Trump Makes Presence Felt on First Day of New Congress…Simply by Tweeting His Displeasure

On January 4, 2017January 4, 2017 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

u-s-capitol-4-snow-1000x550 As my bride and I were settling down to watch an episode of “Walker Texas Ranger” last night, the words of the show’s theme song rang out,

The eyes of the ranger are upon you…any wrong you do he’s gonna see…

Yesterday, Newly Re-elected Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the rest of the Members of the House of Representatives found out that “the eyes of the President-elect” were upon them.

The Washington Post reports that

The Trump effect has landed forcefully on Capitol Hill.

Less than two hours after President-elect Donald Trump criticized House Republicans — in a tweet, of course — for trying to gut an ethics investigative unit on the first day of business in the new Congress, those plans lay in shambles in the Republican conference’s meeting room.

The immediate outcome was to keep intact the independent Office of Congressional Ethics — exactly the status quo that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and his leadership team had hoped to protect. That result, however, appeared largely to be the result of Trump’s intervention rather than Ryan’s maneuvering.

There was a broader outcome, too: The unruly Republican caucus that has wreaked havoc in the House for the entirety of Ryan’s tenure fell in line. And there were signs, judging from Tuesday’s drama, that they might continue doing so this year.

House leaders attributed the reversal of the ethics decision to many factors, not the least of which was a rough period of media coverage highlighting how the lawmakers were abandoning Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” of Washington of corruption.

But lurking behind it all was the prospect that Trump’s political power, now aimed at Capitol Hill, can instill fear and force action. By aiming his social-media fire hose on fellow Republicans — even as he assembles a Cabinet filled with billionaires and insiders — Trump made clear that he intends to continue giving voice to the anti-establishment outsiders who propelled him through the Republican primaries against much more seasoned politicians and to an electoral-college win against Democrat Hillary Clinton.

That may give Trump leverage over those members of the Republican conference who have claimed the “outsider” mantle for the past six years, a period when the most conservative Republicans have gained stature back home by flouting leadership, whether it was John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) as speaker or Ryan for the past 15 months.

These Republicans regularly turned their backs on party leadership and claimed ideological purity in their carefully crafted districts that were bastions of like-minded conservatives. They operated on the assumption that the only likely political penalty was a primary challenge from the right.

Now, their party’s leader wields a Twitter account with 18.5 million followers. As he prepares to enter the Oval Office in little more than two weeks, Trump is far more popular in their districts than they are. He employs as his chief strategist the former leader of Breitbart News, a conservative media outlet that has included among its top targets the skewering of Republicans not deemed suitably conservative.

As a result, the first day of the 115th Congress served as a sort of beta test of how some Republicans will react when Trump sics his media power on them. If the most conservative flank tries to buck Trump on a pricey infrastructure deal, how will they handle the heat from Trump’s Twitter feed? If moderate Republicans try to block his moves on health care, will they withstand the heat if Trump goes to Breitbart to attack them by name?

On Tuesday the answer came fast: Run for cover.

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog . . . their number one act and priority,” Trump asked in a pair of tweets just after 10 a.m., adding that there were “so many other things of far greater importance.”

By 11:50 a.m., literally 10 minutes before the constitutionally mandated start of the new Congress, Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called an emergency meeting. Some Republicans piled into the meeting with their children in tow, there to see their mother or father sworn into another term in Congress.

The night before, by a large margin, House Republicans had approved an amendment to their new rules package for the 115th Congress that would have substantially impaled the investigative capabilities of the Office of Congressional Ethics — an independent body that was formed almost a decade ago after a raft of mostly Republican corruption cases landed in federal courthouses.

The OCE, as it is known, was meant to serve as a quasi-grand jury that would handle complaints from the public and tipsters, as well as reviewing media stories of potentially corrupt acts. If there’s a high likelihood an infraction occurred, it gets referred to the House Ethics Committee, which is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and has full subpoena power and can mete out punishment.

Lawmakers in both parties have seen the OCE as overly zealous at times, and there have been previous calls to rein in the team of former federal prosecutors who have overseen it the past nine years.

But the Monday night massacre of OCE, on a federal holiday, with almost 50 Republicans still not back in Washington, came with little warning or debate. It was an amendment offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the House Judiciary Committee chairman, and Ryan and McCarthy tried to tell their rank and file they would look foolish if they blew up the ethics process in this manner.

The leaders were steamrolled, with Goodlatte winning 119 to 74.

At the same time Tuesday morning that Trump was tweeting his displeasure, Ryan’s office issued a wordy statement that tried to explain what had happened, and McCarthy held a media briefing. Neither could clearly explain what would come next.

Then the leaders brought in the rank and file for another meeting. Many arguments were made about appearances and how the issue was dominating media coverage.

Oh, and someone brought up Trump.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a recent chairman of the Ethics Committee, said that members of the House GOP leadership mentioned Trump’s opposition to the OCE changes at the brief closed-door meeting in the Capitol basement, giving weight to reversing Monday night’s decision.

“That should be a consideration,” Dent said, explaining how leaders framed the thinking.

Within minutes, lawmakers rolled out of their meeting, having completely reversed course. Nothing would change for the OCE.

Instead, the normally fractious House GOP marched upstairs and displayed the most unity it has shown in the vote for speaker in six years: All but one Republican supported Ryan, who lost 10 Republican votes in his initial vote in October 2015.

“We will deliver,” Ryan told the House in his valedictory speech.

What slays me about this whole “incident” is the fact that the Establishment Republicans seem to be quite content, in their moderately left-leaning stupor, even after the mandate that We The People delivered to them on November 8th, 2016, to be totally oblivious and tone deaf of their Base, average hard working middle-class Americans like you and me.

You know, the people who actually put them into office.

They keep on making bad choices.

Spineless Vichy Republicans have been a barrier to Republican victory for as long as I can remember. Like Quakers, Establishment Republicans seem to believe that passive resistance and reaching out to their sworn enemies as “friends”, is the way to defeat those who oppose you.

It has been especially bad during Obama’s reign, as the House and Senate Republican Leadership apparently cherished their friendship with the Democrats more than they did the wishes of the folks back home. Yes, they talked a good game, but so did Jon Lovitz in those “Liar Sketches” during the old days of Saturday Night Live, back when they were actually funny.

Yeah, my wife Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!

In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and average Americans’ visceral disdain for the Professional Politicians, who value the Washingtonian Status Quo, above US.

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

…A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Note to the GOP Elite:

You guys are now facing the same situation that faced Victor von Frankenstein, in the classic movie: You have created this “monster”.

…a pi$$ed-off base who voted for an “outsider”, a non-professional politician talking directly to the people…

And, you have lost control.

Your only hope is to catch this lighting in a bottle and to ride this lightning bolt all the way through Donald J. Trump’s tenure as President of the United States of America, supporting him and passing legislation in accordance with the wishes of the American Voters who made him the “Leader of your Political Party”.

Your phony boloney jobs are at stake.

Until He Comes,

Congress Grows a Spine, Stands Up to Obama and Overrides Saudi Lawsuit Bill Veto. Dhimmi President Upset.

On September 29, 2016 By kingsjesterIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” -Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), on the Floor of the Senate, 9/28/2016

The moment that Americans have been longing for the past 8 years finally happened yesterday.

Congress grew a spine.

The New York Times reports that

Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.

The override comes at an already freighted moment in America’s relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it had any part in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the plot found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda, the terror group that carried out the attacks. But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.

Mr. Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a “dangerous precedent” with implications they did not understand and never debated.

“I think it was a mistake, and I understand why it happened,” Mr. Obama said at a CNN town hall-style meeting with military personnel in Fort Lee, Va. “It’s an example of why sometimes, you have to do what’s hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard. I didn’t expect it, because if you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do.”

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future, although there was general pessimism on Wednesday that Congress would agree to any changes. “You got to find consensus,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, after the vote. “Then you need a vehicle.”

It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy than America’s.

But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.

The law allows families of the Sept. 11 victims to alter lawsuits already underway — or file new suits — to directly sue Saudi Arabia and to demand documents and other evidence. It amends a 1976 law that grants foreign countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. Now nations can be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.

“From there, the ball goes squarely into the Obama administration’s court,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

As Mr. Vladeck noted, a little-discussed provision of the bill allows the attorney general to intervene in the lawsuits and get a judge to stay any settlement as long as there are continuing discussions with the Saudis about a possible resolution.

The provision was added earlier this year to soften the legislation — preserving the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving family members a path to sue.

But the prospects of such discussions ever beginning are uncertain. The Saudi government has long denied any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and any negotiation with the United States could be viewed as acknowledging culpability.

At the same time, lawyers for the families will no doubt push for judges to carefully scrutinize any attempt by the attorney general to delay court proceedings.

“The families would of course expect that in the event the provision is invoked, that the courts exercise their inherent authority to assure good faith negotiations are in fact taking place and that the courts not simply rubber stamp executive branch requests for delay in resolution of their claims,” said Allan Gerson, who is part of a team representing many of the Sept. 11 families.

Mr. Gerson filed a lawsuit against Libya on behalf of families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was brought down by a bomb as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.

What happened here is that the professional politicians in the Senate and the House of Representatives saw their chances of holding on to their phony baloney jobs greatly diminished if they sided with the dhimmi President against the families of the victims of those Saudi Nationals, who committed the worst act of Terrorism ever seen on American Soil, when they slaughtered over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

Obama said,

It’s an example of why sometimes, you have to do what’s hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard.

So, let’s talk about “doing what’s hard”.

You know what is “hard”, Mr. President?

Hard is burying a child…or a grandchild.

Step back from your incessant pandering to the Followers of Mohammed for a moment and attempt to feel the pain, which is still as real as that horrible day over 15 years ago, when over 3,00 American lives were mercilessly ended and, exponentially, tens of thousands of other American Lives irreversibly and helplessly changed forever.

Someone should be held responsible for the tremendous pain that is now an intrinsic part of the daily lives of so many American Families, don’t you think?

Now, I don’t expect a lot to happen out of these potential lawsuits.

However, if it makes those Saudis who funded those al Qaeda Members who savagely murdered all of those Americans on that fateful day, worry about losing some of their vast fortunes and makes them understand that they cannot sponsor Islamic Terrorist Acts with impunity, expecting to pay no consequences, then it is undoubtedly worth the effort.

And, you know something, President Obama?

If you had put America First during your poorly managed and executed Presidency, you might not be so worried about “potential repercussions” from these lawsuits.

Instead of delivering a “Message to the Muslim World” at the University of Cairo in July of 2009, perhaps you should have delivered a “Message to Americans” extoling OUR Country and the Faith which founded it.

Then, perhaps, this “mistake” as your Administration has referred to it, may have never happened.

But, that would have required a President who actually loves American and all of its citizens.

Until He Comes,

Touching a Nerve: Obama Attacks Trump. Defends His Refusal to Identify Radical Islam as America’s Enemy.

On June 15, 2016 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

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

Yesterday, America…and the rest of the world, saw a sitting President of the United States of America, attempt to defend his weak leadership, which has led to Radical Islamic Terrorist murdering Americans on our soil.

According to Foxnews.com,

After years of brushing off criticism for avoiding the term “radical Islam,” President Obama fired a point-blank broadside Tuesday at his critics, calling the debate a “political distraction” that will do nothing to combat terrorism.

Speaking from the White House during what was expected to be an update for the public on the fight against the Islamic State, Obama lit into his critics and specifically presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Their criticism has mounted in the wake of the Orlando terror attack, which Obama declined to publicly link to radical Islam.

“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. … There’s no magic to the phrase of radical Islam,” Obama countered Tuesday. “It’s a political talking point.”

Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans swiftly pushed back on the president’s remarks.

Trump said Obama “claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.”

He also said: “When I am president, it will always be America first.”

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said earlier: “With all due respect Mr. President, you’re wrong. … Telling the truth about violent Islam is a prerequisite to a strategy — a strategy you admitted you don’t have. It is the commander-in-chief’s duty to actually identify our enemies and to help the American people understand the challenge of violent Islam.”

Obama, though, went on to warn of a slippery slope in this debate, citing Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration – a proposal many in Trump’s party do not support, including House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“We don’t have religious tests here,” Obama said, without attacking Trump by name. But answering one of Trump’s most frequent accusations, the president said his reluctance to use the phrase “radical Islam” has “nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.”

He said groups like ISIS “want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims … who reject their crazy notions,” and a move to single out Muslims in America “betrays the very values America stands for.”

A day earlier, during a speech in New Hampshire, Trump had doubled down on his call for a Muslim immigration ban.

“It we don’t get tough, and we don’t get smart — and fast — we’re not going to have a country anymore. There will be nothing left,” Trump said.

Ryan, however, said Tuesday he does not support that proposal. “I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country’s interest,” Ryan said. “I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country.”

Before tackling the “radical Islam” debate, Obama was speaking at the White House Tuesday to deliver a status report to the public on the fight against the Islamic State, after meeting with his National Security Council.

He claimed that campaign is making gains and ISIS is “on defense.”

A day earlier, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton also claimed ISIS is losing ground in Iraq and Syria — but addressed other concerns about the group’s reach.

“As ISIS loses actual ground in Iraq and Syria, it will seek to stage more attacks and gain stronger footholds wherever it can, from Afghanistan, to Libya, to Europe,” Clinton said. “The threat is metastasizing.”

Further, Clinton referred openly in a TV interview to the threat from “radical Islamism.”

Obama, though, joined Clinton Tuesday in pushing for gun control measures to thwart terror attacks including renewing the assault-weapons ban.

“Make it harder for terrorists to use these weapons to kill us,” Obama said.

On that point, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, “We should not make it harder for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves when radical Islamic terrorists are successfully launching attacks on U.S. soil.”

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration, said Tuesday that Obama’s remarks were like a “lecture” and urged Clinton to break with the president on the terminology issue.

“It shows the president to be a small man,” Bolton told Fox News.

So, why doesn’t the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, identify our enemy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They never did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, in 2016, I have been proven to be a prophet as we watch the Main Stream Media continue to protect the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama and now, the Candidacy of Hillary Clinton, by their reticence to identify Radical Islamists for who they are.

Dear Lord, I hate it when I’m right.

Until He Comes,

Congress to Have to Vote in Order to Declare ISIS’ Mass Extermination of Middle East Christians “Genocide”

On March 14, 2016March 14, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics1 Comment

The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. – John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States of America.

CNS News reports that

The House of Representatives on Monday evening is expected to vote on, and pass, a bipartisan resolution declaring that atrocities carried out by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) against Christians and other religious minorities amount to genocide. The scheduled vote comes just three days before a deadline for Secretary of State John Kerry to deliver the administration’s view on the matter, in line with a requirement in the omnibus spending bill passed last December.

The resolution, which was approved unanimously by the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 2, expresses the sense of Congress that “those who commit or support atrocities against Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities, including Yezidis, Turkmen, Sabea-Mandeans, Kaka’e, and Kurds, and who target them specifically for ethnic or religious reasons, are committing, and are hereby declared to be committing, ‘war Crimes,’ ‘crimes against humanity,’ and ‘genocide.’”

Going further, it calls on “all governments, including the United States” to “call ISIL atrocities by their rightful names: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.”

The House Majority Leader’s list of business for Monday includes a vote in the evening of the resolution, which was sponsored by Reps Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).

The measure lists among ISIS’ atrocities against Christians and other minorities “mass murder, crucifixions, beheadings, rape, torture, enslavement, the kidnaping of children.”

It says those acts, and other violence, is “deliberately calculated to eliminate their communities from the so-called Islamic State” – a reference to the caliphate ISIS has declared across parts of Syria and Iraq.

Why is this bill even necessary, in a nation founded by Christians, whose population, to this day, consists of 75% of individuals, who proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior?

Remember the “tyranny of the minority”, which I wrote about, yesterday?

Well, there ya go.

In July of 2009, in a stadium located at the University of the Egypt in Cairo, President Barack Hussein Obama, in a speech to the “Muslim World”, apologized to tens of thousands of adherents to Islam and spoke to them in glowing terms of their “rich cultural heritage” and their “contributions to the growth of United States of America”.

Yeah, our first president, Mohammed Washington, that’s the ticket.

Now, before I go off on one my world famous KJ rants, I want you to understand that I am NOT saying that every Muslim in the world is taking part in a jihad against United States of America.

However, those were not Southern Baptists, who massacred the citizens of Paris, France or killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans on September 11, 2001.

Additionally, the mass murderers known as ISIS, are not Evangelical Christians, no matter how hard desperate Liberals might try to compare us to Radical Muslims.

“Now are you going to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior or am I going to have to behead you?” said no Evangelical Christian American, ever.

No, boys and girls, ISIS is a bunch of Muslim Barbarians…period.

For President Barack Hussein Obama to attempt to prosecute the War Against ISIS by remote control, with apparently no military strategy in place at all, is one the silliest things I’ve ever seen in my life.

As has been noted by several military analysts, eventually, Obama is going to have to put a “substantial number” of troops on the ground. That is, additional troops to the troops which he already has on the ground in the role of “military advisors” and “special forces”.

Obama’s bombing runs have done minimal damage, at best.

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

Obama had hoped that his “Coalition of the Unwilling”, the Middle Eastern Muslim Nations , who reluctantly agreed to support Obama against ISIS, would be willing to be his “boots on the ground” and would lay down their lives for him.

I am still trying to figure out how Obama could have possibly thought that those who think of us as the Great Satan, would lay down their lives for us.

Of course, Obama also thinks that if Iran promises not to build a nuke, they won’t build it.

The present situation, that is laying waste to Europe, and that we soon may be facing, with a possible Invasion Force, disguised as “Syrian Refugees”, can be traced back to Obama’s premature evacuation of Iraq.

It is no secret that Barack Hussein Obama is a vain and petulant man. It is also no secret that he was a Far Left Radical in his collegiate days and his early political career, only moving to the middle of the political spectrum, while he was campaigning for the presidency.

That being said, my Daddy always told me that when you do something, don’t do it halfway. Give it your best effort or don’t do it at all, or else you will come up short. That is what is happening with this war against the Radical Islamic Barbarians of ISIS.

Obama has never liked the Military Industrial Complex. After all, he is disciple of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Additionally, Obama spent his youth going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, where he was surrounded by children of wealthy Muslims, whose parents were part of the establishment in Jakarta.

Because of his political ideology and the time that he spent among Jakarta’s Upper Crust, Obama is very naive, or at least, he seems to be, about those Muslims who aren’t as cultured as he and his friends were and are.

In fact, he seems to be quite ignorant about the Muslim practice of taquiyya, in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels in order to achieve their mission.

Could Obama’s “Coalition of the Unwilling”, consisting of Middle Eastern Muslims, be practicing taquiyya? Could it be that arming the Syrian “Rebels” was a very stupid thing to do? Could these “Syrian Refugees” actually be a Radical Muslim Invasion Force? Could it be that it is past time for Obama to quit this halfway waging of War and to go ahead and send in ground troops and take care of business ourselves before every Worshiper of the God of Abraham is eradicated from the Middle East, and, more importantly, before our nation is invaded by the same “Invasion Force” presently laying waste to Europe?

The answer to all of the above questions is…YES.

Especially the last one…For the safety of our nation.

Because, with his present halfway effort, which was ironically named “Smart Power!” Obama, as the picture at the top of today’s post illustrates has “come up short”.

Until He Comes,

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

On January 4, 2016 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

His (Obama’s) first impulse always is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong. And to use executive powers he doesn’t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. – Republican Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush, Fox News Sunday, 1/3/2016

ABC News reports that

Hawaiian vacation over, President Barack Obama says he is energized for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business, turning immediate attention to the issue of gun violence. Obama scheduled a meeting Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss a three-month review of what steps he could take to help reduce gun violence. The president is expected to use executive action to strengthen background checks required for gun purchases.

Republicans strongly oppose any moves Obama may make, and legal fights seem likely over what critics would view as infringing on their Second Amendment rights. But Obama is committed to an aggressive agenda in 2016 even as public attention shifts to the presidential election.

Obama spent much of his winter vacation out of the public eye, playing golf with friends and dining out with his family. He returned to the White House about noon Sunday.

“I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us. That’s because of what we’ve accomplished together over the past seven,” Obama said his weekly radio and Internet address.

While in Hawaii, he also worked on his final State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12. The prime-time speech will give the president another chance to try to reassure the public about his national security stewardship after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Congressional Republicans have outlined a competing agenda for January, saying they will spend the first days of 2016 taking another crack at eliminating keys parts of the president’s health insurance law and ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation is unlikely to become law, but it is popular with the GOP base in an election year.

The debate about what Obama may do on gun violence already has spilled over into the presidential campaign.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, and rival Bernie Sanders said he would support Obama’s expected move.

The Vermont senator told ABC’s “This Week” that he believes “there is a wide consensus” that “we should expand and strengthen the instant background check.” He added: “I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.”

Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.

“This president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator,” unable to persuade Congress and forcing an “illegal executive action” on the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also on Fox, said Obama’s “first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong.”

In the radio address, Obama said tens of thousands of people have died from gun violence since background check legislation stalled three years ago.

“Each time, we’re told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

Obama plans to participate in a town hall Thursday night at George Mason University in Virginia on reducing gun violence. The president will take questions from the audience at the event moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its inmates.

An Executive Order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive Orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke Civil Rights.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Obama realizes that even though he “has a pen”, that does not mean that he has the national approval for his coming dictatorial action, which he claims that he has.

Therefore, he and his Administration have arranged for a “National Townhall Meeting”, to be held live on CNN, this Thursday night.

During this upcoming “Pep Rally”, I can guarantee you the following:

The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
Anderson Cooper will fawn over him, lobbing softball questions that Steve Urkel himself could hit out of the park.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have. – Ronald Reagan

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

Obama Administration Fighting to Loosen VISA Restrictions on Iranian Travelers

On December 23, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

The fallout (a word I am using purposefully) from the ill-advised and poorly-negotiated “Iran Deal” continues to grow.

Bloombergview.com reports that

Members of Congress knew the Iran nuclear deal came with strings attached. They just didn’t know how many.

When the administration presented the agreement to Congress, lawmakers were told that new sanctions on Iran would violate the deal. Now the administration is trying to sidestep a recently passed provision to tighten rules on visas for those who have visited Iran.

Since the accord was struck last summer, the U.S. emphasis on complying with its end of the deal has publicly eclipsed its efforts to pressure Iran. In that time, Iranian authorities have detained two American dual nationals and sentenced a third on what most observers say are trumped up espionage charges. Iran’s military has conducted two missile tests, one of which the U.N. said violated sanctions, and engaged in a new offensive with Russia in Syria to shore up the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

In the latest example of the U.S. effort to reassure Iran, the State Department is scrambling to confirm to Iran that it won’t enforce new rules that would increase screening of Europeans who have visited Iran and plan to come to America. There is concern the new visa waiver provisions, included in the omnibus budget Congress passed last week, would hinder business people seeking to open up new ventures in Iran once sanctions are lifted.

U.S. officials confirmed over the weekend that Secretary of State John Kerry sent his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, a letter promising to use executive powers to waive the new restrictions on those who have visited Iran but are citizens of countries in the Visa Waiver Program. These officials also told us that they have told Iranian diplomats that, because they are not specific to Iran, the new visa waiver provisions do not violate the detailed sequence of steps Iran and other countries committed to taking as part of the agreement. Even so, the State Department is promising to sidestep the new rule.

At issue is a provision that would require travelers who visit certain countries — including Iran, Sudan, Syria and Iraq — to apply at a U.S. Embassy for a visa before coming to the U.S., even if they are from a country for which such visas would normally be waived.

House staffers who spoke with us say Iran was included for good reason, because it remains on the U.S. list of state of sponsors of terrorism for its open support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The White House did not object until the Iranian government told the administration last week that the bill would violate the nuclear agreement, according to correspondence on these negotiations shared with us.

Since 2013, when the open negotiations with Iran began, the Obama administration has repeatedly told Congress that additional sanctions on the Islamic Republic would wreck negotiations. The resulting agreement obligates the West to lift sanctions in exchange for more transparency and limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran and the White House seem to be interpreting “lift sanctions” more broadly than others expected.

“If the United States Congress cannot implement a more secure visa procedure for those who travel to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, then the Iran deal ties the hands of lawmakers to a greater extent than even deal critics feared,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an expert in Iran sanctions, told us.

Over the weekend, Zarif said in an interview with al-Monitor that Iran’s inclusion on the list might violate the agreement. Zarif called the new restrictions “absurd” because no one connected to Iran was involved in the attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. He also said the provision “sends a very bad signal to the Iranians that the U.S. is bent on hostile policy toward Iran, no matter what.”

The issue is particularly sensitive for the State Department because Iran has yet to implement its side of the deal: The new transparency and limitations on the nuclear program are to begin in the coming weeks. State Department officials have said they fear more hardline elements of the regime in Tehran are trying to scuttle the deal for political advantage over President Hassan Rouhani, whose administration negotiated the accord.

In February, Iran will have parliamentary elections and elections for the powerful assembly of experts, the committee of clerics that would choose the next supreme leader of Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies. If anti-deal elements win those elections, the future of the nuclear deal will be dim.

These factors explain why Kerry has been willing to overlook Iran’s own provocations while trying to mitigate what Iran sees as provocations from the U.S. Congress. They also explain why Iran seems so intent to provoke the U.S. at the moment it’s supposed to implement the deal to which it just agreed.

Just who is “Javad Zaroif, Iran’s “Primary Negotiator”?

Well, boys and girls, he’s more than just Secretary of State John “I Served in Vietnam” Kerry’s “counterpart.

He’s FAMILY.

Courtesy of AllenB.West.com…

You not might be aware that in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

Of course you’re not aware of it.

Brian (Behrooz) Nahed is son of Nooshin and Reza Vala Nahid of Los Angeles. Brian’s Persian birth name is “Behrooz Vala Nahid” but it is now shortened and Americanized in the media to “Brian Nahed.” At the time his engagement to Bradford Kerry, there was rarely any mention of Nahed’s Persian/Iranian ancestry, and even the official wedding announcement in the October 2009 issue of New York Times carefully avoids any reference to Dr. Nahed (Nahid)’s birthplace (which is uncommon in wedding announcements) and starts his biography from his college years.

Gosh, I wonder why??

Gee, do you think Secretary Kerry should have recused himself from the negotiations with Iran at the very outset because of his long-standing relationship to his Iranian counter-part, Mohammad Javad Zarif? Let me explain.

Zarif is the current minister of foreign affairs in the Rouhani administration and has held various significant diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He was Kerry’s chief counterpart in the nuclear deal negotiations.

Secretary Kerry and Zarif first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse. What a surprise. I have to say, connecting the dots gets more and more frightening.

But it gets even worse. Guess who was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed? Javad Zarif’s son.

Does this bother anyone at all?

Apparently Kerry only revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were “too polite” to bring it up.

Polite? Somehow the words “Iran” and “nuclear capability” just do not go with the word “polite”.

The 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, has purposely and surreptitiously handed a Rogue State of Radical Muslim Barbarians the means of the destruction of both the United States of America and our staunch ally, Israel.

Schmuck.

The “Gentlemen’s Agreement” brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Hussein Obama is not work the paper is written on.

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

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

The following is an excerpt:

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

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

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

We all know what happened next: World War II.

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

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

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

They only respect strength and resolve.

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

Hence, their continued threatening rhetoric.

…and, the ever-growing sound of uncontrollable laughter.

…which, judging from their actions, Obama and his Administration are quite comfortable with.

Until He Comes,

UN Involved in “Vetting” of Syrian “Refugees”. Obama Tells States That They Cannot Block Them.

On November 27, 2015November 27, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama loves false equivalencies.

Yesterday, thehill.com reported that

This Thanksgiving, President Obama is calling for Americans to lend a helping hand to another group of pilgrims fleeing persecution.

“Nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims – men and women who want nothing more than the chance for a safer, better future for themselves and their families,” Obama said in his weekly address Thursday. “What makes America is that we offer that chance.”

The president praised Americans who have offered to open their homes to refugees fleeing war-torn Syria.
“One woman from Pennsylvania wrote to me to say, ‘Money is tight for us in my household. … But I have a guest room. I have a pantry full of food. We can do this,’ ” Obama said.

“Another woman from Florida told me her family’s history dates back to the Mayflower — and she said that welcoming others is part of ‘what it means to be an American,’ ” he added.

Obama called for citizens to put the “generosity” of America on full display by welcoming refugees into the country with arms wide open.

“I hope that you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving, surrounded by loved ones and full of joy and gratitude,” he said. “And together, may we all play our own small part in the American story, and write a next chapter that future generations can be thankful for.”

The House passed a measure earlier this month making it more difficult for Syrian refugees fleeing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to enter the country.

Republicans have cast doubt on whether refugees can be properly vetted to ensure that they are not terrorists.

At least one assailant in the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attack, in which 130 people were killed, is suspected of entering France posed as a migrant.

Point of Order, Mr. President:

The Pilgrims were Christians, not Muslims.

BIG difference.

The Pilgrims did not include a population made up of 70% of ultra-fit Military-looking young men with cell phones.

And, they did not riot their way across Europe before the Government of this country brought them here.

A couple of months ago, Ben Shapiro, writing for Breitbart News, asked and answered the following question…

Who Are These Refugees? That competition to accept refugees would be fine if we knew that the refugees plan on assimilating into Western notions of civilized society, and if we knew that they were indeed victims of radical Muslim atrocities. Unfortunately, we know neither. It is deeply suspicious that major Muslim countries that do not border Syria refuse to take in large numbers of refugees, except for Algeria and Egypt.

Turkey has taken in nearly two million refugees, according to the United Nations, and keeps the vast majority in refugee camps — a typical practice in a region that has kept Arab refugees from the 1948 war of Israeli independence in Arab-run camps for seven decades. Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees as well, but all border the chaotic, collapsing Syria, and thus have limited choice in the matter. Iran has taken in no refugees. Neither have Pakistan, Indonesia, or any of the other dozens of member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain all refused to take any refugees, and explicitly cited the risk of terrorists among the refugees, according to The Guardian (UK).

These fears are not without merit, as even Obama administration officials have acknowledged: back in February, director of the National Counterterrorism Center Nicholas Rasmussen called Syrian refugees “clearly a population of concern.” FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach explained, “Databases don’t [have] the information on those individuals, and that’s the concern. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that terrorist infiltration was “a possibility. I mean, you can’t, you can’t dismiss that out of hand.” He then added, “Obviously, if you look at those images though, it’s pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families.”

Actually, images show a disproportionate number of young males in crowds of refugees. And those images reflect statistical reality: according to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Mediterranean Sea refugees are overwhelmingly male: just 13 percent are women, and just 15 percent are children. The other 72 percent are men. Compare that population to the refugees in the Middle East from the same conflicts: 49.5 percent male, and 50.5 percent female, with 38.5 percent under the age of 12. Those are wildly different populations.

It is also being reported that these “refugees” are leaving a trail of waste, human and otherwise, in their wake.

In other words, these guys believe that hygiene is a girl that they used to “date” back home.

So, what is the actual vetting process for these Syrian “Refugees”?

Nine days ago, the Ultra-Liberal BBC.com reported on the process.

After intense criticism that the United States was not doing its part to help with the migrant crisis afflicting Europe, the Obama administration announced in September that it wanted to resettle about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the US by the same time next year.

The decision was met with some fear that militants could exploit the refugee programme to gain entry into the US to carry out attacks.

After the attacks in Paris, which left 129 dead, and the news that one of the attackers may have entered Europe as a refugee, those fears have become amplified and spread to governors’ mansions across the country as well as the corridors of Congress.

Newly elected Speaker of the US House of Representatives Paul Ryan has now called for a “pause” in the US refugee program. He tweeted, “Our nation has always been welcoming, but we can’t let terrorists take advantage of our compassion.”

The process for a Syrian refugee to resettle in the US is long and arduous, involving numerous federal agencies and intense background checks.

Compared to Europe, where fingerprints and simple information are taken and migrants can resettle with little difficulty, US processes look very different and are much stricter.

It is a long road for a Syrian refugee coming to the US – so where does it start?

Step 1: Leaving home & arrival at UNHCR refugee camp
As cities, town and villages have been overrun, millions of Syrian people have become displaced both internally and externally.

But to be eligible for permanent resettlement in another country, displaced persons have to leave Syria and find a camp run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in a neighbouring country.

Many of these camps offer only the most basic living conditions.

Upon arrival at the camp, the displaced person registers as a refugee and is given the option to apply for resettlement.

Nothing is guaranteed at this point. Not every refugee will be referred by the UNHCR for resettlement.

Refugees are allowed to express an interest in particular countries, but the decision on resettlement is ultimately at the UNHCR’s discretion.

Step 2: UNHCR referral for resettlement
The UNHCR then determines which refugees for whom resettlement makes sense, a senior administration official said.

Certain refugees get recommended to the programme in the US.

The State Department takes over after a referral is made from the UNHCR, and the Department of Homeland Security decides whether an individual application is approved.

Certain indicators for why a refugee may be recommended for the US programme include: if he or she has a relative in the US or whether it is likely he or she will be welcomed by a certain community.

“With Syrians, we’ve benefitted from years of experience in vetting Iraqi refugee applicants,” one senior Obama administration official said. The screening is “robust since large-scale Iraqi processing in 2007.”

Step 3: Vetting process with US begins
If a refugee is cleared to be considered by the US, the process for approval is lengthy – 18-24 months, said one senior administration official.

Refugees are admitted at about a 50% acceptance rate after being subjected to “the most rigorous screening of any traveller to the US,” an official told reporters in a conference call.

That involves extensive in-person interviews about their experiences with conflict, as well as the collection of both biometric and biographic information that is cross-checked with the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and in some cases, the Department of Defense.

Step 4: Resettlement
Ten thousand people have been referred for resettlement in the US, but the US has not processed their applications yet.

After 18-24 months, a refugee may then be sent to his or her new community.

The BBC spoke with one young man who resettled with his family outside of Louisville, Kentucky in September.

A local church organisation funded by the US government helped him land a job at a car factory. He wants to attend university in the US someday.

Like the organisation that helped this man, there are nine organisations that work with the federal government to place refugees across the US.

Funny how Obama and his Administration left out the part that the United Nations is playing in this whole “vetting” process, huh?

Considering the track record of the Security Council, I trust their judgment about as much as I would that of Miley Cyrus.

And, if you think that Obama is going to allow a delay of 18-24 months before allowing these Muslim “Refugees” to be relocated among us, I have two bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis to sell you.

In a related matter, foxnews.com reports that

The Obama administration warned states over the Syrian refugee crisis Wednesday, telling them in a letter they do not have legal authority to refuse the refugees, and states that do not comply may be subject to enforcement action.

The letter, from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (OCR), told state resettlement officials that they may not deny benefits and services to refugees based on their country of origin or religion.

“Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees,” the letter, dated Wednesday, says. “Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the State Plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension and termination.”

The letter went on to say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin in all programs that receive federal financial assistance.

“Thus, it is not permissible to deny federally funded benefits such as Medicaid or TANF to refugees who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements,” the letter says.

The letter came after more than two dozen governors, mostly Republicans, announced they would resist efforts to resettle Syrian refugees in their states in light of the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, and fears that ISIS militants could use the controversial program to infiltrate the U.S.

As he did during the recent Iran Deal Fiasco, Obama has a nasty habit of going to the United Nations first and worrying about what THEY think, instead of doing his job as President of the United States of America, and, doing what is best for OUR COUNTRY.

Mr. President,

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

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

America is still the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth, despite all of your efforts to make us “just another country”.

Congress needs to tell Obama that the safety of our Sovereign Nation does not, and will never take second place to his Muslim Dhimmitude and purposeful naiveté.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. President, my family and I did not “discuss gun control”, yesterday. We played Yahtzee, instead.

Because thanking God for our Sovereign Nation, the greatest on the face of the Earth, and spending time with family and friends…not acquiescing to you and your failed political ideology, is what Thanksgiving Day is all about.

Until He Comes,

Congressional Republicans, Through New Budget Deal, Give Obama a Blank Check Until He Leaves Office

On November 2, 2015November 2, 2015 By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Last Friday, Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Ted Cruz, wrote the following on Facebook:

This ‪#‎BudgetDeal‬ is a corrupt betrayal of the American people.

The entire time Republican leaders have been promising, ‘We’re going to do something on the budget. We’re going to rein in the president,’ they have been in the back room negotiating to fund every single thing Obama did.

Republican majorities have just given President Obama a diamond-encrusted, glow-in-the-dark AmEx card. And it has a special feature. The president gets to spend it now, and they don’t even send him the bill. They send the bill to your kids and my kids. It’s a pretty nifty card. You don’t have to pay for it. You get to spend it and it’s somebody else’s problem.

He wasn’t kidding.

Yesterday, The Washington Times reported that

When President Obama signs into law the new two-year budget deal Monday, his action will bring into sharper focus a part of his legacy that he doesn’t like to talk about: He is the $20 trillion man.

Mr. Obama’s spending agreement with Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of his presidency in 2017. Added to the current total national debt of more than $18.15 trillion, the red ink will likely be crowding the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

“Congress and the president have just agreed to undo one of the only successful fiscal restraint mechanisms in a generation,” said Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union. “The progress on reducing spending and the deficit has just become much more problematic.”

Some budget analysts scoff at the claim made by the administration and by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, that the budget agreement’s $112 billion in spending increases is fully funded by cuts elsewhere. Mr. Boehner left Congress last week.

“The Boehner-Obama spending agreement would allow for unlimited borrowing by the Treasury until March 2017,” said Paul Winfree, director of economic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. “This deal piles on billions of dollars to the national debt by increasing spending over the next three years and then not paying for it for a decade — with half of the offsets not occurring until 2025.”

The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that only about half of the increased spending in the budget deal is paid for. Rather than a spending increase of $80 billion over two years, the nonprofit group said, the actual spending hike is $154 billion when interest costs and budget gimmicks are factored into the equation.

“Of this $154 billion, about $78 billion is paid for honestly” through Medicare reforms, reductions in farm subsidies, asset sales and other measures, the group said. “The remaining $56 billion of the legislation — mostly the war spending increase and interest costs — is not paid for at all.”

Of course, Congress bears equal responsibility for the high level of debt. A prime reason that Mr. Boehner left office was conservatives’ displeasure with his accommodation of the president’s budget requests, aside from three years of “sequestration” spending caps that helped limit annual deficits.

“We will be raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion,” said Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who tried to filibuster the budget deal before the Senate approved it in the wee hours of Friday. “We will be giving President Obama a free pass to borrow as much money as he can borrow in the last year of his office. No limit, no dollar limit. Here you go, President Obama. Spend what you want.”

Ever-expanding debt

The president said Friday that the agreement “is paid for in a responsible, balanced way.”

“This agreement will strengthen the middle class by investing in education, job training, and basic research,” Mr. Obama said. “It will keep us safe by investing in our national security. It protects our seniors by avoiding harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security. It locks in two years of funding and should help break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises that have harmed our economy.”When Mr. Obama talks about fiscal matters, he usually takes credit for cutting the deficit by two-thirds. He also is correct that annual budget deficits have fallen from $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, in the depths of the recession, to $439 billion in fiscal 2015.

But the president rarely, if ever, mentions the accumulation of those annual deficits and what the rising national debt means for the country, for the presidents who will follow him and for the nation’s ability to pay for its priorities.

That’s because he does not care.

Scooter spends Americans’ money like a teenage girl with Daddy’s Credit Card at a 75-store Outlet Mall.

On September 8, 2010, CNS News reported that

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama’s inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89–which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office–the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

And now, thanks to a bunch of Vichy Republicans, who were scared out of their minds at the prospect of putting a cork in Uncle Sugar’s Piggy Bank and shutting down the Federal Government, they have become willing accomplices to Barack Hussein Obama’s growth of the Federal Government through irresponsible out-of-control spending, which may eventually lead to a nation who cannot meet its financial priorities.

Anyway, the problem we have with Congress is an age-old addiction. President Ronald Reagan was quite familiar with it. He described Congress’ condition perfectly,

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

As all of us parents and grandparents know, babies are expensive and unruly…if you do not discipline them.

As we head toward the 2016 Presidential Elections, it time for the Tea Party to reform. We need a complete Grass Roosts Effort to remind the “dedicated (to themselves) public servants just exactly who pays for their salaries, perks, and pensions.

Being an American by Birth, and Southern by the Grace of God,my favorite play of all time is “Lil’ Abner”. One of my favorite scenes in the movie they made of it, which starred Petter Palmer as Abner, Stubby Kaye as Marryin’ Sam, and the great Billie Hayes as Mammy Yoakum, was when Senator Fogbound (what a great name) holds a meeting with the townsfolk of Dogpatch, to tell them that they had to evacuate, due to an upcoming “A-tomic” Bomb Test.

Sen. Fogbound: I know y’all have been wondering what I have been doing up there in Washington on your behalf.

Mammy Yoakum: We didn’t care…as long as you wuz up there…and we wuz down here!

That’s the way that Low Information Voters feel about Congress. However, we can not allow that ignorance any more.

It’s time to get involved. It’s time to once again, rise up, get organized, and ready to go to the polls in 2016.

It’s time to prepare to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

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

On October 18, 2015October 20, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

President Barack Hussein Obama spat in the face of Congress and the American People, yesterday.

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per politico.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 15 Members:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

McCarthy Withdraws From Speaker’s Race. Vichy Republicans Have a Hissy Fit.

On October 8, 2015October 9, 2015 By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Going into the beginning of the process of selecting a new Republican Speaker of the House, there was an expectation of drama on Capitol Hill.

However, that expectation turned out to be an underestimation.

The Washington Post reports that

The sudden decision Thursday by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) to withdraw from the speaker’s race thrust congressional Republicans into chaos and left the contest wide open, with a crowd of lesser-known players jockeying for power and rank-and-file members fretting that the political unrest on the hard right that drove McCarthy and House Speaker John A. Boehner away from the position has left the party unmanageable in the lower chamber.

Conservatives seized the moment as McCarthy made his exodus, celebrating the departure of one of the GOP’s moderates and fastest-rising stars — and pledging to push for one of their own, a hard-liner on fiscal and social issues, to step forward in the coming weeks before the leadership elections are rescheduled. McCarthy’s associates, many hailing from mainstream Republican districts, urged caution and began efforts to draft another centrist Republican to succeed Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner personally asked House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to run for speaker over two long phone conversations, according to two sources familiar with the exchanges. Boehner has told Ryan that he is the only person who can unite the House GOP at a time of turmoil.

“It is total confusion — a banana republic,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally, as he recounted seeing a handful of House Republicans weeping Thursday over the downfall of McCarthy and the broader discord. “Any plan, anything you anticipate, who knows what’ll happen. People are crying. They don’t have any idea how this will unfold at all.”

The scene at the Capitol yielded more questions than answers by the hour Thursday afternoon, with an array of influential figures such as Ryan still reluctant to take McCarthy’s place as the consensus candidate of the party’s establishment and those averse to firebrands. As they mulled and were courted, a parade of hopefuls with low profiles beyond Capitol Hill — such as Rep. Daniel Webster (Fla.), a former state House speaker, and Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (Utah) — made the case in huddles and in the hallways that they are ready to be a fresh face for an unsettled House.

McCarthy, too, called for a “new face” during a news conference, asking for unity behind a leadership slate that is not as closely aligned with Boehner and the old bulls who have retained a grip over the House GOP in recent years even as a younger generation of Republicans has ascended. Who that face could be is unclear, and most ambitious, less-seasoned House Republicans who have considered running for the leadership in the past spent Thursday reacting to the news rather than quickly assembling coalitions.

Boehner, who last month said he would resign the speakership after weeks of facing a near-certain revolt from conservatives frustrated by his handling of legislation and what they see as a lack of aggression in countering President Obama’s agenda, said he will “serve as speaker until the House votes to elect a new speaker.”

It was the soundbite heard ’round Capitol Hill: House Majority Leader and presumptive House speaker nominee Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has dropped out of the race for speaker. The Washington Post’s Elise Viebeck explains the sudden news — and what happens next. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)

The bench for the House GOP is sparse, emptied in recent years by the same forces that have vexed Boehner and McCarthy. Virginia’s Eric Cantor, then the majority leader and firmly in line to succeed Boehner, was defeated in a 2014 House primary by a conservative challenger, elevating McCarthy but gutting the leadership of the political capital that Cantor had accumulated.

The committee chairmanships, long a grooming area for future leaders and the path Boehner took to the speakership, have been filled in places by youthful members such as Chaffetz, 48. And the leadership slots below Boehner and McCarthy – majority whip and chief deputy whip – are occupied by Steve Scalise (La.) and Patrick McHenry (N.C.), respectively. Both have served in the House for a decade or less and are inexperienced as national spokesmen — inside operatives but far from recognizable voices.

That left Republicans searching Thursday for new names to add to mix. King floated Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a respected former House GOP campaign chairman, as a person who could be a calming presence. Several conservatives suggested House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), a former leadership member who has strong relationships with the party’s conservative bloc.

Others on the right said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which was wary of McCarthy, would best reflect the political drift and impulses of the House. But he told reporters that he is not interested.

Another House Republican who drew interest was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who is chairing the House Select Committee delving into the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said in a Twitter message that Gowdy should be “interim speaker for next year,” days after Gowdy was called to run for the post by conservative groups who have cheered his Benghazi investigation. But as the boomlet began, Gowdy said “no” when asked by reporters whether he would consider running.

Scalise and McHenry, who had been running for lower leadership spots should McCarthy win the speakership, were encouraged to look higher up the chain of command. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), who has been a front-line participant in the latest talks about the future of the GOP, also mulled his options. So did Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the conference chairwoman and the party’s highest-ranking woman, and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (Ga.), who has harbored dreams of being in the leadership and previously ran unsuccessfully.

Yet none of those members seemed poised Thursday to follow in McCarthy’s footsteps as the front-runner for the gavel. They are all relatively popular with certain circles but few carry the national political heft of Ryan, who has been a vice-presidential nominee, or a McCarthy, who is the current No. 2 in the House.

“My guess is Boehner stays until a replacement has been selected on the floor,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.).

Sensing that perhaps no one can ably navigate the terrain — or get the necessary votes, as required by the Constitution, to win the speakership in a floor vote — Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, said he would consider running to be interim speaker as the House GOP worked out who could actually lead it in the months ahead.

Tea-party groups weighed in, hoping to exert their own pull on the speaker’s race. Activist Mark Meckler said in a statement that the House GOP must end the “Washington cartel at a time when people are looking to outsiders to challenge the status quo.” Tea Party Patriots’ Jenny Beth Martin said this was a “historic moment” that demands a speaker with deep support with grass-roots conservatives.

McCarthy, in an interview with National Review on Thursday, said whoever follows will have to grapple with a right flank of about 40 members that wants to direct the leadership, rather than being led. “I wouldn’t have enjoyed being speaker this way,” he said.

On who he’d like to step forward, McCarthy said, “I personally want Paul Ryan.” On whether the House can be led, he said, “I don’t know. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom.”

It was that feeling, expressed across the GOP base, which gave candidates like Webster — a backbencher who won just 12 votes in the vote for speaker earlier this year — some optimism as others scrambled to fill the vacuum left by McCarthy. Rep. David Brat (R-Va.), who toppled Cantor in that primary last year, said on MSNBC that he was with Webster. “I went in Daniel Webster,” he said, and remains with him. Other members of the House Freedom Caucus echoed him late Thursday.

The so-called “Moderate” (or, Vichy, as I call them) Republicans, still being led by Cryin’ John Boehner to the bitter end, are in danger of letting their immense egos cost them their jobs, as the 2016 National Election approaches.

On September 29, 2011, Rush Limbaugh made some very pertinent points concerning the difference in political ideology between the Conservative Base and the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club:

This is fascinating. I spoke earlier in the previous busy broadcast hour about Reagan’s campaign for governor in California in 1966. It is instructive because of this battle here between American conservatives and the Republican establishment, and believe me, they’re two different things. Now, George Will says there’s no Republican establishment and there hasn’t been since, what, 1966. But there is. The Republican establishment for all intents and purposes for the sake of our discussion here, is made up of what you would call RINOs.

The Republican establishment is northeastern Republican conservatives. They’re right on the fiscal side of things most of the time, but they don’t want any part of the social issues. They can’t stand it being part of the party platform. They don’t want to talk about it. They have no desire to be part of that discussion. They think it’s going to lose elections, all that kind of stuff, plus they do tend to believe Washington is the center of the universe. Republicans win elections. They’re in charge of the money. They like that. They tend to believe that an energetic, powerful executive wielding financial powers, spending money for the national good with conservative instincts is a good thing. So if government grows under that rubric, then it’s fine.

We, of course, as conservatives, don’t see things that way, and there is the divide. And the Republican establishment is made up of a lot of powerful people with a lot of money, and they want to win. Just like we do. They employ whatever muscle they have to see to it that they do. They want their candidates to be representative of what they want, all of which is understandable. So there’s this battle going on. The added intensity this time around is another point of disagreement. That is the Republican establishment doesn’t really think the country’s threatened. They don’t like Obama. They think Obama’s a disaster, but the country’s not in any danger here of real long-term damage. I mean, it’s just overblown, all this talk about saving the country, it’s not that bad. All we gotta do is get our people in there and put us back on the responsible fiscal track and everything will be fine.

They don’t see the Democrat Party the same way we do. They don’t see the Democrat Party as basically socialist liberal, and they cringe at such talk. And these people never really were enamored with Ronald Reagan. They never really liked him. They just lived on edge every day: What’s this guy going to do that’s going to embarrass us? What mistake is he going to make? What stupid thing is he going to say? They actually had this view. Tip O’Neill was not the only one who thought that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce. There were in the Republican establishment who thought that before Reagan ever ran for office and after he won the presidency. And they thought that back in 1966. After all, he was just an actor, introduced GE Theater.

…He was talking about the Goldwater campaign of two years past. This is ’66; the Goldwater campaign was ’64….Reagan said, “We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all,” and the traitors he was referring to were the Rhinos of his day who had undermined the Goldwater conservatives during the 1964 campaign. And Reagan was saying: Over my dead body is the Republican Party going to be turned over to those people. We’re only going places if we conservatives run this party, if we take it over and if we are unified.

Just as they underestimated Ronaldus Magnus, I truly believe that the Vichy Republicans haveunderestimated the Party’s Conservative Base.

Reagan Conservatives are the bedrock of this nation. We pay these bozos’ salaries, and get shafted in return.

You know what I want for the 23% (soon to be 40%, if Obama has his way before he leaves office) of my hard-earned money, which I send to our nation’s capital to pay for Obama’s and Congress’ Revenue?

I want Conservative Leadership. I want somebody to stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama the way the cow ate the cabbage. I want someone to actually give a hoot ‘n holler about the average American, not the special interest groups, not the lobbyists, not “the smartest people in the room”…me.

I want an American President and competent American Congresspeople.

And, I want those Congresspeople in the House of Representatives to be lead by a Conservative, courageous Speaker of the House. One who will tell Obama, plainly and simply,

NOT ON MY WATCH.

I want someone to stand up and be a MAN…or a WOMAN.

I am so dadgum tired of mealy-mouth squishes and political niceties and expediences, I could spit. Too many Americans are out of work and doing without, while the Three-Ring Circus performs unabated under the Big Top on Capital Hill.

The American people are tired of cleaning up after the Vichy Republicans and their bosom buddies “across the aisle”.

We need Conservative Leadership in the House AND the Senate.

NOW.

Until He Comes,

Kingsjester's Blog

Tag: Congress

Trump Makes Presence Felt on First Day of New Congress…Simply by Tweeting His Displeasure

Congress Grows a Spine, Stands Up to Obama and Overrides Saudi Lawsuit Bill Veto. Dhimmi President Upset.

Touching a Nerve: Obama Attacks Trump. Defends His Refusal to Identify Radical Islam as America’s Enemy.

Congress to Have to Vote in Order to Declare ISIS’ Mass Extermination of Middle East Christians “Genocide”

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

Obama Administration Fighting to Loosen VISA Restrictions on Iranian Travelers

UN Involved in “Vetting” of Syrian “Refugees”. Obama Tells States That They Cannot Block Them.

Congressional Republicans, Through New Budget Deal, Give Obama a Blank Check Until He Leaves Office

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

McCarthy Withdraws From Speaker’s Race. Vichy Republicans Have a Hissy Fit.