know as the Gosnell Case, is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s…and positively chilling.

Remember a while back, when MSNBC Host, and resident Communist, Melissa Harris-Perry proclaimed, 

…we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility, and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.

Evidently, for Obama and the rest of the Liberals, that only applies when the child is no longer a “punishment”.

And, if Christian Americans do not speak out against this American Genocide…WHO WILL?

God help us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

It Takes a Radical: The Very Political Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton

PROLOGUE:  I researched the following information and recorded it as a 4 part series about Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am offering it today, as a 5,500 word essay, because, with many still insisting that, despite all of the controversy concerning the impropriety involving her handling of Top Secret E-mails while Secretary of State, that she still remains the inevitable Democratic Candidate for President in the Elections of November 2016,  I feel that it is imperative to share this information in a form where it will be easy for you , gentle readers, to share with your friends and family, before the first televised Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate on CNN, tonight. 

Even though she is constantly attempting to reinvent herself as a “Moderate” Democrat, a”Woman of the People”, and, just recently, as a “human being” as aof her Campaign Strategy, the story of her life reveals someone quite different.


Hillary Clinton 1On October 26, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham entered this world in Chicago, Illinois.Hillary Rodham, the oldest daughter of Hugh Rodham, a prosperous fabric store owner, and Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, a quaint little suburb located 15 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. Hillary has two younger brothers, Hugh Jr. (born 1950) and Anthony (born 1954).In her youth, the future Democrat was active in young Republican groups, even campaigning for the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee, Barry Goldwater.According to Hil, she was inspired to work in some form of public service after hearing the Reverend Martin Luther King speak in Chicago. She became a Democrat in 1968.The young ingenue attended Wellesley College, where she was active in student politics, being elected Senior Class President before she graduated in 1969.After that, Hilary enrolled in Yale Law School, where she met Bill “Bubba” Clinton.  Afer graduating with honors in 1973, she then enrolled at Yale Child Study Center, where she took courses on children and medicine and completed one post-graduate year of study, which explains her whole “It takes a village” philosophy.While a college student, Hillary worked several summer jobs. In 1971, she arrived in Washington, D.C. to work on U.S. Senator Walter Mondale’s sub-committee on migrant workers. The next summer found her out west, working for the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern.Then, in the spring of 1974, Rodham became a member of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff, advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal.Her boss back then, Jerry Zeifman, now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, tells a very revealing story concerning her work there.According to Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former Yale Law Professor, Burke Marshall, also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.When the Watergate Investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. That made the Future First Lady and Secretary of State one of only three people who earned that badge of dishonor in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

According to Zeifman,

Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Zeifman claims that she was one of several individuals including Marshall, Special Counsel John Doar, and Senior Associate Special Counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum, who plotted to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Zeifman believes  that they were deathly afraid of putting the break-in’s mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by Counsel to the President.  The reason being, Hunt had the goods regarding some dirty dealings  in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a kid busting open his Piggy Bank…dealings which purportedly included Kennedy’s complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

Hillary and her associates were acting directly against the decision of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, who all believed that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel.

The reason that Hillary and the rest came up with the scheme is because they believed that they could gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

In order to pull off this scheme, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

Hillary wanted to present in her brief that there was no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970….

As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer.

Douglas was allowed to keep counsel by the Judicial Committee in place at the time, which clearly established a precedent. Zeifman told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

That was  a mistake, per Zeifman…

Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public.

Hillary then wrote a legal brief which argued that there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding…ignoring the Douglas case completely.

The brief was so laughingly fraudulent, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had ever actually submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary and her associates had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even be a part of the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

After President Richard M. Nixon resigned in August, rendering the matter of her deception moot, Hillary became a faculty member of the University of Arkansas Law School in Fayetteville, where her Yale Law School classmate and boyfriend Bill Clinton was also teaching.

Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, at their home in Fayetteville. Before he proposed, Bubba had secretly purchased a small house that Hillary had previously said that she liked. When she accepted his marriage proposal, he revealed that they owned the house.

Hillary Clinton #2After she married Bill in 1975, Hillary Rodham Clinton worked on Jimmy Carter’s successful campaign for presidenti in1976, while Bill got elected Attorney General of the state of Arkansas.

Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock after Bill became Attorney General, and made partner only after he was elected governor, according to Former Clinton Confidante Dick Morris.

That event occurred in 1978.

President Carter appointed Mrs. Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in 1978. This was a federally funded nonprofit organization which was designed as a way to expand the social welfare state and grow social welfare spending. According to Dick Morris, the appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary went on to become board chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Hillary more than tripled LSC’s annual budget, from $90 million to $321 million, in taxpayer funds (OUR money). LSC used these funds in several different ways, most notable among them, the printing of political training manuals showing “how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources,” and the financing of training programs that taught political activists how to harass their opposition.

While Hillary was running the LSC board, the Corporation also

1. Worked to defeat a California referendum that would have cut state income taxes in half

2. Called for the U.S. government to give two-thirds of the state of Maine to American Indians

3.  Paid Marxist orators and folk singers to wage a campaign against the Louisiana Wildlife Commission

4.  Joined a Michigan initiative to recognize “Black English” as an official language;

5.  Sought to force the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts so as to avoid “discriminat[ing]” against “minorities” who were “handicapped.”

When it became clear that Ronald Reagan was on the verge of beating Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1980, LSC redirected massive amounts of its public funding into an anti-Reagan letter-writing campaign by indigent clients. After Reagan was elected in November 1980, LSC immediately laundered its assets — some $260 million — into state-level agencies and private groups so as to keep the funds away from the board that Reagan would eventually appoint. Hillary Clinton left LSC in 1981.

While Bubba was  Governor of Arkansas from 1978 to 1980, and again from 1982 to 1992, Hillary was very active “behind the scenes”.

During these years, she continued her legal practice as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. In 1978 she also became a board member of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), and from 1986 to 1992 she served as chair of the CDF Board.

From 1982 to 1988, Hillary also chaired the New World Foundation (NWF), which had helped to launch CDF in 1973. While running the NWF, the Foundation made grants to such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Christic Institute, Grassroots International, the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (which sought to foment a Communist revolution in Central America), and groups with ties to the most extreme elements of the African National Congress.

According to Dick Morris, when Clinton was considering not running for another term as Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn’t. She and Bill even had Morris take two surveys to assess her chances of winning. The conclusion was that she couldn’t win because people would just see her as a seat warmer for when Bill came back licking his wounds after losing for president. So she didn’t run. Bill did and won. But there is no question she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.

So, while Bill was the Front Man, Hil worked “the Back of the House”, in preparation for her “moment in the spotlight”.

During the Clintons’ time in Arkansas, they also both became involved in a little matter which later became known as “The Whitewater Scandal”.

In 1978, while Bubba was Attorney General of Arkansas, Hil and he partnered with James and Susan McDougal in a purchase 220 acres of land that would evolve into the Whitewater Development Corporation. The real estate venture tanked, costing the Clintons a reported $40,000 in losses. After that James McDougal went into the banking industry, forming Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

In 1986, federal regulators investigated another real estate investment backed by James McDougal. The investigation led to McDougal’s resignation from Madison Guaranty and the eventual collapse of the bank. Questions surrounding the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater deal grew during President Clinton’s first term in office and an investigation into the legality of the Whitewater transactions was launched.

All subsequent inquiries into the Whitewater land deal yielded insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct. However, several of their associates were convicted as a result the investigations.

In July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton was nominated by the Democratic Party as their Candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

In August of that year, Daniel Wattenberg wrote the following prophetic statement in the opening of an article for “The American Spectator” titled, “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock”…

Hillary Clinton has been likened to Eva Peron, but it’s a bad analogy. Evita was worshipped by the “shirtless ones,” the working class, while Hillary’s charms elude most outside of an elite cohort of left-liberal, baby-boom feminists-the type who thought Anita Hill should be canonized and Thelma and Louise was the best movie since Easy Rider. Hillary reckons herself the next Eleanor Roosevelt. But, standing well to the left of her husband and enjoying an independent power base within his coalition, Hillary is best thought of as the Winnie Mandela of American politics. She has likened the American family to slavery, thinks kids should be able to sue their parents to resolve family arguments, and during her tenure as a foundation officer gave away millions (much of it in no-strings-attached grants) to the left-including sizable sums to hard-left organizers. She is going to cause her husband no end of political embarrassment between now and November-and who knows how long afterward.

Mr. Wattenberg nailed that one, huh?

Hillary Clinton #3Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States of America on January 20, 1993.  Standing right behind him…and pushing hard was Hillary Rodham Clinton, by now widely known as the more-driven, and politically ambitious one of the couple.

Billed as “the New Camelot” by the Main Stream Media, the Clintons strode arm-in-arm into their castle to preside over their new kingdom, where Progressivism in the name of “Moderation” would be the Law of the Land.

However, just as the reign of Arthur and Guinevere ended badly, into the Clintons’ storybook “Co-Presidency”, “a little rain” fell in the form of scandals and quite a few “Bimbo Eruptions” which brought about an inglorious end to all of their “peace and harmony”.

Rose Law Firm Billing – As I wrote previously, in 1978, while Bubba was Attorney General of Arkansas, Hil and he partnered with James and Susan McDougal in a purchase 220 acres of land that would evolve into the Whitewater Development Corporation. The real estate venture tanked, costing the Clintons a reported $40,000 in losses. After that James McDougal went into the banking industry, forming Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

In 1986, federal regulators investigated another real estate investment backed by James McDougal. The investigation led to McDougal’s resignation from Madison Guaranty and the eventual collapse of the bank. Questions surrounding the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater deal grew during President Clinton’s first term in office and an investigation into the legality of the Whitewater transactions was launched.

After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House announced on the evening of January 6, 1996, that it had unexpectedlydiscovered copies of missing documents from the Rose Law Firm that describe Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980′s.

Federal and Congressional investigators had issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House claimed not have them. The originals disappeared from the Rose Law Firm, shortly before Bill Clinton was inaugurated as President.

The newly discovered documents were copies of billing records from the Rose firm. The originals were found under the Clintons’ bed in the White House, shortly after the statute of limitations ran out.

All subsequent inquiries into the Whitewater land deal yielded insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct. However, several of their associates were convicted as a result of the investigations.

Death of Vince Foster – On July 20, 1993, Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy counsel to the president of the United States, and former partner with Hillary, in The Rose Law Firm, was found lying neatly face-up on a steep embankment in Marcy Park with his feet pointing down, dressed in expensive trousers and a white dress shirt, less than eight miles from the White House, with a single gun-shot wound to the head. Dead. Some of the blood on Foster’s face was still wet, but starting to dry. A trail of blood flowed upwards from his nose to above his ear. The man who found his body said there was no gun, but after he left to notify police, a gun appeared in Foster’s hand. President William Jefferson Clinton’s Arkansas childhood friend, First Lady Hillary Clinton’s Rose Law Firm partner, and White House confidante’s death was to become the subject of controversy.

Due to Foster’s involvement in Whitewater, both at Rose and in the White House, the Senate Whitewater Committee investigation’s conclusion revealed that there was “a concerted effort by senior White House officials to block career law enforcement investigators from conducting a thorough investigation” into Foster’s death, and recommended “that steps be taken to insure that such misuse of the White House counsel’s office does not recur in this, or any future, administration.”

So, was Vince Foster murdered? And, why?

In 1999, a book titled, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage”, caused a lot of consternation among the Clintons and their supporters.

The author, Christopher Andersen, claimed that in 1977 she began an intensely passionate affair with Vince Foster.

The affair supposedly took place when the two were lawyers at The Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, while Bubba was governor.

Rumors of an affair first started buzzing around after Foster was found in Marcy Park. The book did not say when the relationship ended.

To this day, the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster, remain a topic for conjecture.

 Travelgate – In early summer of 1993, 6 employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after Hil and Bubba determined that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came along with it, Coulee be taken over by a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who already owned her own travel agency.

However, they could not just go ahead and hand over a governmental office to a relative, without a backlash, so the Clintons made up a story, claiming that the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there had to be fired. An audit of the Travel Office ensued, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, no corruption or embezzlement were found. That did not matter to the Clintons, so they went ahead and pressured the FBI to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was given instructions to prosecute the employees for corruption.

Of course, the Clintons denied being behind any sort of scheme in the matter. However, leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism. Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired and the trial for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in a verdict of “NOT GUILTY”.

Clinton’s cousin was subsequently removed as new head of the Travel Office.

Afterward, Independent Counsel Robert Ray wrote a report that concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

Bimbo Eruptions – Back in the Bill Clinton era, White House advisor Betsey Wright coined the term “bimbo eruptions” to describe a long list of presidential gal pals.

BIll “Bubba” Clinton’s Bimbo List” included, but is not limited to (I’m sure) Jennifer Flowers, Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward, Paul Corbin Jones, and, of course, Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky scandal was a sensation that enveloped the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1998–99, leading to his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and acquittal by the Senate.

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who claimed that Bill Clinton had accosted her sexually in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas, had brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. In order to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part, Jones’s lawyers questioned several women believed to have been engaging in sex  with him. On Jan. 17, 1998, Bubba took the stand, becoming the first sitting president to testify as a civil defendant.

During this testimony, Clinton denied having had an affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, an unpaid intern and later a paid staffer at the White House who worked in the White House from 1995–96. Lewinsky had earlier, in a deposition in the same case, also denied having such a relationship. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater case, had already received tape recordings made by Linda R. Tripp (a former coworker of Lewinsky’s) of telephone conversations in which Lewinsky described her involvement with the president. Asserting that there was a “pattern of deception,” Starr obtained from Attorney General Janet Reno permission to investigate the matter.

The president publicly denied having had a relationship with Lewinsky and charges of covering it up. His adviser, Vernon Jordan, denied having counseled Lewinsky to lie in the Jones case, or having arranged a job for her outside Washington, to help cover up the affair. Hillary Clinton claimed that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her husband, while Republicans and conservatives portrayed him as immoral and a liar.

In March, Jordan and others testified before Starr’s grand jury, and lawyers for Paula Jones released papers revealing, among other things, that Clinton, in his January deposition, had admitted to a sexual relationship in the 1980s with Arkansas entertainer Gennifer Flowers, a charge he had long denied. In April, however, Arkansas federal judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Jones suit, ruling that Jones’s story, if true, showed that she had been exposed to “boorish” behavior but not sexual harassment; Jones appealed.

In July, Starr granted Lewinsky immunity from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury. He did so on Aug. 17, then went on television to admit the affair with Lewinsky and ask for forgiveness. In September, Starr sent a 445-page report to the House of Representatives, recommending four possible grounds for impeachment: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of authority.

On Dec. 19, Clinton became the second president (after Andrew Johnson) to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruction of justice. The vote in the House was largely along party lines.

In Jan., 1999, the trial began in the Senate. On Feb. 12, after a trial in which testimony relating to the charges was limited, the Senate rejected both counts of impeachment. The perjury charge lost, 55–45, with 10 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats in voting against it; the obstruction charge drew a 50–50 vote. Subsequently, on Apr. 12, Judge Wright, who had dismissed the Jones case, found the president in contempt for lying in his Jan., 1998, testimony, when he denied the Lewinsky affair. In July, Judge Wright ordered the president to pay nearly $90,000 to Ms. Jones’s lawyers. On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.

In a later interview, Hillary claimed that Bill suffered childhood abuse which may have caused him to philanderer and experience “bimbo eruptions” later in life. She described her philandering husband as “a hard dog to keep on the porch”.

The Clinton Co-Presidency ended with the Inauguration of President George W. Bush on January 20, 2001.

However, Hillary Clinton’s “time in the Spotlight” was just beginning.

Hillary Clinton #4On November 6, 2000, Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected Democratic Senator for the State of New York, serving unremarkably until leaving Office on January 21, 2009.

During her undistinguished career in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton voted on a variety of key pieces of legislation as follows:

  • in favor of a 2003 bill to ban oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  • in favor of an October 2002 joint resolution to authorize the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq
  • against major tax-cut proposals in 2001 and 2003
  • in favor of a 2007 proposal to end the use of a point-based immigration system, (i.e., a system that seeks to ensure that people with skills that society needs are given preference for entry into the United States)
  • against a 2007 amendment designating English as the language of “sole legal authority” for the business of the federal government, and declaring that no person has a right to require officials of the U.S. government to use a language other than English
  • against a 2008 bill urging an expansion of the zero-tolerance prosecution policy for illegal aliens; calling for the completion of 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border; allowing for the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the U.S. southern border; and encouraging the identification and deportation of illegal immigrants currently in the American prison system
  • in favor of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act), which put restrictions on paid advertising during the weeks just prior to political elections, and tightly regulated the amount of money which political parties and candidates could accept from donors
  • against separate proposals (in 2004 and 2005) to ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others
  • against a 2003 proposal to ban the late-term procedure commonly known as “partial-birth abortion”
  • against a 2004 proposal to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman
  • against a 2006 bill making it illegal to knowingly transport a pregnant minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion, as a way to escape state laws requiring parental consent

One week after Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, on November 4, 2008, he called Hillary and offered her the job of Secretary of State, despite the fact that she had no Foreign Policy experience. It was a suspicious choice at best, considering that fact that when they were running against each other in the Democratic Primaries,Obama had specifically criticized Clinton’s Foreign Policy credentials and the initial idea of him appointing her had been so unexpected that she had told one of her own aides, “Not in a million years.”

The fact that she had campaigned unreservedly for Obama after he defeated her for the Democratic Nomination, led to speculation that the Secretary of State job was a “reward for her loyalty”.

Hillary accepted the position, and now, as speculation concerning a possible Presidential Campaign runs rampant, even the Main Stream Media is hard-pressed to come up with anything she accomplished as Obama’s First Secretary of State.

So, how did she do?

On January 26, 2013, after Hillary had stepped down as Secretary of State and was replaced by Senator John Kerry, the following conversation took place between Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace and Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume…

WALLACE: Yeah, I want to pick up on that, Brit, because during the hearing, what struck me was the Republicans were tough on Hillary, on Benghazi and the Democrats weren’t. But, both sides kept on saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. And here’s some of the points that have been brought up, some of her accomplishments. She helped assemble the bombing campaign in Libya to topple Muammar Qaddafi. She helped assembly the coalition that imposed the toughest sanctions ever on Iran. And, she established diplomatic ties with Burma.

Question, Brit, how do you rate Hillary Clinton’s performance, record as our top diplomat?

HUME: I think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. They do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on Burma had been done by the previous administration. And the administration properly followed through on it. You look across the world, now at the major issues. Are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with the photo-op in Moscow with the reset button, has they lead to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state? Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? I think the answer to all those questions is that she has not. And those are the kinds of things that might mark her as a great secretary of state.

She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard-working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.

Brit was being gracious. Here are seven Foreign Policy Disasters, which happened under Hillary’s watch as the Architect of “Smart Power!”, in no particular order:

The decision to overthrow President Gaddafi in Libya – The short-sighted, ill-conceived action not only undermined an ally in the (now defunct) “global war on terror,” it also served to throw gasoline on the bonfire known as “Arab Spring.

The Afghanistan “surge”- A military campaign that fails to result in a desired political outcome is con only be considered a failure. What exactly was Obama and Hillary’s desired outcome when they called for this?
It is a fait d’accompli that the Karzai Government will be able to survive long once the U.S. completes its withdrawal of its combat forces from the country in 2014. This is can only be considered a failure, A failure which cost too many of our Brightest and Best.

Granting Afghanistan major non-NATO U.S. ally status – Why did Barry and Hill decide to grant Afghanistan the status of a major non-NATO ally? When we pull out, our enemied will pour in. And, with “friends” like these, you don’t need enemies.

Maintaining the status quo with Pakistan – Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring Sunni jihadists of various stripes. Following the 2001 attacks on the United States, they did an about-face, becoming a chief partner in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan as well as its “global war on terror.”
10 years later, following the successful May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, Pakistan promptly denounced the U.S. and closed its vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan.
Hil and Barry got “played”.

The East Asia “pivot” – Strictly an exercise in containment,attempts at containing China will only fuel Chinese fears of foreign encirclement, that will encourage Chinese assertiveness, that will further encourage containment.
This pivot is only a bluff on behalf of the feckless purveyors of “Smart Power” to begin with.

As shown by the continued drawing of “Red Lines”, they will not stand up to our enemies.

Arab Spring – The Arab Spring was a series of protests and uprisings in the Middle East that began with unrest in Tunisia in late 2010. The Arab Spring has brought down regimes in some Arab countries, sparked mass violence in others, while some governments managed to delay the trouble with a mix of repression, promise of reform and state largesse.
Through this all Hillary and Obama have back the Muslim Brotherhood, the Godfather of Muslim Terrorist Organizations, in deposing Moderate Muslim Leaders.
Doesn’t make a while lot of sense, does it?

BenghaziGate – On September 11, 2012, Muslim Terrorists stormed the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, slaughtered 4 brave Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stephens, whose lifeless, sexually assaulted body they drug through the streets, while taking cell phone pictures of his corpse.
I have written several blogs about the Administration’s Cover-up of this atrocity, but the seminal moment, regarding Hillary Clinton came in January of 2013, during an exchange between her and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Johnson asked her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. Hillary, as we say down here in Dixie, “got on her high keys” and said,

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

SUMMARY: When I first finished writing this unauthorized biography of Hillary Clinton, I considered the reality of Hillary Clinton running for President, and a great many thoughts entered my head…some of them even repeatable.

In fact, there are a lot of images that race dthrough my mind, right now, as I sit here at my computer.

I remembered the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remembered the image of Benghazi Barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisioned the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagined Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remembered the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration, including then-Secretary of State Clinton, solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Former Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…even after all this time, to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed to be running for the office of President of the United States.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

***The information contained in this Blog may be found at biography.comcanadafreepress.combiography.com, discoverthenetworks.orginvestopedia.com, The American Spectator,

The New York Timescanadafreepress.com, bbc.co.uk, frontpagemag.com, theguardian.com, infoplease.comdiscoverthenetworks.org, realclearpolitics.com,

policy mic.com,mideast.about.com, and wsj.com.***

Obama to Go to Roseburg Massacre Site to “Grandstand for Political Purposes”. Founding Fathers Weep.

Politicize-600-LI (2)Friday, the President of the United States of America is going to travel to where he is not welcome.

No, not Syria. Not Iran. Not Iraq. Not any Foreign Country.

Barack Hussein Obama is traveling to Roseburg, Oregon.

On Monday afternoon, it was announced that

President Barack Obama will travel to Oregon this week to visit privately with families of the victims of last week’s shooting at a community college.

Obama will visit Roseburg on Friday as he opens a four-day trip to the West Coast. No additional details about his visit were immediately available.

Obama has renewed his call for stricter gun laws following the shooting and has expressed exasperation at the frequency of mass shootings in the U.S.

Nine people were killed when a 26-year-old opened fire in a classroom at Umpqua (UHMP’-kwah) Community College before killing himself in a shootout with police. Another nine people were wounded.

Some faculty, staff and students have been bringing flowers to a makeshift memorial as they return to the campus for the first time since the shooting.

Unfortunately for President Obama and his plans to continue his push for Gun Confiscation…err…Gun Control…the town’s citizens do not want him there.

CNSNews.com reports that

In an interview on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor,” David Jaques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon, said Monday that he has talked to “dozens upon dozens of citizens,” victims’ family members, and elected officials, who say President Barack Obama is not welcome in their town to “grandstand for political purposes.”

“He wants to come to our community and stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of political point, and it isn’t going to be well received – not by our people, not by the families, and not even by our elected officials,” Jaques told Bill O’Reilly.

Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin told CNN on Friday that his position in support of gun rights has not changed in the wake of the tragedy that claimed the lives of nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore.

According to the Associated Press, Hanlin even wrote to Vice President Joe Biden in 2013 after the Newtown, Conn., shooting that claimed 20 kids and six adults at an elementary school, saying he and his deputies would refuse to enforce new gun control laws “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.”

“There’s a rumor. President Obama might go to Roseburg, Douglas County. The funerals start Thursday, and I guess they will extend into next week. How will the president be treated if he does indeed travel to Roseburg?” O’Reilly asked Jaques on Monday night.

“I think the president first of all is not welcome in the community, and that isn’t just my opinion. We’ve talked to dozens upon dozens of citizens – some family members of the victims, our elected officials,” said Jaques, who summarized a statement from Douglas County Commissioners and the county sheriff, who “all came to a consensus language about him not being welcome here to grandstand for political purposes.”

As CNSNews.com previously reported, on Oct. 2, the same day as the shooting, Obama spoke about the tragedy, saying, “This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.”

The authorities hadn’t finished counties the bodies of the victims, Jaques said, before Obama gave his speech.

“The bottom line, Bill, is that a number of people believe that when the president opened his press conference, we hadn’t finished counting the bodies on the campus right behind me. We hadn’t identified whose children were killed and whose were not, and even at that same moment, he is saying, some people will accuse me of politicizing this issue, and he goes on to say, but it should be,” Jaques said.

“So he not only acknowledged that it could be politicized, he was doing so deliberately. So now he wants to come to our community and stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of political point, and it isn’t going to be well received – not by our people, not by the families, and not even by our elected officials,” he added.

So, the ghoulish President of our country, Barack Hussein Obama, is going to Roseburg, Oregon, whether its citizens want him there or not, for the sake of Political Expediency.

The problem with Obama’s purpose for going there, besides the fact that he has not and will not acknowledge that it was Christians, who were singled out and killed, is this salient fact:

It was not the gun’s fault.  A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of  thought and in capable of pulling its own trigger. It’s the individual pulling the trigger.

Political Pundit, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, reminded us of this, in his op ed piece, published December 20, 2012:

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

…We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

…If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, commitment, culture — must be on the table. It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

What did our Founding Fathers have to say about our “Right to Bear Arms”, as found in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

“A free people ought to be armed.”

– George Washington

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

– George Washington

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

– Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– Thomas Jefferson

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”

– Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”

– John Adams

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.”

– Noah Webster

Mr. President, I understand that you believe yourself smarter than all of the gentlemen I quoted, and, additionally, you believe that our Constitution is a “fluid” document, meant to be revised regularly. However, I would suggest you go do something about the 49 gun-related homocides, occurring  every weekend, in your hometown of Chicago, a city with strict gun control laws, before you try to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Try to confiscate the criminals’ guns, first. Good luck.

If you do wind up attempting to confiscate law-abiding Americans’ guns….

“There will be resistance” is putting it mildly, Scooter.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s ISIS Strategy: A Gross Over-Estimation and a Porous Southern Border = Smart Power?

AFBrancoObamaISIS9242014The 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.

I wonder if ol’ Scooter is having second thoughts about his under-estimation, because, almost 2 years later, it is very apparent that Obama’s ignorant analysis missed by a country mile.

Foxnews.com reports that

ISIS intelligence assessments have been modified to use measures such as the number of sorties and body counts, something that has not been widely used since Vietnam, to paint a more positive picture of the progress made by the U.S. government strategy, according to sources familiar with allegations made by analysts at Central Command (CENTCOM.)

Critics say this “activity based approach” to battle damage assessments does not present a comprehensive picture of whether ISIS is being degraded, nor does it reflect its resiliency.

For example, despite the year-long campaign to target oil refineries, the terror group has built temporary facilities and maintained the ability to raise money.  

Two sources, including Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., said the investigation to date shows it is not a problem that begins and ends with CENTCOM, but rather the evidence indicates pressure from Washington.

“What we have seen so far raises real questions, not only about politicized intelligence at the level of the central command, but pressure that they may well have received from the top,” Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News.

While the ongoing investigation limited his comments, Pompeo added, “…from senior officials, political officials, not direct, but enough that it would taint the analysis.”

In addition to modifying the metrics, a source familiar with the allegations by the analysts said executive summaries for the intelligence reports were “glossed up” to be more positive, though the underlying data was not changed, on the belief most policy makers would review the summary only. A third allegation is that the analysts nominated targets, “command and control” centers for ISIS in Syria, but they were denied. 

Fox News was told at least two emails were sent by a senior manager to a small group of core analysts implying they should “tow the line,” adding the emails were provided to the Inspector General, the independent Defense Department watchdog who is investigating the case, though a spokeswoman has not commented on specific evidence.  

The IG spokesman said in a statement: “The investigation will address whether there was any falsification, distortion, delay, suppression, or improper modification of intelligence information; any deviations from appropriate process, procedures, or internal controls regarding the intelligence analysis; and personal accountability for any misconduct or failure to follow established processes.”

National Intelligence Director James Clapper has been singled out for his twice weekly contact with the intelligence chief at CENTCOM, and his counterpart who works for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as a civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman.  Clapper denied he had any role politicizing the intelligence, in a September email, first reported by Fox News.

“…whatever flaws I have, politicizing intelligence isn’t one of them,”  Clapper wrote.

Let’s face it. Obama’s bombing runs have done minimal damage to ISIS, at best.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot bomb buildings and expect to kill your enemy, when the enemy is a guerrilla force, which does not stay in any building for any period of time. Just like their Nomadic Barbaric Ancestors, these guerrillas keep moving, regrouping, and attacking.

Obama truly believed that he could count on “our Muslim Allies” in the Middle East to be our “boots on the ground”.

President Pantywaist chose to ignore the fact that they hate “The Great Satan” (us) more than they do their fellow Muslims from ISIS.

His naivete toward and ignorance of the realities of Foreign Policy, has led to Vladimir Putin inserting himself into the midst. like a match in a tinderbox, taking the side of Syria’ s Dictator, Assad.

Has Obama’s incompetence and underestimation of the strength of ISIS, also led to those barbarians invading our country?

Breitbart.com reports that

One of the biggest security concerns for border residents in Texas is the possibility of an operational terrorist entering the state from Mexico. During the Texas Border Coalition’s annual meeting in Laredo, Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Director Steve McCraw addressed this concern when a member of the audience asked the director if any suspected ISIS members had ever been apprehended on the Texas/Mexico border.

According to KGNS, McCraw stated:

“Individuals that come across the Texas-Mexican border from a countries with a known terrorism presence and the answer to that is yes. We have individuals that we’ve needed to debrief in Pashto/Dari. Not a lot of Pashto and Dari speakers around. But you can’t think about the last attack; you have to think of the next attack and where our vulnerabilities are. So, we’re concerned about that.”

The individuals McCraw is referring to used to be called Special Interest Aliens, or SIAs, by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, DHS dropped the term a few years ago for reasons of political correctness. SIAs are foreign nationals apprehended trying to enter the US from over thirty countries affiliated in some way with terrorism. Several hundred SIAs are apprehended along the southwest border every year from countries such as Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.

Hundreds of members and supporters of Hezbollah are also known to have entered the US from Mexico, mostly through Tijuana into southern California. However, there is still no evidence to date that a member of ISIS or an operational terrorist from any other group has entered the US from Mexico with the intention of carrying out an attack. The easiest method for this to occur is still for operational terrorists to enter the US legally, usually by plane, using legitimate ID and travel documents.

As I wrote back on August 29th, 2014, Obama and the rest of “the Smartest People in the Room” have never taken as being serious, claims that Muslim Terrorists could be among the Illegal Aliens, stampeding over our wide-open Southern Border, whom his continuing quest for Blanket Amnesty will cover.

Their ignorance and naivete, born out of their zeal for political expediency, could be the instruments of our nation’s demise.

A wide-open Southern Border is as big a threat to the sovereignty of the United States as anything that our enemies can throw at us right now. Mr. President, quit playing political games. The safety of America is at stake . SECURE THE BORDER NOW.

Oh…and MAN UP, Scooter. You’re a laughing-stock.

Until He Comes,

KJ