Tag: Barack Hussein Obama

No Wonder It’s a Secret: Obamatrade Agreement to Alter US Immigration Law

On By kingsjesterIn Uncategorized3 Comments

Whats-in-It-NRD-600I wish that we had an American President.

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that

In a joint appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) warned against the passage of the so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) currently being considered by the Congress. 

Sessions argued it was more than just a framework for a process for the president of the United States to use in negotiating trade agreements, but instead was creating an economic union with wide-ranging powers.

“I’ve been there three times and I can tell you it is far more than a trade agreement,” he said. “It is a creating of an economic union. The congressional resource said it is a wide-ranging political and economic partnership that is created where the Sultan of Brunei gets one vote. The president of the United States gets one vote. Twelve countries – they have the ability to add other treaties and pass them. They have the ability to deal with climate issues, wage issues and environmental issues. There’s just no doubt about that.”

The junior Alabama senator went on to explain that he felt it was being kept secret because if the public were aware of this union, which he likened to the European Union, it would be stopped dead in its tracks.

“I think it’s because if the trade commission – if the international commission, the Pacific union that is being created here – were made public, it wouldn’t go anywhere. I just don’t think it has any chance – look, England found out after they joined the EU they can’t fox hunt anymore.”

But wait, boys and girls…there’s more!

Yesterday evening, Breitbart.com reported that

Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the WikiLeaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below)

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.

TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each.

The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers.

“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.

Wow.

Before Barack Hussein Obama even ascended to the Throne of the Regime, he promised the following…

From whitehouse.gov, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government”

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…

 Congressman Joe Wilson was right.

Obama lies!

Utilizing the same strategy of hiding the real purpose of a piece of legislation from the American People, like he did with Obamacare, Petulant President Pantywaist is throwing all the pressure he can at both his Democratic minions and the Vichy Republicans in Congress to get this piece of garbage passed, before anybody wizens up to the fact that he is giving away America’s Sovereignty.

Obama has always, despite what he says in front of the cameras, believed that America is “just any country” and that there is nothing exceptional about us.

With this piece of legislation, he hopes to turn us into “just another Democratic Socialist Country in the European Union”, wiping out the sovereignty of our nation, which Our Founders and succeeding generations of brave Americans fought for and died to protect.

What a schmuck.

God Save the Union.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama STILL Has No “Complete Strategy” to Combat “Jayvee Team”

On By kingsjesterIn Uncategorized1 Comment

th (10)The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee 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 – President Barack Hussein Obama, The New Yorker Magazine, January 2014

Fox News reports that

President Obama took heat Monday for admitting he doesn’t yet have a “complete strategy” in hand for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State — months into the coordinated campaign to defeat the deadly terrorist network.

“When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people,” Obama said, adding, “We don’t yet have a complete strategy.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said in a statement: “It is no surprise this administration does not have a ‘complete strategy’ for training Iraqis to fight ISIS. What is surprising is that the president admitted it.”

The president addressed the ISIS fight during a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany. He appeared to be speaking specifically to a new strategy for accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. “We’re reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that,” Obama said.

A U.S. official afterward stressed to Fox News that Obama was indeed talking only about optimizing that train-and-equip mission, “including integration of Sunni fighters,” and not “overall strategy.” State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke also said Obama was not speaking to overall strategy.

But the comments nevertheless fueled critics’ concerns about the direction of the U.S. mission, particularly on the heels of ISIS gains in Ramadi, and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tweeted: “Pres Obama admits: ‘We don’t yet have a complete strategy’ to combat #ISIS” 

Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short cited a similar comment Obama made 10 months ago, saying in a statement, “the fact he still doesn’t have a final plan for the deteriorating situation in Iraq is unacceptable.” 

A military official also took issue with Obama’s claim that he was waiting for options from the Pentagon. “What the f— was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn’t acted on them,” the official told Fox News. 

Obama, similarly, said last August that the U.S. did not “have a strategy yet” for confronting ISIS in Syria. The administration later approved airstrikes in Syria. 

Underscoring the work to be done training Iraqi forces, a Pentagon official told Fox News that zero soldiers are being trained at the al-Asad Air Base in Anbar — the province where ISIS seized the city of Ramadi last month. 

However, the Pentagon says 2,598 are in training at other locations in Iraq. And 8,920 Iraqi soldiers have been trained to date by the U.S. military. 

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren backed up the president on his assertion he was still awaiting a “finalized plan” from the Pentagon. He said Defense Secretary Ash Carter has assembled a group of “experts” to develop courses of action to “increase support” to Iraqi forces. Warren would not give a timeline on when this “finalized plan” would be presented to the White House. 

A separate defense official told Fox News that any potential increases in the size of the U.S. military presence would likely be in the “train-and-equip” mission and not tactical air controllers to call in close air support against ISIS forces by U.S. aircraft flying overhead. 

Echoing the president, the official said, “the problem is the number of recruits” that the U.S. military can train. “We are sending weapons as quickly as we can to Iraq, I don’t think we can send anymore,” he said. 

Obama put some of the responsibility on the Iraqis themselves, urging them to be more inclusive. Speaking Monday, shortly after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Obama said a “big part” of the solution is “outreach to Sunni tribes.” 

“We’ve seen Sunni tribes who are not only willing and prepared to fight ISIL, but have been successful at rebuffing ISIL. But it has not been happening as fast as it needs to,” he said. “And so, one of the efforts that I’m hoping to see out of Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi legislature when they’re in session is to move forward on a national guard law that would help to devolve some of the security efforts in places like Anbar to local folks and to get those Sunni tribes involved more rapidly.”  

A little over 47 years ago, another Democrat American President was waging a limited war in a foreign land with the help of a coalition. He also decided to go in for the American people to explain how he was prosecuting a “limited” war.

On March 31, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson gave an “Address to the Nation Announcing Steps To Limit the War in Vietnam and Reporting His Decision Not To Seek Reelection”.

Here’s an excerpt:

Tonight, I have ordered our aircraft and our naval vessels to make no attacks on North Vietnam, except in the area north of the demilitarized zone where the continuing enemy buildup directly threatens allied forward positions and where the movements of their troops and supplies are clearly related to that threat.

The area in which we are stopping our attacks includes almost 90 percent of North Vietnam’s population, and most of its territory. Thus there will be no attacks around the principal populated areas, or in the food-producing areas of North Vietnam.

Even this very limited bombing of the North could come to an early end–if our restraint is matched by restraint in Hanoi. But I cannot in good conscience stop all bombing so long as to do so would immediately and directly endanger the lives of our men and our allies. Whether a complete bombing halt becomes possible in the future will be determined by events.

Our purpose in this action is to bring about a reduction in the level of violence that now exists.

It is to save the lives of brave men–and to save the lives of innocent women and children. It is to permit the contending forces to move closer to a political settlement.

And tonight, I call upon the United Kingdom and I call upon the Soviet Union–as cochairmen of the Geneva Conferences, and as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council–to do all they can to move from the unilateral act of deescalation that I have just announced toward genuine peace in Southeast Asia.

Now, as in the past, the United States is ready to send its representatives to any forum, at any time, to discuss the means of bringing this ugly war to an end.

I am designating one of our most distinguished Americans, Ambassador Averell Harriman, as my personal representative for such talks. In addition, I have asked Ambassador Llewellyn Thompson, who returned from Moscow for consultation, to be available to join Ambassador Harriman at Geneva or any other suitable place–just as soon as Hanoi agrees to a conference.

I call upon President Ho Chi Minh to respond positively, and favorably, to this new step toward peace.

But if peace does not come now through negotiations, it will come when Hanoi understands that our common resolve is unshakable, and our common strength is invincible.

Tonight, we and the other allied nations are contributing 600,000 fighting men to assist 700,000 South Vietnamese troops in defending their little country.

Our presence there has always rested on this basic belief: The main burden of preserving their freedom must be carried out by them–by the South Vietnamese themselves.

We and our allies can only help to provide a shield behind which the people of South Vietnam can survive and can grow and develop. On their efforts–on their determination and resourcefulness–the outcome will ultimately depend.

Of course, we all remember how the Vietnam War ended…with the last American Military Helicopter bugging out of Saigon as the Communist Regime of North Vietnam took over the country.

Like me, you have probably heard it said, time and time again, that “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

Evidently, Obama did not study the Vietnam War in his Indonesian Madrassa, Hawaiian High School, Columbia, or Harvard.

If he did, he did not pay attention to the mistakes that were made, because what we saw unfold in Libya, and are currently seeing unfold in Iraq, follow a pattern reminiscent of the beginning of “that Crazy Asian War” (with apologies to Kenny Rogers and Mel Tillis).

However, we don’t have to go back to the Vietnam War to experience the failure of an American “Limited Engagement”.

Obama already has a failed “Limited Engagement” on his Presidential Resume. As I write this blog, Radical Muslims are still swimming in the US Embassy pool in Libya, while 11 airplanes have been missing for months from the Libyan Airport.

Let’s face facts.

During his presidency Obama has reached out to adherents of the “Religion of Peace”, addressing them shortly after his first Inauguration at the University of Cairo, in a conciliatory speech, setting a milksop tone for his Foreign Policy, which after its full implementation, has turned out, at the hands of Obama and his two Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, to be a miserable failure.

An ineffective President Barack Hussein Obama is looking like a fool to a world who used to look to America as a bastion of strength and freedom, not weakness and political expediencies.

President Barack Hussein Obama has placed us in untenable position with his weak and vacillating Smart Power Foreign Policy.

Those who used to cringe in their desert tents, while calling us the Great Satan, now laugh in our faces as they walk across our southern borders with the rest of the illegal immigrants.

That is, if Obama simply does not invite them to the White House and meet with them, as he has the Muslim Brotherhood.

As ISIS’ march across the Middle East continues, I am certain that we will continue to hear the same rhetoric and failed “Smart Power!” Foreign Policy Strategy coming from “the smartest person in the room”.

At a time when we need “Ronnie Ray-gun”, we’re stuck with Steve Urkel.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama and Muslim Brotherhood Still “Going Steady”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

th (12)Have you ever heard the old story of The Scorpion and the Frog? A Scorpion and a Frog were standing at the bank of a river. The Scorpion said to the Frog, “If you’ll give me a ride across the river, I promise not to sting you.” The Frog said, “ How do I know I can trust you? If you sting me while you are on my back, we will surely drown.” The Scorpion said, “I know that. I won’t sting you. I promise.” So, they start across the river, the Scorpion riding on the Frog’s back. They are in sight of the opposite bank and, all of a sudden, the Scorpion stings the Frog. The Frog says, “You fool!. You stung me. Now we are both going to drown!” The Scorpion said, “I know. I’m sorry. I couldn’t help myself. It’s just my nature.”

The information which I am going to provide to you today, reminds me of that old story.

Just call President Barack Hussein Obama “Froggy”.

The Washington Times reports that

President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.

Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan declined to comment on PSD-11. “We have nothing for you on this,” she said.

The directive outlines why the administration has chosen the Muslim Brotherhood, which last year was labeled a terrorist organization by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates as a key vehicle of U.S. backing for so-called political reform in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia in recent months appears to be moderating its opposition to the Brotherhood in a bid to gain more regional support against pro-Iran rebels in Yemen.

The UAE government also has labeled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. Both groups denied the UAE claims. Egypt is considering imposing a death sentence on Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed former president who was ousted in military coup in July 2013.

Critics of the administration’s strategy say the Brotherhood masks its goals and objectives despite advocating an extremist ideology similar to those espoused by al Qaeda and the Islamic State, but with less violence. The group’s motto includes the phrase “jihad is our way.” Jihad means holy war and is the Islamist battle cry.

Counterterrorism analyst Patrick Poole said the Brotherhood in recent weeks has stepped up its use of violent attacks in Egypt.

“The failed Obama Doctrine that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to usher in a glorious era of peace and democracy in the Middle East was adopted by the administration because that’s what the foreign policy establishment going back to the George W. Bush administration proclaimed as gospel,” Mr. Poole said.

“And now we see as a result Egypt fighting a terror campaign by the ‘moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood; we have a failed state in Libya; and we see NATO ally Turkey turning from secular democracy to religious totalitarianism under Obama’s pal [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan.

“This dangerous foreign policy was launched by PSD-11 and the administration’s open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, and now we can see its catastrophic effect,” Mr. Poole added.

Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy, extensively documented Muslim Brotherhood subversion efforts, both in the United States and abroad.

Mr. Gaffney has said the Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous group promoting the totalitarian and Islamist supremacist doctrine of Sharia. Several Muslim Brotherhood supporters have been identified as key advisers to Mr. Obama, according to Mr. Gaffney.

Egyptian press reports after the ouster of Mr. Morsi have revealed extensive cooperation between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood during Mr. Morsi’s presidency.

Exactly, who are these guys?

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

Consistent with the foregoing credo, MB since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad, against non-Muslim “infidels.” As al-Banna himself wrote: “Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded.” Added al-Banna: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

…Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Jordan, Bahrain, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. Article II of the Hamas charter explicitly identifies Hamas as “one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” In January 2006 Hamas defeated the rival Fatah party to win the Palestinian legislative elections, thereby becoming the first branch of MB to control an official government.

Outside of the Middle East, MB exercises a strong influence in Muslim communities throughout Europe. Among the more prominent Brotherhood organizations in the region are: the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, the Islamische Gemeinschaft Deutschland (IGD), and the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF).

…In early February 2011, Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.” That objective was entirely consistent with former MB Supreme Guide Muhammad Mahdi Othman Akef’s 2007 assertion that his organization had never recognized Israel and never would: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine.”

And these are the people that President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration have chosen to support.

So, why is the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, standing with an enemy of freedom? An enemy who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

It is well known, that a young Obama, after his mother wed a quite well-off fellow from Indonesia, attended a Madrassa, or Muslim School, in Jakarta.

I believe that the time he spent among “the religion of peace” in his youth, and the 20 years he spent under the “Reformed Muslim” (Liberation Theology) teachings of “ex”-American Muslim, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, molded and cemented his attitude toward Muslims.

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

Lari Regan, in an article for americanthinker.com, published in April of 2013, wrote that…

Obama did not create the Islamist ideology that has fed the fervor of modern-day terrorism. But from his Cairo speech through his speech Monday night just after the Boston bombings, in which he refused to call the attacks terrorism (he conceded the point the following day), he has made it clear that he does not believe that terrorism is a continuing threat to the lives and safety of Americans. His refusal to use the terms “War on Terror” and “Islamic fundamentalism” are just examples of a belief either that he can wish away evil or that evil simply does not exist. But what the country needs is a president who understands Islamic jihad for what it is — the totalitarian, fundamentalist dogma that drives the violence perpetrated by those who have waged holy war on the West. And Obama has yet to give us any indication that he understands these very real threats, or that he is interested in, and capable of, protecting us from them.

Indeed.

Even after over 6 and 1/2 years in office, Obama, if he has a clue as to how barbaric and devious radical Muslims are, sure doesn’t let on.

Representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood have visited OUR White House numerous times now, during the Obama Presidency. Obama truly believes that he can broker peace in the Mid-East by standing by and supporting the Grandfather of all Islamic Terrorist Groups.

Naivete or a Fellow Traveler? You be the judge.

His love for, and embracing of, these murderous barbarians could very well be the death of us all.

It sure as shootin’ hasn’t done the good folks living in the Land of the Pharaohs any good, whatsoever.

Until He Comes,

KJ

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

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

PROLOGUE:  I researched the following information and recorded it as a 4 part series about the 2016 presumptive Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am offering it today, as a 5,500 word essay, because, with the fact that she appears to be 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. 

Even though she is presently attempting to reinvent herself as a “Moderate” Democrat, and “Woman of the People”, as a  linchpin of 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 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 through my mind, right now, as I sit here at my computer.

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

I also remember 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 envisions 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 imagine 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 remember 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…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.com, canadafreepress.com, biography.com,

discoverthenetworks.org, investopedia.com, The American Spectator, The New York Times, canadafreepress.com, bbc.co.uk, frontpagemag.com, theguardian.com, infoplease.com, discoverthenetworks.org, realclearpolitics.com, policy mic.com,mideast.about.com, and wsj.com.***

Obama to Israel About Iran: “Who Are You Going to Believe? Me or Your Lying Eyes?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

 

americanisraelilapelpinYou know, I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or, even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts. – President Barack Hussein Obama, speaking to David Axelrod

And, I’m a 22 year old Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader named Buffy.

Obama is presently attempting to convince the Israelis that his attempts to reach an “agreement” with Iran, concerning their quest to achieve nuclear capability, do not pave the way for their country’s annihilation.

According to theblaze.com,

President Barack Obama told Israel’s Channel 2 television that while he understands the “concerns” and “fears” of Israelis, he believes the best path to preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon is through a “verifiable, tough agreement.”

“I can, I think, demonstrate, not based on any hope but on facts and evidence and analysis, that the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough agreement,” Obama said in an excerpt of the interview with Channel 2’s news magazine “Uvda” that was broadcast Monday night.

“A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it,” Obama said.

President Barack Obama said about the Iranian nuclear challenge: “A military solution will not fix it.” (Image source: Channel 2)

Amid tensions between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the framework agreement between Iran, the U.S. and five world powers – which the Israeli leader has called a “bad deal” – Obama and other administration officials have found ways to address the Israeli public directly to try to allay concerns that a negotiated agreement will thwart the efforts of a country that has vowed to annihilate Israel from obtaining a doomsday weapon.

Asked if he could imagine a scenario in which Netanyahu, after the signing of a permanent agreement with Iran, were to launch a military strike on nuclear facilities without first alerting him as U.S. president, Obama said, “I won’t speculate on that. What I can say is, to the Israeli people: I understand your concerns and I understand your fears.”

Channel 2 will broadcast the entire 40-minute interview Tuesday night.

The interviewer, Ilana Dayan, a well-known television news personality in Israel, reported that during 40-minute interview Obama expressed his deep commitment to Israel’s security but said that without an Israeli-Palestinian peace process underway it would be difficult for the U.S. to defend Israel in international organizations.

The U.S., Iran and the five powers are working to meet a self-imposed June 30 deadline to reach a final agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu on Sunday called Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons “the greatest threat to Israel’s security, to the stability of the region and to the peace of the world.

One of the perks of having written over 1,900 blogs, is that , sometime over the last 5 years, chances are I have gathered some pertinent background information on the subject I am writing today’s Blog on. Once again, I hit the jackpot.

Per wnd.com, posted 11/11/2008:

Hamas held a meeting in the Gaza Strip several months ago with aides to President-elect Barack Obama, but the terror group was asked to keep the contacts secret until after last week’s elections, according to a senior Hamas official.

Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, told the leading Al-Hayat Arabic-language newspaper Hamas has maintained regular communication with Obama aides that even continued during the past week.

“We were in contact with a number of Obama’s aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama),” Yousuf told Al-Hayat.

Yousuf said Hamas’ contact with Obama’s advisers was ongoing, adding that relations were maintained after Obama’s electoral victory last Tuesday.

Then, on 6/25/10, ynet news.com reported:

A senior Hamas figure said Friday that official and unofficial US sources have asked the Islamist group to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, this following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the Obama Administration.

The Hamas figure told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper that the Americans fear discussing the talks publicly would “rouse the Jewish lobby and other pressure groups in the US and cause them to pressure the administration to suspend all talks with Hamas.”

The Hamas figure, who is close to Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the government in Gaza, added, “This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don’t want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of pressure groups (in the US) and cause problems.”

He said Hamas’ exiled leadership in Damascus is overseeing the contacts behind closed doors.

The point of re-posting the last two stories is very simple: Obama never has liked Israel, as it currently stands.

Remember the recent National Elections in Israel?

Now, I’m no Pollyanna.

(Although my bride does accuse me of always seeing the best in everyone. but, I digress…)

I know that America has influenced other nations’ elections for years, covertly, usually through the influence of backdoor diplomatic channels and the CIA.

However, Petulant President Pantywaist, who in the process of desperately sucking up to the Rogue, Muslim Terrorist Nation of Iran, who would rather kill us infidels than look at us, blatantly worked overtly to kick out of office, the Prime Minister of one of our closest allies.

Obama’s petulance knows no bounds.

Every time they have met, Netanyahu has schooled Obama, making him look like the petulant little lightweight that he is.

In order for Obama to succeed in his plan for a nuclear Iran, he decided before the election that he had to rid himself of Netanyahu’s strong and forthright leadership.

Obama believed, and rightfully so, that by replacing Netanyahu with a Liberal Politician in Israel, then the “Arab Spring”, which began under his presidency, would reach its apocalyptic zenith, with a nuclear Iran and an Israel cleaved in half, like Solomon almost did with that baby, in order to make room for the fictional “country of Palestine”.

For some clearly insane reason, Obama views this creation of a Caliphate as his Foreign Policy Legacy.

There is a reason that I will always refer to him as “our first anti-American President”.

Ever since he took office, whether through his ongoing embrace of Israel’s enemies, his support of giving away half of her land to the historically nomadic people, whom the British named, “Palestinians”, or his recent failed effort to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thrown out of office, President Barack Hussein Obama has proven to be anything but “a friend of Israel”.

With friends like Barack Hussein Obama, Israel does not need enemies.

God Protect America and His Chosen People.

Until He Comes,

KJ

American Exceptionalism and Our Place in the World

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2After almost 2 terms under the failed “Smart Power!” Foreign Policy of Petulant President Pantywaist, Barack Hussein Obama, our allies around the world are asking themselves, “Will America still have our back in the future? Are they still a Super Power?”

Telegraph.co.uk posted the following interesting story, yesterday…

After six decades serving as the global policeman, the United States is now signalling its retreat from the world. With the Middle East engulfed by the flames of sectarian conflict, Europe’s borders menaced by the threat of war and China starting to flex its muscles in Asia-Pacific, it is clear the world has entered a new period of volatility.
That uncertainty begs tough questions for Britain: how should we respond to this new American pragmatism? And as our traditional ally turns inward, what should that mean for British foreign policy?

Ian Bremmer, the American foreign policy guru who coined the phrase “G-Zero” to describe this new and unstable world, is the author of ‘Superpower’, a best-selling new book that explores America’s options as a superpower in the 21st century.
 
Here he talks exclusively to Peter Foster about the strategic choices now facing America…

…PF: As we enter this period of post-Cold War instability, is the current US disengagement good or bad for what comes next?

IB: “It’s not good, but let’s be clear- engagement cannot be half-assed. Engaging doesn’t mean telling people you’re going to engage and then screwing them over. It means really engaging. It doesn’t mean setting a red line, and then backing off. And if you asked me if I believe it is credible right now to take big bets and tell the Europeans ‘we’re really there for you’, and the Japanese, ‘we’re really there for you’, and the Gulf States ‘we’re really there for you’, then the answer is ‘no’.

Are we going to get presidents that are going to consistently get behind that and really support an American-led world order? It’s possible, but I doubt it.”

PF: So is playing the ‘indispensable’ Superpower role essentially beyond the capacity of America now? Fiscally, militarily? 

IB: “No, there are absolutely things we could be doing that would be ‘indispensable’. America has money, interest rates are low, and if we want to print money, we can. If we want to support allies, we can. But indispensable doesn’t just mean, ‘oh we’re going to do drone strikes against Isis’. It means actually going to develop the kind of support that would, over the long-term, build economic opportunities for all these disenfranchised people across the Middle East.

“We’re the only country in the world that could put the resources on the ground that could actually fix the Middle East. We’re the only country in the world that can create global architecture, global alliances. We’re the ones that created Nato. Even if our allies like the Brits say ‘we don’t want to spend as much’, we still have to stick with it – because the absence of that is chaos. That’s what the ‘indispensables’ would argue.”

PF: But right now the American public won’t buy into that? 

IB: “I don’t think so. ‘Indispensable’ America is now an increasingly extreme sell, domestically, for any American president.

“Americans have gotten disillusioned with the inauthenticity of their own leaders, and the politics and politicians in Washington. After living through the 2008 financial crisis, Bush vs Gore, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib – all of this stuff – and now we’re facing a $5 billion dollar election campaign where the most recognisable names are another Bush and another Clinton – you can’t ignore the disillusion.”

Like the present occupant of the Oval Office, Ian Bremmer evidently  believes that America is presently, and is inevitably destined to be “just another country”.

On March 7, 1978, Ronald Wilson Reagan, at the 5th Annual CPAC Conference , spoke the following prophetic words:

America will remain great and act responsibly so long as it exercises power — wisely, and not in the bullying sense — but exercises it, nonetheless.

Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the Carter administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.

But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?

The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history. We grew from that small, weak republic which had as its assets spirit, optimism, faith in God and an unshakeable belief that free men and women could govern themselves wisely. We became the leader of the free world, an example for all those who cherish freedom.

If we are to continue to be that example — if we are to preserve our own freedom — we must understand those who would dominate us and deal with them with determination.

We must shoulder our burden with our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today, not counting on mere hope or wishes. We must be willing to carry out our responsibility as the custodian of individual freedom. Then we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.

You see, Mr. Bremmer, where the exceptionalism of America lies…is not in the Halls of Power…but in the courage and spirit of the average American. A courage and spirit, which our history proves, has driven American Citizens to build a nation, which is indeed exceptional among all others.

Thr secret of this country’s exceptionalism is the “Average Joe”, the 9 to 5′er, working himself into the grave to try to provide for his family.

It was this same “Average Joe”, who fired the shot heard around the world and began the War for American Independence, who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day in World War II, who waded through rice paddies in Vietnam, and who swallowed sand in Desert Storm and Desert Shield. The same “Average Joe” who, as a New York City Policeman or Fireman, ran up the stairs of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01, instead of running down them. The same “Average Joe”, who simply wants things to be easier in this life for his children and grandchildren, than he had it.

It is this same “Average Joe”, who takes family and friends in, when they are in the midst of a life-altering tragedy. The same “Average Joe”, who volunteers on a soup line or at a Senior Citizens Home, or, who begins a successful business in his basement.

Liberal Bureaucrats, like Secretary of State John Kerry and his boss, are professional political prevaricators. Men and women, whose ethics and morality change with the direction of the wind, and whose egos override their judgment…every time.

America is a Constitutional Republic. We are not ruled by a faceless all-powerful government. America’s politicians, including President Barack Hussein Obama, are OUR SERVANTS….not the other way around.

And, as their Boss, we expect them to possess a more complete knowledge of the history of the most exceptional nation on the face of God’s green Earth. We expect them to honor and respect the lives given and the sacrifices made by courageous Americans, who paved the way for you and the rest of this selfish generation, who are so desperately attempting to rewrite American History in order for it to be in accordance with the tenets of their Liberal Ideology.

America’s place in the world is not a thing so fragile that it can be unalterably changed by a lightweight like Barack Hussein Obama.

As author Dinesh D’ Souza wrote…

What does the doctrine of American exceptionalism empower the United States to do? Nothing more than to act better than traditional empires – committed to looting and conquest – have done. So that’s American exceptionalism: an exceptionalism based on noble ideas, ideas that it holds itself to even when it falls short of them.

In conclusion, it is not a single politician that decides America’s place in the world.

It is the fact of American Exceptionalism.

Until He Comes,

KJ

KJ’s Sunday Morning Thought: A Selfish Generation

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity2 Comments

American Christianity 2During every generation, there comes a point, where the previous generation becomes frustrated in their attempts to communicate with the current generation.

The era we are living in now is no different.

However, as far as the effect that this failure to communicate may have on the future of America as a strong and vibrant nation, it is definitely more frightening.

The Christian Post reports that

A San Diego State University study published earlier this month has found that millennials appear to be the least religious generation ever recorded. SDSU psychology professor Jean M. Twenge suggested that one main reason for millennials abandoning religion is rising individualism in American culture, which is less prone to showing commitment to institutions.

“These trends are part of a larger cultural context, a context that is often missing in polls about religion,” Twenge said in an article published by Eureka Alert.

“One context is rising individualism in U.S. culture. Individualism puts the self first, which doesn’t always fit well with the commitment to the institution and other people that religion often requires. As Americans become more individualistic, it makes sense that fewer would commit to religion.”

The detailed study, which published its findings in the journal PLOS One, looked at data from 11.2 million respondents from four nationally representative surveys of U.S. adolescents ages 13 to 18 taken between 1966 and 2014.

The study defined millennials as “American adolescents and emerging adults in the 2010s,” and said that they were “significantly less religious than previous generations (Boomers, Generation X) at the same age.”

The analysis, led by researchers Ramya Sastry from SDSU, along with Julie J. Exline and Joshua B. Grubbs from Case Western Reserve University and W. Keith Campbell from the University of Georgia, presented that twice as many 12th graders and college students today never attend religious services.

Additionally, twice as many 12th graders and entering college students in the 2010s give their religious affiliation as “none,” compared to those in the 1960s-’70s.

“Recent birth cohorts report less approval of religious organizations, are less likely to say that religion is important in their lives, report being less spiritual, and spend less time praying or meditating. Thus, declines in religious orientation reach beyond affiliation to religious participation and religiosity, suggesting a movement toward secularism among a growing minority,” the study said.

The findings noted that millennials are the least religious generation of the last six decades, and possibly in the nation’s history.

Earlier in May, a major Pew Study found that Christianity continues declining in the U.S. as a whole, while the religiously unaffiliated keep rising.

Pew said that Christians as a whole fell from 78.4 to 70 percent of the population between 2007 to 2014, while the religiously unaffiliated group rose to 22.8 percent share of the population. The “nones” now outnumber American Catholics, Pew said, who fell to 20.8 percent.

Some Evangelicals, such as Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, commented on the study by saying that the “increasing strangeness” of Christianity is “good news” for the church.

“Christianity isn’t normal anymore. It never should have been. The increasing strangeness of Christianity might be bad news for America, but it’s good news for the church. The major newspapers are telling us today that Christianity is dying, according to this new study, but what is clear from this study is exactly the opposite: while mainline traditions plummet, evangelical churches are remaining remarkably steady,” Moore said in a statement.

He is exactly right.

The church I attend, which happens to be Southern Baptist, is in the process of growing weekly, with Baptisms being witnessed every Sunday morning.

San Diego State psychology professor Jean M. Twenge’s theory is 180 degrees off.

It is not an act of ‘individualism” which is causing these young people to turn away from the “Faith of Our Fathers”.

It is selfishness and an innate conceit, imbued in them by those, whose familial nurturing and raising, with or without exposure to Christianity, could not compete with the Siren Song of American Popular Culture and secular socialization.

While the Scriptures of our Christian Faith tell us that “nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37), America’s Popular Culture, reinforced by the current President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and his fellow “Progressives”, tells those who have achieved, through the Grace of God,

You didn’t build that.

Popular Culture, under the guise of “making the individual feel better about themselves”, actually constrains individual achievement.

These “millennials”, by believing that they are “their own god”, are limiting themselves.

History has shown us, time and again, what happens to a society, when man starts worshiping himself.

As Proverbs 16:18 tells us

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Right now, you’re probably saying to yourself,

Hold on, KJ, you just said that the individual CAN achieve.

Yes, I did.

Those who have gone before us, such as our Founding Fathers, our military leaders, our civic leaders, and our spiritual and familial leaders, all had one thing in common:

They all possessed a spirit of self-sacrifice.

Not sacrificing their will to achieve for the “good of the State”, but, rather, unselfishly sacrificing their time and talents for the betterment of those around them.

And, that is where the “Progressives” (i.e., Liberals), such as Professor Twenge, get it wrong.

It is not “the State”, nor the community-at-large, that drives, or allows, Individual Americans to succeed.

It is that “still, small voice” that resides within each one of us that has endowed us with our “certain inalienable rights” as Americans, of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”, that gives us the strength and discernment to succeed.

Without God, nothing is possible.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Obama Want to Change “The Thin Blue Line” Into a Brown-Shirted One?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

white-house-youth-corpsThe scene is post-World War I Germany, the year is 1921. In a country badly in need of national pride, a cadre of ambitious politicians and political organizers known as The National Socialist German Workers’ Party decide to establish a German militia, also known as Brownshirts, or the SA. These young people were placed under the leadership of Ernst Röhm, who would be in charge of physical training and political indoctrination.

“Originally uniformed stewards to organize demonstrations, they became street brawlers who dealt with any political opposition to party rallies.

When the Nazis gained power 1933 their strength was about 400,000 and they considered themselves the rival to the German Army. At the instigation of the Army and SS leaders, Hitler had all the SA’s leaders murdered 30 June 1933, the ‘Night of the Long Knives’, and the organization disbanded.”

Fast forward to July 2, 2008. Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama proclaims in a speech:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

This part of Barack Hussein Obama’s political platform was quickly hidden away, never to be spoken of again.

At least, not openly.

As is my wont to do, I have been thinking back over Obama’s Imperial Presidency, and his statements concerning America’s Municipal Law Enforcement Organizations.

When issues involving law enforcement have arisen during his presidency, time and again, Obama has come down on the opposite side from every single local law enforcement organization.

Now, isn’t the president of the United States supposed to be on the side of Law and Order?

Why would Barack Hussein Obama not support local law enforcement?

Perhaps, because he wants to build a National Municipal Law Enforcement Organization, under his command and the command of the Department of Justice.

A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s Syndicated Radio Program posited that notion, yesterday.

Rush responded by saying that

Just like if the private sector can’t do health care right, then we must.  We must move in with Obamacare in the name of fairness and equality and take it over.  And, “If  local cops actually can’t do the job anymore, somebody has to,” Obama will say.  And why not us?  Why not the federal government?  Everybody loves the federal government.  Everybody trusts the federal government.  Everybody turns to the federal government.  So why not turn to the federal government for community policing?  And then we get our own national police force without a coup.  The national police force, couple of military usually use to do a coup, but we’re gonna put one together here before the coup, maybe obviate the need for the coup.  Anyway, Christine, I appreciate the call.  It’s a great point. 

I’m just thinking here.  Obama has already got 25 police departments under the thumb of the federal government.  Cleveland is the most recent.  It was it was during the campaign of 2008 now, I remember, that Obama proposed a civilian security force, and he compared it to a national version of the military.  He pointed out that he can’t use the military for local police forces, but maybe we should create a civilian security force.  He was talking about a national federal police force.  He didn’t use that terminology because people would have revolted at that but he’s thinking — maybe not.  The way they’re going about it tier taking over via these consent decrees from the DOJ.  It’s basically blackmail.  You want money from the government to help run your police department?  Well, you gotta accept our guidelines on how you’re gonna do your jobs, and they’re all accepting, because they’re being forced.  St. Louis, Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland is the latest, Oakland, Newark.  I mean, there’s 25 of them now that are actually have been taken over by guidelines from the DOJ to run these local police departments.  I find it just all happening right there in front of our faces.  

Think about it.

From Ferguson to New York to Baltimore, Obama has not sided with the police force of any of those cities. He has sided with the protesters.

And, instead of providing federal assistance to the police force who were being attacked by the so-called protesters, he got his Department of Justice involved to make sure that those who were destroying their cities, were not having their civil rights violated while bringing destruction and anguish to people of the same color as themselves, whose businesses they were burning to the ground.

And, to add to the puzzlement, I reported recently that

According to frontpagemagazine.com,

ACORN’s successor group in Missouri has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to generate civil unrest in Ferguson, the troubled St. Louis suburb where black youth Michael Brown was killed by a white police officer last August.

We know this because some of the protesters haven’t been paid and, now, they are demanding what they were promised. They held a sit-in at the offices of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) and posted a demand letter online.

MORE is the rebranded Missouri branch of the former Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which filed for bankruptcy in late 2010. That ACORN state chapter reconstituted itself in December 2009 as MORE under orders from ACORN’s national headquarters. President Obama used to work for ACORN and he represented it in court as a lawyer.

Of course, ACORN spear-headed the “Ground Troops” for the successful election of Barack Hussein Obama to Illinois State Senator, US Senator, and United States President.

By now, I’m sure that you’ve heard, that Mayor Stephanie Rawlins-Blake of Baltimore told her police force to stand down during the heart of the riotng, and allow all the destruction to occur unabated.

Why would any self-respecting Mayor do that?

As a result of her incompetency, Baltimore has set a record in this past month for Homocides, as the police force is reluctant to be aggressive.

The reason for their passivity, is the fact that when they attempt to perform their jobs, they are surrounded by people with phone cameras, attempting to catch them in some form of abuse, so that they could be reported, and lose their jobs, the jobs they depend upon to provide for their families.

Who advised Baltimore Mayor Rawlins-Blake to handcuff the police?

I will give you a clue: It is probably the same fellow who gave that Stump Speech, way back in July of 2008, pushing for a Civilian National Security Force, the same fellow who supported the law breakers in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City, New York.

I hope that I am wrong, but I foresee a Federal Police Force in our country’s future.

Brown shirts, anyone?

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Marine Court-Martialed For Displaying a Bible Verse???!!!

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

 

 

 

th (9)

What if I told you that a young United States Marine, a Lance Corporal, who just happens to be black, was court-martialed for having a Bible Verse displayed on her computer?

You would probably accuse me of being a couple of fries short of a government-regulated McDonald’s Happy Meal.

Unbelievably, as Bill Murray and his squad shouted at the General, in the movie, “Stripes”,

That’s a FACT, Jack!

The Christian Post reports that

A United States Marine who was convicted at a court-martial of putting a Bible verse declaring “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” on her computer because it was “contrary to good order and discipline,” is now looking to have that decision appealed under the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling, who was convicted while stationed at Camp Lejune in North Carolina, was prosecuted for displaying a version of Isaiah 54;17 that reads: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.”

 In 2014, Sterling was court-martialed for refusing to obey orders to remove the scripture from her desk, according to Fox News. After representing herself in court, she was found guilty of disrespecting a superior officer, failing to go to an appointed place of duty, and four charges of disobeying the lawful order of a non-commissioned officer. She was discharged from the Marines for bad conduct and was demoted from lance corporal to private.

Liberty Institute and volunteer attorney, Paul Clement, have asked the Court of Appeals for the U.S. Armed Forces to review Sterling’s case. The government found that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to Sterling because simply displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious practice, which Sterling and Liberty Institute argue is untrue.

“If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday. Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional,” Mike Berry, Liberty Institute director of military affairs and senior counsel, said on Liberty Institute’s blog.

“If a service member has a right to display a secular poster, put an atheist bumper sticker on their car, or get a Star of David tattoo, then Lance Cpl. Sterling has the right to display a small Bible verse on her computer monitor,” Berry added.

The military argued that Sterling’s choice of scripture “could easily [have] been seen as contrary to good order and discipline. Maintaining discipline and morale in the military work center could very well require that the work center remain relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc.,” court documents obtained by Fox News stated.

Unfortunately, because of the bad conduct discharge, Sterling is reportedly having trouble finding a job. She remains unemployed but hopeful that Liberty Institute and Clement can get the charges reversed; Clement has had great fortune in the court, helping arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby secure the company’s successful defense of religious freedom in the landmark Hobby Lobby v. Burwell case before the Supreme Court last June.

The Liberty Institute’s lawyers plan to argue that Sterling’s case should have qualified for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act despite the government’s decision.

Rev, Franklin Graham posted the following comment on his Facebook Page, yesterday…

“No weapon formed against you shall prosper.” This is the Bible verse (Isaiah 54:17) that Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling was court martialed over. Unbelievably, she was criminally prosecuted by the U.S. government for displaying this encouraging Scripture on her computer in her workspace. Give me a break—really? Can our society be at a point where a supervisor can order a young Marine to remove a Bible verse from her computer? Others are able to display secular message…s without any opposition, but Sterling was targeted by her supervisor. Today there’s a tolerance in our culture for everything—except the things of God and His Word. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has been asked to review LCpl Sterling’s case—let’s pray that this kind of targeting and persecution of Christians by our government will be stopped.

This past Monday, I wrote about my Daddy (Southern colloquialism for male parental unit) and my Uncles, and their service in World War II. I have also had friends that served over the years, and one who is still serving in the Air National Guard.

All of these men were/are Patriots. They enlisted out of a duty to God and Country.

“God and Country”. Now, there’s a phrase that you may not hear much anymore.

You see, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, (our Lord and Savior, as Jamie Foxx referred to him) is on a Crusade to remove Christianity and any reference to the God of Abraham and Isaac, from our Armed Forces.

In 2014, the Pentagon was caught teaching soldiers that the Christian Evangelical “American Family Association”, was a “Terrorist” Organization, needless to say, after Americans gave them “H – e – double hockey sticks” about that stupidity, they had to stop that training class.

After that, the Obama Administration, through their operatives at the Pentagon, decided to remove the phrase “So help me God” for the oath that Americans take, when they enlist in the United States Air Force. It is now “optional”.

The Obama Administration’s quest to remove the God of Abraham from America’s Armed Forces is the result of the influence of Mikey Weinstein.

Who is this clown, you ask?(You probably did not use the word “clown”, but I did. And, I’m holding my temper.)

Weinstein is the head of an organization, known as the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation”.

Per discoverthenetworks.org:

Established in 2006, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) describes itself as “a watchdog group” that is “dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled …” The organization’s primary objective is to eradicate the religious bias and “coercion” that it deems prevalent among high-ranking Christian members of the U.S. military. Toward that end, MRFF functions as “a clearinghouse for violations reported by military and civilian personnel,” offering “complete anonymity” to all complainants.

Headed by retired Air Force lawyer Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, MRFF declares: “At a time when the United States is encouraging greater religious freedom in Muslim nations, it is imperative [sic] upon America to show by example that religious pluralism is a viable and preferred option. Any sign of hypocrisy in United States policy … toward the free exercise of religion within the military makes it more difficult to convince others to follow our nation’s chosen path.”

In December 2006, MRFF issued a “Compliance Report on the Pervasive Violations of the United States Constitutional Religious Freedoms of Military Personnel.” “Military and civilian personnel,” says this document, “are subjected to blatant and unlawful displays of religiosity at mandatory formations, religious bias, and illegal proselytizing by their peers and superiors alike.” The report identifies “pervasive violations of United States Constitutional religious freedoms of military personnel” in five major areas:

(a) Blatant displays of religious symbolism on military garb.

(b) Placement of a biblical quotation above the door of the Air and Space Basic Course classroom.

(c) Illegal use of official military e-mail accounts to send e-mails containing religious rhetoric.

(d) Attempts by missionary organizations to train active-duty military personnel to evangelize their subordinates and peers.

(e) Military leadership openly discussing their commitment to bring religion into the military.

Notwithstanding the disclaimer, MRFF states: “[S]erious violations were committed by prominent figures featured on the organization’s ten-minute promotional video. … [S]everal members of military leadership appear in the video, dressed in full uniform openly discussing their personal connection to Jesus and how they make this connection part of the work they do in their professional capacity each day. {They] state that, among other things, with the help of Christian Embassy, they hold bible studies while on duty in the workplace, many times in their offices.”

Ohhhh….how horrible. Why…morality and ethical behavior may break out at any moment!!! 

And, Lord knows, this Administration does not want that to happen.

It is no coincidence that the Marine Corps Motto, Semper Fidelis, is Latin for “Always Faithful”.

Lance Cpl.  (now Private) Sterling remains always faithful.

She did not deserve her mistreatment.

America’s population remains 74% Christian, no matter what the latest politically-driven poll says.

Our Religious freedom is Constitutionally Protected.

It is not subject to the whims of Popular Culture or a Petulant President.

Those who were responsible need to remember one thing:

God always has the last word.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Federal Appeals Court Tells Obama “No” to Amnesty E.O. Presidential Temper Tantrum Ensues.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

illegal immigration 7714The high-pitched wailing, which was heard around America yesterday afternoon, was not our Civil Defense Warning System being activated.

It was Petulant President Pantywaist himself, Barack Hussein Obama, having a Presidential Temper Tantrum, because he did not get his way.

The New York Times reports that

A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.

The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.

Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.

In a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the consent of Congress. The appeals court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration.”

White House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined to discuss the next legal move for the administration.

“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country.”

The Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the administration would skip that conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to proceed.

The legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering protections to more than four million illegal immigrants without a congressional vote.

In the 70-page opinion, two judges wrote that Texas had shown it would incur significant costs in issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants who would be allowed to stay in the country. The judges, Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod, also rejected the administration’s argument that the programs could not be reviewed by the courts because they stemmed from policy decisions by the president on how to enforce the immigration laws.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson disagreed. He wrote that the administration was “adhering to the law, not derogating from it.”

Immigrant advocates supporting the president worried that the longer the initiatives are held up, the harder it could be to persuade immigrants to come forward to sign up.

So, with 40% of America’s Workforce giving up on the American Dream and dropping out of our workforce, King Barack the First decided that he would increase the competition for America’s jobs, by issuing a Royal Decree (Executive Order) granting amnesty to those who have illegally entered our Sovereign Nation, to the detriment of legal American citizens.

In 2013, brilliant American Economist and Political Pundit, Dr. Thomas Sowell, was interviewed by Laura Ingraham, on her syndicated radio program. Here is what he had to say about Amnesty and the Economy:

That’s incredible. I mean —first of all to an economist, it is incredible to speak about shortages without talking about prices, in this case wages…You know there, there have been so many predictions of shortages of so many occupations and the shortages don’t materialize. And why not? Because if there is a shortage, the wage rate goes up. That attracts in more people and lo and behold, the jobs are filled.

In agriculture, the farmers would obviously prefer to get workers who get low pay rather than workers they have to pay a higher wage. And as long as there are an unlimited supply of farm workers coming in from Mexico, they will never have to raise the wages very much. They say Americans won’t do these jobs. These are jobs Americans have done for generations, if not centuries. And it’s a time when millions of Americans are out of work, and are looking for any kind of work. And so this is utter nonsense.

…They constantly talk about immigrants in the abstract. You know, there are no such thing as abstract immigrants. There are immigrants from country a, b, c, d. They are radically different. People coming in from some countries almost never go on welfare. Immigrants coming in from other countries go on welfare to a great extent. If we’re going to have a rational immigration policy, then we have to be able to decide what people, what countries, what occupations — things like that, instead of rushing everything through.

The other main thing though is that if we don’t control the borders, we don’t have an immigration policy because regardless of what policy you put on paper, if people can just walk across the border when they darn well please, then your policy means nothing. The other thing that bothers me is the Republicans seem to think we will give — illegal immigrants citizenship if they do a, b or c. Democrats say x, y and z. I don’t know why we need promise anybody citizenship before we get control of the borders and have time to sit down and think and look at the facts, and then try to draw up some rational policy.

In 1903,  Jacob A. Riis,  a reporter who was born in Denmark in 1849 and immigrated to America at the age of 21, wrote the following about the immigrants who landed at Ellis Island,

The railroad ferries come and take their daily host straight from Ellis Island to the train, ticketed now with the name of the route that is to deliver them at their new homes, West and East. And the Battery boat comes every hour for its share. Then the many-hued procession-the women are hooded, one and all, in their gayety shawls for the entry-is led down on a long pathway divided in the middle by a wire screen, form behind which come shrieks of recognition from fathers, brothers, uncles, and aunts that are gathered there in the holiday togs of Mulberry or Division Street. The contrast is sharp-an artist would say all in favor of the newcomers. But they would be the last to agree with him. In another week the rainbow colors will have been laid aside, and the landscape will be poorer for it. On the boat they meet their friends, and the long journey is over, the new life begun.Those who have no friends run the gauntlet of the boarding-house runners, and take their chances with the new freedom, unless the missionary or “the society” of their people holds out a helping hand. For at the barge-office gate Uncle Sam lets go. Through it they must walk alone.

I know that you have heard America referred to as a Melting Pot.

That phrase was actually made popular in the 1908 play, “The Melting Pot,” a stage play by Israel Zangwill that encouraged assimilation into our nation’s culture by the immigrants of the time.

Zangwill was the London-born son of Russian Jewish immigrants. His play made its debut in Washington in 1908 and played in New York for four months the next year. The main character is David Quixano, a Jewish immigrant, orphaned by a pogram, which is a massacre of Jews. Quizano lives with his uncle on Staten Island and becomes smitten with the daughter of a Russian nobleman.

In the end, the good guy(David) gets the girl, which inspires him to shout from the rooftop of a Lower East Side settlement house that “America is God’s crucible” and to proclaim: “What is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labor and look forward!”

What Petulant President Pantywaist and his sycophantic Liberal supporters in Washington, the Main Stream Media, and elsewhere fail to realize, is that you can’t buy loyalty to a nation. 

The British found that out with their hired German Mercenaries, the Hessians, during the Revolutionary War.

In their self-absorbed Political Greed, America’s professional politicians are setting the stage for the possible fall of our nation.

Legal Immigrants earned their citizenship. They showed that they were willing to become a part of the Great American Melting Pot (from the Schoolhouse Rock video of the same name).

Illegal Immigrants do not respect the laws of our land, to begin with. Why would that change, if they were given the rights of citizenship?

And, what about the 40% of America’s Workforce, who have dropped out due to frustration, depression, and aggravation?

How about taking care of those whom you are supposed to be serving, first, Mr. President?

Until He Comes,

KJ