Tag: Conservative

Trump to Sign Executive Order Aimed at Protecting Free Speech on Social Media

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

trump-looking-out-window-oval-office (2)

On his nationally-syndicated radio program yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said,

You know, if Trump wanted to, he could take Twitter down with him. If he wanted to do serious, permanent damage to Twitter, Donald Trump could do it. Now, he doesn’t want to do that because Trump loves it. It is his one direct pipeline to the people in this country who are being lied to to this day every day about him and pretty much everything that he’s saying and doing.

So Twitter has slapped a “fact check” on him, and the source for the fact-checkers are CNN. CNN now gets to fact-check Trump, and the first fact check… You know, Trump started tweeting about how mail-in ballots are a pipeline to election fraud — and they are. It has been demonstrated in previous elections that they are, and just for saying that, they get to fact-check Trump and CNN gets to say:

“There is no evidence that mail-in ballots caused any problems with elections’ integrity or cause phrase. This assertion is false,” and Trump is livid about it, and I’ll tell you one reason why. Where were the fact-checkers when Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and John Brennan and James Clapper and James Comey were claiming to have proof that Trump colluded with Russia, and they were tweeting it day in and day out?

They were tweeting unnamed, anonymous sources to back themselves up. So Twitter fact-checks President Trump for suggesting that California’s mail-in ballots will be substantially fraudulent. It’s the first time Twitter has fact-checked anybody, and they did it because a bunch of people were demanding that Jack Dorsey do something about it, and Jack Dorsey didn’t want to get any grief.

So he said, “Okay. We’ll fact-check Trump.” Well, my question points out a problem Twitter has now created for itself. If you’re gonna start fact-checking people, when do you start fact-checking Democrats? When do you unleash CNN on some of these bogus claims made by Schiff or Nadler and Brennan and Clapper and Comey? Because if you want to talk about lying…

In a related story, FoxNews.com reports that

President Trump will sign an executive order on social media on Thursday, the White House said.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Wednesday she could not get ahead of the president to explain the purpose and intent of the order, but confirmed it would be coming then.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump warned social media giants that the federal government could “strongly regulate” or “close them down” if they continue to “silence conservative voices,” amid his flaring battle with Twitter after the platform fact-checked one of his tweets for the first time this week.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” Trump tweeted. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.”

The president added: “Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!!”

He later tweeted: “Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow!”

This comes after Twitter on Tuesday slapped a warning label on one of Trump’s tweets referring to mail-in ballots, cautioning readers that despite the president’s claims, “fact-checkers” say there is “no evidence” that mail-in voting would increase fraud risks and that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”

The president, within minutes of the platform’s labeling, accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election based on fact-checking by Fake News CNN and the Amazon Washington Post,” while adding that the Twitter is “completely stifling FREE SPEECH,” and vowing that “I, as President, will not allow that to happen.”

Twitter’s new warning label was issued even though a Twitter spokesperson acknowledged to Fox News that Trump’s tweet had not broken any of the platform’s rules, and even though some other experts have raised fraud concerns surrounding mail-in voting.

The warning label came after Trump tweeted: “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!!”

Within hours, Twitter then appended a label to the bottom of the tweet reading: “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.”

Clicking that label brought readers to a paragraph saying: “On Tuesday, President Trump made a series of claims about potential voter fraud after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced an effort to expand mail-in voting in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and others. Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.”

Twitter went on to note in a “What to Know” section that “fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud” and that “Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to ‘anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there.’ In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.”

Twitter acknowledged Trump’s tweet “is not in violation of the Twitter Rules as it does not directly try to dissuade people from voting — it does, however, contain misleading information about the voting process, specifically mail-in ballots, and we’re offering more context to the public.”

The warning label was only the latest example conservatives cite as demonstrating a bias on the platform. Just two months ago, Twitter flagged a video uploaded by the Trump campaign as “manipulated media,” only to rebuff the campaign’s efforts to have the platform flag a similar video uploaded by the Biden team.

There has been shadow banning of Conservatives happening on Twitter for quite some time.

For example, actor James Woods, a noted Conservative possessing a razor-sharp wit, was banned for several months from Twitter.

Other Conservatives have had thousands of followers mysteriously vanish with no logical explanation.

And, as President Trump alluded to, Twitter was definitely Pro-Hillary during the 2016 Campaign.

What gets me, is while all this has been going on, “Bots” and wild-eyed vulgar Liberals are allowed to spam Trump’s Twitter feed, making it almost impossible for average Americans to comment on it.

Why, it is almost like these clowns are getting paid to damage the President. (/sarc)

President Trump has always been a master of using Twitter to reach out directly to the American people to get his point across unfiltered by the biased Main Stream Media.

He also takes delight in “trolling” the Main Stream Media and their masters, the Democratic Party, through its use.

America is receiving daily communication from its 45th President, Citizen Statesman Donald J. Trump.

The vast majority of Americans own cellphones…and are on Twitter.

Yes, the 280 characters contained in a “Tweet” are definitely not the most eloquent way for a President to be communicating with the American Public, but they are clear, concise, and immediate.

There is no room for “weasel words” in a “Tweet”, unlike the addresses of the individual who occupied the Oval Office before President Trump.

Heck, Obama gave long speeches just so he could refer to himself ad infinitum in them.

99.9 percent of broadcast networks’ coverage of President Donald J. Trump has been negative.

The fact is, President Trump will never be able to please the Main Stream Media.

And, the Democrats still stupidly expect him to be like George W. Bush and not fight back when they insult, demean, and now, attempt to impeach him.

President Trump has the same rights as every American citizen and those rights include the right to fight back.

So, whatever sort of executive order he decides to sign today in order to fight the censorship of Conservative Speech in Social Media, I support it 100%.

The Presidency of the United States of America is the most important leadership position on the Face of God’s Green Earth.

For Twitter to intentionally attempt to run interference for the Democratic Party and influence the 2020 Presidential Election is indeed an intentional affront not only against Free Speech but our right as Americans to receive important information in order to be e knowledgeable about our country’s situation when we cast or votes.

In other words, we will interpret he President’s Tweets for ourselves, thanks.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Franklin Graham “Accidently” Banned From Facebook for 24 Hours…for a Post From 2016?!

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

Franklin-Graham_0

Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred. – Jacques Barzun

The Charlotte Observer reports that

Facebook is apologizing to evangelist Franklin Graham for banning him from posting on the site for 24 hours last week, a Facebook spokesperson told The Charlotte Observer on Saturday.

It was a mistake to ban Graham over a 2016 post he made on the site, and a mistake to have taken down the post, the spokesperson said.

Facebook has restored the 2016 post and will apologize in a note to the administrator of Graham’s Facebook page, according to the Facebook spokesperson, who agreed to speak only on background, meaning without the spokesperson’s name.

A member of Facebook’s content review team — the team has 15,000 members — had mistakenly decided the post violated Facebook’s policy that bans “dehumanizing language” and excluding people based on sexual orientation, race and other factors, according to the spokesperson and Facebook’s written policy.

“Why?” Graham asked in a Facebook post on Friday after he said he was banned from posting anything on the site for 24 hours last week. “Because of a post from back in 2016 about North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (the bathroom bill). Facebook said the post went against their ‘community standards on hate speech.’ Facebook is trying to define truth.”

In his post, Graham said the social media giant is “making the rules and changing the rules. Truth is truth. God made the rules and His Word is truth. Actually, Facebook is censoring free speech. The free exchange of ideas is part of our country’s DNA.”

Graham’s Friday post included his 2016 post that he said Facebook “took down” last week. “Do you see any hate speech here?” Graham asked.

Graham’s 2016 post focused on singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen canceling a North Carolina concert because of House Bill 2.

“He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards,’” Graham said in his 2016 post, referring to Springsteen. “Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands.”

In March 2016, the General Assembly passed HB2, also known as the “bathroom bill.” HB2 reversed a Charlotte ordinance that extended some rights to people who are gay or transgender, The Charlotte Observer reported at the time. Then-Gov. Pat McCrory signed the measure into law the same night.

As anyone who has been on Social Media Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook has noticed, writers who espouse Conservative Political Viewpoints have been given “time-outs” or have even been “shadowbanned” in increasing since Donald J. Trump was elected President.

Now, whether these “Time-outs”, like Rev. Graham experienced, or the outright bannings, such as Alex Jones’ and others are some form of retaliation for the election of Donald J. Trump as President by the Liberal Owners and Management of these Social Media Platforms, we can only guess.

However, since the election of President Donald J. Trump, the effort to silence Conservatives has gotten so extreme that Liberals have harassed Republican Politicians in restaurants and even elevators, in an effort to intimidate them into remaining silent of issues which the Liberals want their way in.

Why are Modern American Liberals so afraid of Conservative Thought and Free Speech?

Is it possible that this head-on rush by the Far Left Democratic Party to immerse themselves and our Sovereign Nation in the Marxist Theory-inspired Political Philosophy of Democratic Socialism has caused them to emulate those who were responsible for the original Russian Revolution, some 100 years ago?

Just like their predecessors a century ago in a land far away, these “New Bolsheviks” are using any means necessary to shut down any and all opposition to their effort to “radically change” America into something that it was never meant to be.

And, the classification of a Christian’s right to quote the Bible as “Hate Speech” certainly is an example of what I am taking about.

As Americans, it is our Constitutional Duty to oppose the “dying of the light” of individual liberty, including our Freedom of Speech.

Ray Bradbury, legendary Science Fiction Writer, penned a book in 1953 about the dangers of censorship, titled Fahrenheit 451, in which you can read this pertinent thought…

We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?

The very real Political War being waged against our basic rights as Americans must not go unopposed.

It is time for average Americans to take our places along the wall of this fortress of individual liberty and freedom known as the United States of America.

As we did on the night of November 6, 2018, it is time once again for “The Elite” as President Trump has called us, to make our voices known.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Tyranny of the Minority: Ann Coulter Cancels UC Berkeley Speech

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

crybullies_ben_garrison

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” – George Washington

Foxnews.com reported yesterday that

The hecklers used their veto.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter told Fox News on Wednesday she would no longer give a planned speech at UC Berkeley after Young America’s Foundation pulled its support for the event amid threats of violence, calling her decision “a dark day for free speech in America.”

The speech was originally scheduled to take place Thursday – but Berkeley asked to postpone it until next month after protests over the planned speech grew into a nationally-watched firestorm.

“I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team.”

– Ann Coulter

Coulter, YAF — which had helped organize and finance the event — and the Berkeley College Republicans initially fought the school’s decision, with YAF and the college Republicans filing a civil rights lawsuit on Monday. But by Wednesday YAF had “actively” opposed Coulter’s speech, she said, and “ordered the lawyer not [to] file for [a] court order” which would have mandated a room for the talk. The college Republicans are bound by YAF’s decision, Coulter said, “so there’s nothing more I can do.”

“I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team,” Coulter said in an email.

In a series of tweets, Coulter said she was “so sorry for free speech crushed by thugs.”

“It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech,” she tweeted.

“It’s unfortunate we had to cancel the event due to security reasons,” Berkeley College Republicans President Troy Worden told reporters.

In a Tuesday statement posted to the YAF website and signed by both YAF and the executive board of the college Republicans, the groups said Berkeley “failed to meet our demands” to provide a safe environment for the speech.

“Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” the statement said.

“The lawsuit has not been dropped,” said YAF spokesman Spencer Brown. “At no time did Berkeley provide a time or place for Coulter to speak, and unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment rights of students in preventing YAF’s campus lecture from taking place. We are moving ahead with the lawsuit.”

Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks sent a letter to the campus Wednesday saying the university is committed to defending free speech but also to protecting its students.

“This is a university, not a battlefield,” Dirks said in the letter. “The university has two non-negotiable commitments, one to Free Speech the other to the safety of our campus community.”

Coulter was coy about what she would be doing instead of giving the talk.

“I think I’m still going to Berkeley, but there will be no speech,” Coulter said Wednesday.

The university’s attempt to call off the event came after a series of violent clashes this year on campus and in downtown Berkeley between far-right and far-left protesters.

The lawsuit demands unstated damages and compensation for attorney fees, a trial by jury and an injunction against Berkeley officials from “restricting the exercise of political expression on the UC Berkeley campus.”

It names four university officials as defendants, including University of California President Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks, and three police officials, including university police chief Margo Bennett.

Attorney and RNC National Committeewoman Harmeet K. Dhillon said the lawsuit filed against the Berkeley is a “long term remedy” with a “much larger goal.”

The University of California president’s office issued a statement saying it welcomes speakers of all political viewpoints and “is committed to providing a forum to enable Ann Coulter to speak on the Berkeley campus.”

“The campus seeks to ensure that all members of the Berkeley and larger community — including Ms. Coulter herself — remain safe during such an event.”

Capt. Alex Yao of the Berkley campus police force said police presence will be strong Thursday.

“You will see a high number of highly visible law enforcement. We’re going to have a very, very low tolerance for any violence,” he told a news conference. He said Berkeley police had reached out to local and state police forces “to let them know we might be calling for assistance.”

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of 2016, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display on the Campus of the University of California at Berkeley, as they ban Ann Coulter from speaking, simply because she is a Conservative, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

Anyway, here we are, after a couple of generations of removing the love of “God and Country” from our public Schools while handing out “Participation Ribbons” with a bunch of undereducated spoiled brats telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through our election of Donald J. Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

I have heard this kind of garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus and all the rest of the “Anti-Trumpers”, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for the last few years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like their Liberal Parents and Professors, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as paid and unpaid protestors attempt to ruin Trump’s Presidency through staged “spontaneous” demonstrations, purposefully designed to stifle Free Speech and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” and irresponsible lifestyles bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party.

If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, promising a continuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s own “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including those of us here in the Heartland who are responsible for the election of President Donald J. Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It also gives all of the Modern American Liberals, like the spoiled brats at Berkeley, who are still throwing a National Temper Tantrum over Trump’s election that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by trying to shout down Conservative Speakers, or by rioting, like they did earlier at that Romper Room euphemistically referred to as a “Center for Higher Learning” for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

Our Constitution, in fact, allowed Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.

However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label the Self-entitlement-driven Condescending Political Ideology of all of these “Special Snowflakes” for what it actually is:

“INTOLERANCE”.

But, guess what, Kiddies?

Even though you succeeded in keeping Ann Coulter from speaking on the Campus of UC Berkeley, Donald J. Trump is still the President of the United States of America.

And, one day soon, you will be forced to leave the confines of your Liberal Playpen and join us mean ol’ Conservatives out here in the Real World, where there is no “Safe Space”.

You poor widdle babies are gonna gettums feewings hurt because you are going to actually have to go to work and earn your way.

And, the final cold cruel truth?

Liberalism will still be the minority Political Ideology in America.

Overestimation of the popularity of one’s Political Belief System has long been a staple of those who claim to be “the most tolerant among us”, the Modern American Liberal.

And, you “Diaper Dandies” are proving to be the rule, instead of the exception.

Kleenex?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Liberal Intolerance on Display as Students at UC Berkeley Riot Over Gay Conservative Speaking on Campus

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

ucberkeleyneonaziproteststevefield-18273320

Last night, the Liberal National Temper Tantrum over the election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America continued…and got violent.

The San Francisco Chronicle, a Liberal Newspaper (Aren’t they all now?) filled the following report…

A protest at UC Berkeley turned fiery and violent Wednesday night, shutting down a scheduled speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

The Breitbart News editor was set to deliver a speech inside a UC Berkeley campus building but hundreds of protesters began throwing fireworks and pulling down the metal barricades police set up to keep people from rushing into the building. Windows were smashed and fires were set outside the building as masked protesters stormed it, and at 6 p.m., one hour before his scheduled speech was to begin, police decided to evacuate Yiannopoulos for his own safety.

The Berkeley Police Department said people threw bricks, smoking objects, and fireworks at police officers. University police locked down all buildings and ordered a shelter in place, and later fired rubber pellets into the crowd of protesters who defied orders to leave the area. Police called in support from other law enforcement agencies and warned protesters that they might use tear gas.

“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” said Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republican member said as smoke bombs went off around him. Someone threw red paint on him. “It’s sad.”

Protesters argued that hate speech isn’t free speech, countering the university’s explanation — free speech — on why it had allowed the event to proceed even as students demanded that the university cancel it.

Yiannopoulos was invited to speak at the campus by the Berkeley College Republicans, a student group that was warned Tuesday by university officials that the event could result in the targeting of undocumented students. Yiannopoulos, an editor for the right-wing Breitbart News website, was expected to use the event in Berkeley to kick off a campaign against “sanctuary campuses” that have vowed to protect undocumented students as President Trump cracks down on illegal immigration.

Three lines of zip-tied metal fencing separated the crowd of protesters from campus police officers who had secured the building where Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak. He had arrived earlier, escorted by security and had been waiting inside the student union building when the protests erupted.

The protest turned violent around 6 p.m. when dozens of masked anarchists, dressed in black and wearing backpacks, emerged from the otherwise peaceful crowd.

As “Milo had got to go” chants broke out, they struck: in small groups, at first — knocking down the fences, cutting through to zip ties. Then, they came in droves, as the dozens of university police officers quickly retreated to an inner ring of fencing.

That, too, was breached, as protesters ran toward the student center, where Yiannopoulos was, waiting for the event to begin. Police, donning riot gear, headed all the way inside.

Seizing the opportunity, the masks men and women then breached the inner ring of fencing, picking up pieces of it and hurling them into the glass of the building itself.

Glass shattered, but no one went inside, where police formed a riot formation.

As protesters yelled obscenities at police, others toppled a generator and light pole police had set up, spray painting “Milo” with an x through it. Later on, they lit it on fire, gas spilling with abandon as the growing flames licked a nearby tree on the side of the building.

From their backpacks, they hurled dozens of fireworks — some screaming past others in the crowd — as Berkeley’s usually peaceful protesters vented their frustration. The more peaceful had carried signs, “We reject a fascist America,” and derided Yiannopoulos as a mouthpiece for President Trump.

One of the black-dressed anarchists said he was shot at.

“The cops shot me with pepper balls,” said the 26-year-old man who called himself Zombie. “It hurt”

Carrying a thick black shield and wearing a milk-soaked kerchief over his face, Zombie said he is one of “hundreds” of black bloc activists who were behind the breach of metal barriers.

“We’re anarchists,” he said as fellow protesters unfurled a banner reading “This is war,”

Zombie said no one set the police lights on fire. “It got knocked over — and lit itself on fire. I saw it.”

None of the many black bloc activists — all wearing kerchiefs soaked in milk to protect against potential tear gas — would admit to taking part in the rushing of the student union building.

Police soon declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to leave but hundreds of protesters stayed, filling the entire upper and lower plaza. After a couple warnings delivered via loudspeaker from the second floor of the building, where the police were high enough to escape most fireworks, they fired rubber pellets onto the crowd. A group of determined protesters formed a shield-like formation under their signs.

The quintessential protest song, “F— Donald Trump,” came on over loudspeakers that someone dragged through the crowd unscathed.

“Turn on the dance music,” one masked woman yelled.

At around 6:30 p.m., Yiannopoulos posted a message on Facebook, saying he was safe; “I have been evacuated from the UC Berkeley campus after violent left-wing protestors tore down barricades, lit fires, threw rocks and Roman candles at the windows and breached the ground floor of the building. My team and I are safe. But the event has been cancelled. I’ll let you know more when the facts become clear. One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.”

Campus police had been intent on avoiding a repeat of the chaos at UC Davis on Jan. 13, when protesters overwhelmed their barricades and shut down Yiannopoulos’ speech.

“It’s not a question of free speech,” a protester said via megaphone, riling up the hundreds of protesters in attendance. “It’s about real human beings.”

The “real human beings” refrain rippled through the liberal crowd, through students and their parents, socialists and anarchists, who asserted that Trump’s early policies, ones Yiannopoulos supports, have or will harm their friends and their families. That includes the ban on travel into the U.S. from citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, as well as the president’s promise to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Berkeley junior Fatima Ibrahim, 20, who clutched a “resist fear” sign with a red fist, said she’d talked to the Berkeley College Republicans, the organization that brought Yiannopoulos to campus, Tuesday. She asked them a simple question: “Why?”

Some of them, her classmates, are “level-headed,” people, she said, and she wanted to understand why they’d invite someone whose views so many found so abhorrent.

She didn’t get clear enough answers — she said the group conceded it didn’t agree with all of Yiannopoulos’ viewpoints — and she decided she’d have to protest along with those who felt the same way.

The timing, especially, so fresh into Trump’s early days in office, especially stung, she said.

“As a black Muslim woman, all three of those identities have been targeted throughout (Trump’s) campaign,” Ibrahim said. “To have someone like (Yiannopoulos) come into my campus and affirm those people’s beliefs, it’s very, very hurtful.”

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of 2016, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display on the Campus of the University of California at Berkeley, in their desperation to prevent Milo Yiannopolis, a Gay Conservative from speaking, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

So, anyway, here we are, after a couple of generations of removing the love of “God and Country” from our public Schools while handing out “Participation Ribbons”with a bunch of undereducated spoiled brats telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through our election of Donald J. Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

Last night’s riot was an exercise in irony by a bunch of idiots, who have been taught to believe that our country owes them something, simply because they consider themselves to be the smartest person in any room into which they enter.

I have heard this kind of garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus and all the rest of the “Anti-Trumpers”, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for the last few years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like their Liberal Parents and Professors, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as paid and unpaid protestors attempt to ruin Trump’s Presidency through staged “spontaneous” demonstrations, purposefully designed to stifle Free Speech and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” and irresponsible lifestyles bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party.

If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, promising a continuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s own “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including those of us here in the Heartland who are responsible for the elect of President Donald J.Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It gives the protestors, who are still throwing a National Temper Tantrum over Trump’s election that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by trying to shout down Conservative Speakers, or by rioting, like last night, for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

It also allows ungrateful NFL Players, making millions of dollars to disrespect our Sovereign Nation and those who died for our flag to refuse to stand during our National Anthem.

And they’re useless, too.

Our Constitution, in fact, allowed Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.

However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label the Self-entitlement-driven Condescending Political Ideology of all of these “Special Snowflakes” for what it actually is:

“INTOLERANCE”.

And, guess what, Kiddies?

When you woke up this morning after throwing your tantrum and destroying property  on the Campus of UC Berkeley while playing “Anarchist For a Day”, Donald J. Trump was still the President of the United States of America.

Kleenex?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, Chick-Fil-A, and Petulant President Pantywaist

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

D-Wounded-600-LIWe are now at a point in our nation’s history, where a Fast Food Chain is showing more deference to the death of a Senior United States Supreme Court Justice than the President.

Christianpost.com reports that

Chick-fil-A restaurants that display the American flag are flying them at half-staff in memory of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

The fast food chain that specializes in chicken sandwiches and headed by a conservative Southern Baptist family asked their restaurant managers to lower the American flag in remembrance of Scalia, who died Saturday of natural causes. 

“Anytime the president orders the flag be flown at half-staff, Chick-fil-A restaurants do so — as is the case with honoring Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” read a statement sent to The Christian Post by the fast food company.

“Honor”.  A word that, in the case of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, seems to be virtually nonexistent.

Politico.com reports that

President Barack Obama is preparing for a fierce battle with the Senate over the Supreme Court vacancy, but he’s not planning to attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral — a decision that puzzled even some of his allies and incensed conservative media.

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with,” Obama’s former “car czar” Steven Rattner tweeted with a link to a headline about Obama skipping the funeral.

Fox News host Sean Hannity blasted out his own site’s article that dismissed the decision as disappointingly expected: “Obama To SKIP Scalia Funeral, Here’s A List Of OTHER Funerals He Was Too Busy To Attend.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest revealed the president’s plans during the

daily briefing, saying Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will go to the Supreme Court on Friday “to pay their respects to Justice Scalia” while the justice lies in repose in the Great Hall. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden, who share Scalia’s Catholic faith, will be at the services instead.

Earnest refused to be drawn out about why the president would not attend the funeral, saying he didn’t know what the president plans to do on Saturday, and Scalia’s son, Eugene, did not immediately respond to a question about whether the family requested that Obama not attend the funeral.

“The president, obviously, believes it’s important for the institution of the presidency to pay his respects to somebody who dedicated three decades of his life to the institution of the Supreme Court,” Earnest said, adding that Friday marked an “important opportunity” to pay those respects.

Inspite of the criticism, people close to the Scalia family said Obama was making the right choice. “I wouldn’t have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending,” said Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time.”

There’s not substantial historic precedent for presidents attending the funerals of sitting justices. President George W. Bush not only attended, but also eulogized Supreme Court chief justice and fellow conservative William Rehnquist in 2005. But before him, the last justice to die in office was Robert H. Jackson in 1954.

Still, the decision to forgo the funeral on Saturday was played up by some as a partisan snub.

Tim Miller, the communications director for Jeb Bush, simply tweeted “Same.” in response to a message from MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who said, “Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should go to the funeral, you should go to the funeral.”

The optics of paying his respects to Scalia are tricky for Obama, who would have been the subject of constant cutaways to his reactions and interactions with members of Congress during the funeral, distracting from memorials for the giant of American legal thought.

Obama so far has taken pains to show reverence for Scalia, even as he urged Republicans to keep an open mind about a replacement. In the immediate aftermath of Scalia’s death last weekend, Obama praised his wit and predicted that he would be remembered as one of the “most consequential judges and thinkers to serve.”

Confronted with a series of questions during a press conference on Tuesday about Republican plans to block a nominee, Obama was careful to again express gratitude for Scalia’s service before launching into a Constitutional lecture directed at the opposing party.

Scalia’s death ripped open a political seam that has suddenly consumed both the presidential race and the Senate, especially after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately issued a statement calling for Scalia’s replacement to be delayed until the next president is in office. Obama almost as quickly announced he would not be deterred, and pronounced his intent to nominate a fair-minded legal heavyweight to replace Scalia.

Former justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Wednesday appeared to back Obama’s decision to move forward with a nomination, telling a Fox affiliate, “We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it.”

So far, however, the president has not tipped his hand as far as top candidates, or even whether he will considering picking a moderate who could be palatable to the Republican-controlled Senate.

The White House said no nomination is expected this week while Congress is in recess, but there’s still been plenty of speculation and tea-leaf reading about both Obama’s and the Senate’s intentions.

On Tuesday, some Republicans signaled they’re open to at least holding hearings, if not also allowing a confirmation vote. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin in an interview with POLITICO bristled at the suggestion that his party would completely ignore a nomination, saying, “It’s amazing how many words are being put in everybody’s mouth.”

Also on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel would evaluate any potential Obama pick, said he wouldn’t rule out holding hearings. 

On Wednesday, Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller broke with his party’s strategy and called on Obama to put forward a consensus candidate. “The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process,” said Heller, a purple state senator, in the most direct rebuttal to McConnell’s plans to complete block a Supreme Court nominee.

But McConnell is still making hay of the Senate’s oppositional force, penning a letter on Wednesday afternoon for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm that told donors that their “support means everything at this pivotal moment in American history.”

“Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell wrote. “Stand with Senate Republicans as we hold our ground in waiting to confirm a new justice until after 2016, the time by which the American people will have chosen a new president and a new direction for our country.”

At the press briefing on Wednesday, Earnest also tried to clarify Obama’s view on his own decision as a senator to filibuster against President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, in 2006. Earnest said Obama “regrets” the decision. But, he said, the situation was different.

“The president considered the qualifications and world view and credentials and record of the individual that President Bush put forward and then-Sen. Obama raised some objections,” Earnest said. “And what the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn’t focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive suggestions.”

According to the Media Research Center,

President Obama will become the first U.S. president to skip the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court justice in at least 65 years when he skips the funeral service for Justice Antonin Scalia, scheduled to be held this Saturday.  

While Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, in recent history most have retired from the bench prior to their deaths.

Most recently, President George W. Bush gave the eulogy at the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who passed in 2005 while still on the bench.

Prior to Rehnquists’ death, Dwight D. Eisenhower was photographed attending the funeral of Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who served on the court until he passed away in 1953. 

The funerals of sitting Supreme Court Justices were far more common before the 1950s, but it is unclear if sitting presidents attended the funeral services of those sitting justices or if not as few records of attendance exist. 

Why is the President not attending the funeral of the Senion Justice on the Supreme Court/

Petulant President Pantywaist couldn’t be holding a grudge, could he?

Does the very thought of Hillary Clinton and Yoko Ono having a “fling” make you want to hurl?

On February 12, 2014, usatoday.com reported that

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the annual State of the Union ritual Tuesday night, calling the presidential speech something worth skipping because it is a “rather silly affair.”One of three justices who did not attend President Obama’s speech at the U.S. Capitol — along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — Scalia bemoaned that “it has turned into a childish spectacle, and I don’t think that I want to be there to lend dignity to it.”

“The State of the Union is not something I write on my calendar,” Scalia said during his own remarks before the Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University. But he quipped, “I didn’t set this up tonight just to upstage the president.”

Scalia’s views are shared by Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, both nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. Roberts once said the presidential speech has “denigrated into a political pep rally” and added that it was “troubling” to expect members of the high court to sit there expressionless.

Indeed, Alito was seen on TV cameras during Obama’s 2010 remarks shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true” when the president criticized the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the right of corporations and unions to make unlimited, independent political expenditures.

Next to a presidential inauguration, the State of the Union Address has similar stagecraft and drama. The president speaks before a joint session of Congress, and the justices, Cabinet members, foreign diplomats and assorted guests are in attendance in the packed House chambers.

 

Petulant President Pantywaist, as I dubbed him, years ago, behaves as if the world should genuflect when he enters the room, hanging on his every syllable in rapt attention.

Justice Scalia, appointed by an AMERICAN PRESIDENT by the name of Ronald Reagan, was a man’s man, a Christian and a Constitutionalist, who believed in American Exceptionalism and Traditional American Values.

His Legal Writings were brilliant in scope and interpretation.

By contrast, Obama was the first Editor of the Harvard Law Review, who never contributed to that publication.

Obama’s childish snubbing of Justice Scalia’s Funeral tells you everything that you need to know about him.

History will remember Justice Scalia as a Giant Among Men.

It will not be as kind toward Petulant President Pantywaist.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

The Death of Justice Antonin Scalia: Time to Start “Borking”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Pendulum-NRD-600Last night, President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the nation concerning the passing of Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As he showed during a State of the Union Address, several years back, to say that he did not care for this Judicial Giant, would be putting it mildly.

In fact, as his remarks, courtesy of whitehouse.gov reveal, ol’ Scooter is positively chomping at the bit to replace him with a Far left Extremist Judicial Activist of his own choosing.

Good evening, everybody.  For almost 30 years, Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia was a larger-than-life presence on the bench — a brilliant legal mind with an energetic style, incisive wit, and colorful opinions.     He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape.  He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court.  Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy:  The rule of law.  Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.

     Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey to an Italian immigrant family.  After graduating from Georgetown University and Harvard Law School, he worked at a law firm and taught law before entering a life of public service.  He rose from Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court, to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

     A devout Catholic, he was the proud father of nine children and grandfather to many loving grandchildren.  Justice Scalia was both an avid hunter and an opera lover — a passion for music that he shared with his dear colleague and friend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  Michelle and I were proud to welcome him to the White House, including in 2012 for a State Dinner for Prime Minister David Cameron.  And tonight, we join his fellow justices in mourning this remarkable man.

     Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy.  I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.  There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.  These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone.  They’re bigger than any one party.  They are about our democracy.  They’re about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life, and making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned.

     But at this moment, we most of all want to think about his family, and Michelle and I join the nation in sending our deepest sympathies to Justice Scalia’s wife, Maureen, and their loving family — a beautiful symbol of a life well lived.  We thank them for sharing Justice Scalia with our country. 

God bless them all, and God bless the United States of America.

The Liebrals, over at The Washington Post elaborated on the situation facing our nation and Obama’s possible choices.

President Obama declared Saturday that he intends to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a move aimed at deepening his imprint on the nation’s highest court.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” Obama said, adding that there’s “plenty of time” for the Senate “to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote. These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They’re bigger than any one party — they’re about a democracy.”

But the president faces a fierce and protracted battle with Republicans who have already signaled that they have no intention of allowing Obama to choose a nominee to succeed Scalia.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that Scalia should not be replaced until the next president has taken office. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) rejected that position. “It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat,” he said in a statement. “Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”

Obama has nominated two justices to the court in the past, and he has expressed the desire for jurists with empathy. He did not discuss his thinking about that on Saturday night. Instead, he used the moment to pay tribute to Scalia, whom he described as an “extraordinary judicial thinker.”

In selecting Supreme Court nominees, Obama has relied heavily on the advice of Vice President Biden, a former Senate Judiciary chairman. Biden has demonstrated again and again a strong working relationship with McConnell, having previously negotiated several tax and budget deals. The court nomination may hinge on Biden’s ability to reach a deal with McConnell again.

But the fate of the nomination would clearly be in Republican hands. While Democrats were able to change the rules in 2013 to make it easier to approve lower court judges with a simple majority, Supreme Court nominations still require 60 votes to advance past an opposition filibuster. To derail or delay the nomination, McConnell could simply not schedule a vote, but even if he allows Senate consideration of the nomination, Democrats do not have the numbers to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Although the Republican-controlled Congress could easily thwart an Obama nominee, such a decision could reverberate across the presidential campaign and into in the November elections, in which several GOP senators face tough, competitive races.

The most immediate outcome of the Scalia vacancy is that it offers Obama the chance to draw sharper battle lines with Republicans during an increasingly acrimonious presidential election.

The administration now faces a chaotic political and legal environment in which the president must prepare for a bitter confirmation fight or embrace the prospect of a deadlocked Supreme Court divided evenly between liberals and conservatives.

Scalia’s death also throws into doubt the outcome of some of the most controversial issues facing the nation in cases before the court this term: abortion, affirmative action, the rights of religious objectors to the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, and the president’s powers on immigration and deportation.

A deadlocked court could leave appellate decisions in place without setting a precedent. That would please the administration on a case involving union membership, for instance, but would keep Obama’s executive action on deportation from being implemented.

White House officials would not comment Saturday evening on their deliberations about a potential nominee, but the administration has an extensive list of possible candidates to choose from, including some who would change the face of the court by virtue of their race or sexual orientation.

“Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”

One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.

Among the leading candidates would be Sri Srinivasan, a judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who was confirmed to seat in a 97-to-0 Senate vote in May 2013. Srinivasan would be the first South Asian American on the court. He worked in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office under both Obama and President George W. Bush, and clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Other contenders from that same court include its chief judge, Merrick Garland, who is well liked by conservatives and was a finalist for such a nomination when Obama selected Justice Elena Kagan in 2010. Patricia Ann Millett, who won confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in December 2013, may also be considered.

Obama could also look to current or former administration officials, said those familiar with the president’s thinking, or even to the Senate. Among those officials are Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder, the former attorney general.

Other potential choices could include Deval Patrick (D), the former governor of Massachusetts, or Paul Smith, who chairs the appellate and Supreme Court practice at Jenner & Block and, if confirmed, would be the first openly gay justice.

Beyond the D.C. Circuit, there are many other appellate judges the president could look to in selecting a nominee. Those include Paul Watford and Mary H. Murguia of the 9th Circuit; Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit and Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson of the 1st Circuit.

Regardless of whom Obama selects, the combination of the timing of the opening, the stark division on the court and deeply partisan passion being evoked in both presidential primaries would make this confirmation battle unlike any of the past 40 years.

The last confirmation in the eighth year of a presidency was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose 97-to-0 vote in February 1988 came after two failed nomination efforts by President Reagan in the face of a Democratic-controlled Senate in late 1987. Kennedy is seen as a traitor among conservative activists, who view his rulings on abortion and gay rights with the liberal bloc as an example of GOP leaders choosing political expediency over ideological rigidity.

The only other attempt to fill a vacancy during a presidential election year came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas to be chief justice. The Senate blocked Fortas. Subsequently, the other nomination to fill Fortas’s spot as associate justice was withdrawn during the final months of Johnson’s presidency.

Under normal circumstances, the nomination of a justice takes about 75 to 90 days, the first 60 or so involving a thorough vetting process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Typically, the panel does not consider judicial nominees after mid-May, under a tradition established by the late Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). While chairing the Judiciary Committee, Thurmond declared that he would not take up new judicial nominations within a few months of a presidential election.

Filling the post of Scalia, however, will be anything but normal. He was the outspoken champion for the court’s conservative wing and had many admirers in the Senate, including McConnell. Obama’s first two appointments to the court were relatively easy because Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan were replacing liberal-leaning justices.

Senate conservatives, already predisposed to not approve of Obama’s choice, might be loath to allow him to replace their judicial hero with a liberal jurist who would tip the court in a left-leaning direction. As of now, Sotomayor and Kagan often sided with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the most ideologically driven cases, with Kennedy and sometimes Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the tie-breaking votes.

If Republicans leave the Scalia seat vacant for any lengthy time, that sets up the chance of a series of 4-to-4 votes in which the ruling of the lower federal court would stand as the law of that particular region of the country.

That political math in the Senate means Obama will need the support of all 46 members of the Democratic caucus and at least 14 Republicans to end a filibuster and successfully appoint Scalia’s successor. In the president’s previous Supreme Court nominations, just nine and then four Republicans voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, respectively.

So, what now? I will tell you “What Now”.

Time for McConnell and the Senate Republicans to grow a spine and do some “Borking”.

What do I mean by “Borking”?

On October 23, 1987, The New York Times printed the following article…

One of the fiercest battles ever waged over a Supreme Court nominee ended today as the Senate decisively rejected the nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork.The vote was 58 against confirmation and 42 in favor, the biggest margin by which the Senate has ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination. [ Roll call, page 10. ] Judge Bork’s was the 27th Supreme Court nomination to fail in the country’s history, the sixth in this century, and the first since 1970, when the Senate rejected President Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell by a vote of 51 to 45. There have been 104 Supreme Court justices in the nation’s history.

The vote came two weeks after Judge Bork, in the face of expected defeat, said he would not withdraw his name and wanted the full Senate to vote on his nomination. In a statement issued from his chambers at the Federal courthouse here, where he still serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Bork said he was ”glad the debate took place.”

”There is now a full and permanent record by which the future may judge not only me but the proper nature of a confirmation proceeding,” the 60-year-old judge said.

President Reagan, in a statement released by the White House, said, ”I am saddened and disappointed that the Senate has bowed today to a campaign of political pressure.” The Next Nominee? In the final hours of the three-day debate on the Senate floor, senators turned their attention to the next nominee for the vacancy on the court. The White House is not expected to name a new candidate before the middle of next week.

The President has publicly vowed to find a nominee who will upset Judge Bork’s opponents ”just as much” as Judge Bork himself. Mr. Reagan said today, ”My next nominee for the Court will share Judge Bork’s belief in judicial restraint – that a judge is bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them.”

Meanwhile, senators on both sides of the debate urged the President to adopt a less confrontational tone.

Now, in the last year of the Obama Presidency (Praise God), it is imperative for the United States Senate to adopt president Reagan’s “confrontational tone”.

Why? Well, here is a quote for you…

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties?

Who said that?  Karl Marx?  Vladimir Lenin?  Danny Glover?  George Clooney?  Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm)?  Nope.  It was the Obama-appointed and Senate-ratified, Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan.  The quote was a part of her senior thesis, written almost thirty years ago while an undergraduate at Princeton. The title of the thesis: “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933”.

The Senate must “Bork” every single Supreme Court Nomination of this Lame Duck President.

He has done enough damage to our country, already.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

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

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

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

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

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

And, visit Realityville.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

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

But, I digress…

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

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Pope Francis’ Far Left Politics Causing Controversy and Intrigue Among Church Hierarchy

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

thHE8RRXS2It appears that a number of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are less than pleased with Pope Francis’ performance of his duties as “Il Papa“.

Here is an excerpt from this morning’s story in the Washington Post:

A measure of the church’s long history of intrigue has spilled into the Francis papacy, particularly as the pope has ordered radical overhauls of murky Vatican finances. Under Francis, the top leadership of the Vatican Bank was ousted, as was the all-Italian board of its financial watchdog agency.

One method of pushback has been to give damaging leaks to the Italian news media. Vatican officials are now convinced that the biggest leak to date — of the papal encyclical on the environment in June — was driven by greed (it was sold to the media) rather than vengeance. But other disclosures have targeted key figures in the papal cleanup — including the conservative chosen to lead the pope’s financial reforms, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, who in March was the subject of a leak about his allegedly lavish personal tastes.

More often, dissent unfolds on ideological grounds. Criticism of a sitting pope is hardly unusual — liberal bishops on occasion challenged Benedict. But in an institution cloaked in traditional fealty to the pope, what shocks many is just how public the criticism of Francis has become.

In an open letter to his diocese, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., wrote: “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.” For his part, Burke, the cardinal from Wisconsin, has called the church under Francis “a ship without a rudder.”

Even Pell appeared to undermine him on theological grounds. Commenting on the pope’s call for dramatic action on climate change, Pell told the Financial Times in July, “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters.”

In conservative circles, the word “confusion” also has become a euphemism for censuring the papacy without mentioning the pope. In one instance, 500 Catholic priests in Britain drafted an open letter this year that cited “much confusion” in “Catholic moral teaching” following the bishops’ conference on the family last year in which Francis threw open the floodgates of debate, resulting in proposed language offering an embraceable, new stance for divorced or gay Catholics.

That language ultimately was watered down in a vote that showed the still-ample power of conservatives. It set up another showdown for next month, when senior church leaders will meet in a follow-up conference that observers predict will turn into another theological slugfest. The pope himself will have the final word on any changes next year.

Conservatives have launched a campaign against a possible policy change that would grant divorced and remarried Catholics the right to take Communion at Mass. Last year, five senior leaders including Burke and the conservative Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy, drafted what has become known as “the manifesto” against such a change. In July, a DVD distributed to hundreds of dioceses in Europe and Australia, and backed by conservative Catholic clergy members, made the same point. In it, Burke, who has made similar arguments at a string of Catholic conferences, issued dire warnings of a world in which traditional teachings are ignored.

But this is still the Catholic Church, where hierarchical respect is as much tradition as anything else. Rather than targeting the pope, conservative bishops and cardinals more often take aim at their liberal peers. They include the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has suggested that he has become a proxy for clergy members who are not brave enough to criticize the pope directly.

Yet conservatives counter that liberals are overstepping their bounds, putting their own spin on the pronouncements of a pope who has been more ambiguous than Kasper and his allies are willing to admit.

“I was born a papist, I have lived as a papist, and I will die a papist,” Caffarra said. “The pope has never said that divorced and remarried Catholics should be able to take Holy Communion, and yet, his words are being twisted to give them false meaning.”

Some of the pope’s allies insist that debate is precisely what Francis wants.

“I think that people are speaking their mind because they feel very strongly and passionately in their position, and I don’t think the Holy Father sees it as a personal attack on him,” said Chicago Archbishop Blase J. Cupich, considered a close ally of the pope. “The Holy Father has opened the possibility for these matters to be discussed openly; he has not predetermined where this is going.”

According to the website, churchauthority.org, the Pope has three main duties:

He is the Supreme Pastor.

That means that he represents Christ’s love and concern for every single individual. That is why the Pope’s priority lies in getting to know people, understanding how they live, listening to their interests and sharing their sufferings and their joys. On no account should the Pope allow his contact with ordinary people to be obstructed by a multitude of administrative duties.

He is the Unifier of the People of God.

Because of the international character of the Church, this will create many demands. The good of the world-wide Church and the autonomy of local Churches need to be balanced. That is why the Pope should guide and inspire the Central Synod of Bishops so that it can efficiently work out agreements and general Church policies.

He is the Prime Witness to Faith.

This includes both preaching [= announcing the message to non-Christians] and teaching [= explaining an element of Christ’s message in today’s context]. On very rare occasions the Pope is the main exponent of the infallible understanding of faith [=inerrancy] that is carried by the whole people of God. The Pope can only do so after listening to the People of God and discerning the faith they carry in their hearts.

Pope Francis is the first Pope who represents the Far Left Political Viewpoint.

Pope Francis seems more comfortable reaching out to Communist and Socialist countries, then he does to the Vatican’s Traditional Allies, those countries who enjoy strong economies, built upon freedom and a competitive marketplace.

I know that I may sound like an old cracker, but my generation was blessed with three very remarkable leaders: United States President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II.

These three stood for everything that was good about freedom.

All three knew the dangers and corruption of the implementation of Marxist Theory through the governments of man.

Here is what the wonderful and gracious Pope John Paul II said about an out-of-control Nanny-State (Socialist) Government:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.

And, while this present Pontiff is romancing the Palestinians, Pope John Paul II reached out to God’s Chosen People.

In 1994, John Paul II established full diplomatic ties between the Vatican and Israel. He said,

For the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel and who preserve in that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith, we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that are the prerogative of every nation . . .

Pope John Paul II also said…

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.

I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the Social Justice Movement, which is so popular among Liberal Churches, today. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once said:

Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice…

The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social (collective) salvation, but it does have social implications.

Pope Francis is presently doing the World’s Catholics a great disservice.

The current Pope’s embracing of certain aspects of Socialism, “Climate Change”, and the other erroneous, secular philosophies of the Far Left, dilutes his effectiveness as an Emmissary of God and the Head of the Catholic Church.

The world hungers for the Word of God.

Mankind needs to hear of God’s Love for them as individuals, not the machinations and limitations of man, as detailed in Marxist Theory.

 Until He Comes,

KJ

My 2,000th Blog: Speak or Go Mad

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics5 Comments

American Christianity 2A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,…

Well, actually, it just seems that way…

It was April of 2010. I had been writing Guest Commentaries on the blog of an Internet Friend of mine, named Gene Hoyas, otherwise known as Colonel Manly Rash (I’m not kiddin’).

I decided, at that time, to go ahead and start my own blog, as a way to vent my frustrations regarding the direction that those who are supposed to be serving US, were taking the Greatest Country on the Face of the Earth. Little did I know, that, under the “leadership” of President Barack Hussein Obama, I ain’t seen nothing, yet.

The Internet is a fascinating, powerful tool.

Through it, one is connected with the world, being able to research any subject which one might call to mind, in the wink of an eye, or the upload of a byte of information.

It can be used to illumine or to obfuscate, to clarify or to confuse, to enlighten or to subjugate, or to build up or to tear down.

It can span the globe, bringing you beautiful images of God’s Creation or images of man’s inhumanity to man.

It connects people to one another, in a way never before seen in the history of mankind.

As demonstrated by the current political scandals, involving the Internet and the use of e-mails, this connectivity can be used for nefarious purposes.

I have never taken the use of this tool lightly.

In posting these 2,000 blogs, I have tried my hardest to stay true to what I believe, and in doing so, to inform and to entertain those of you who take some of your precious time during the day, to read the musings of this old Son of Dixie.

To those who worship at the Altar of Political Correctness:

Yes, I said “DIXIE”.  Get over it.

So, what do I believe?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord. (The Apostles Creed)

I believe that America is still the GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH…in spite of the efforts of our present Political Leadership to turn us into “just another country”.

I believe that America was founded by Christian men and women, who came here to worship their Creator, as they saw fit, eventually breaking away from an oppressive government, and writing documents to provide guidance for a new government, born out of, and heavily influenced by, their Judeo-Christian Beliefs.

I believe that, to this day, American is still the Land of Opportunity, where, if you are willing to work hard enough, you can succeed…through the Grace of God.

I also believe that this is a country in the midst of a Cultural/Political Crisis, purposefully brought about by those, who like Machiavellian Politicians, in previous generations, wish to divide America’s Citizenry, for the purpose of Political Expediency.

The popularity of non-politicians among the Republican Party Presidential Candidates, is a direct reaction from Americans to the self-serving nature of those whom they sent to Washington, DC, to represent THEIR wishes for the future of America, not the politicians’ own greed and avarice.

I believe in the Silent Majority, average Americans, like myself, living in America’s Heartland, who simply want to be left alone by Government, so that we may raise our children and grandchildren to love God and Country, as we were raised, in accordance with our Constitutional Rights, as detailed through the writings of our Founding Fathers, not as interpreted by a politically-active Judiciary.

I believe that the majority of young white Americans, do not act like Miley Cyrus, and the majority of black Americans, do not act like the human refuse whom we saw burn down Baltimore.

I believe that, while Man is a fallen creature, we are capable of acts of extraordinary kindness and heroism.

I also believe that, the only limits we have as human beings, are those which we place upon ourselves.

God gave us this life. He guides us through it. He presents with opportunities and gives us free will to make choices, right or wrong.

There are so many times I’ve seen Him move in my life … so many times that he has made a way for me… so many times that He has shown His Gracious Love for me.

I know that I’m not the only person that feels this way. If you look back now and you’re around my age, you realize what I am trying to say this morning.

God wants us to be happy. God wants us to live and enjoy the life which is given to us

He wants the best for us. He also wants us to take advantage of the opportunities which He presents to us throughout our life, so that when we stand before Him, we can hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

But what does that mean? Does it mean we have to live a life locked away in a monastery somewhere away from the temptations of the modern culture around us? Of course not.

However, we have to keep the main thing the main thing. We cannot sacrifice our Christianity, as Americans, for the sake of political expediency. Heaven is a far bigger tent than any political party could ever be.

I would rather find favor with God than favor with man.

Am I an extremist? You betcha.

God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

So, where do I go from here? Do I run away, with my tail between my legs, and live out the rest of my days in quiet desperation?

To any of you who repled, “yes”…you don’t know me very well.

Greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world.

My Creator, while endowing me with certain inalienable rights, also endowed me with an indomitable will. Then, somewhere along my journey, He gave me the gift of being able to express my thoughts and feelings on this computer keyboard.

I will not give up. I will not surrender my Christianity, my love of the greatest nation on God’s green Earth, or my Conservatism, to appease those who wish everybody would just get in line and acquiesce to the prevailing “societal norms”.  I follow another set of guidelines, written a long time ago, but which remain as relevant as the moment in which the Hand of God guided those who wrote them down.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, – Colossians 3:23 (ESV)

In conclusion, there are people I wish to thank, who have invested a lot of time in me and my blogging.

First, I wish to thank my dear friend, Gene Hoyas, aka Col. Manly Rash/The Bulldog Pundit, who allowed me to be a regular contributor to any Blog in which he was involved, and whose guidance and writing tips were such a help.

I thank my lovely bride (I married up), who, since we got married in July of 2011, has put up with losing me to this endeavor every evening at 9:00 p.m.

I thank the rest of my family, my extended family of friends and faithful readers, and those of you who just drop in from time to time to check out what my latest rant is.

I thank my Earthly Father, who made me all that I am, and led me, in The Way in which I should go.

Finally, but most importantly, I thank my Heavenly Father, from Whom all blessings flow. Without Him, I would be nothing at all.

May God Bless you all.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Keeping the Faith: Lighting a Candle in the Darkness (A KJ Op Ed)

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

WashingtonPrayingThere are times that I feel like  an anachronism.

I have been told that, in no uncertain terms, over and over again, by  self-identified “Libertarians”, and Modern American Liberals, both groups who worship at the altar of Popular Culture and Political Correctness, which these individuals so vociferously “evangelize” for on Political Facebook Pages on the internet…all day and all night long.

My crime?

I refuse to sublimate my American Heritage of Christianity to situational ethics and relative morality, which they have embraced with a Jim Jones-like cultish fervor, while sacrificing their individuality to become a part of the “Hive Mind”.

Dictionary.com defines an anachronism as

something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time.

I suppose that’s me.

I started this Blog as a way to vent my frustrations with the ever-evolving “societal norms” and political mayhem around me. A lot of things just grated on my nerves. They still do.

I was “reared” (as we say in Dixie, a term that is now under attack by the “Hive Mind”) by a Mother and Daddy (Southern colloquialism for a Male Parental Unit) who were members of the Greatest Generation. In fact, I was born 3 days before my mother’s 40th brithday. To this day, I believe that they were going to name me “Oops”.

My view of the world around me was shaped and nurtured by my Daddy, a Christian American, and the finest man I’ve ever known, who served with an Army Engineering Unit, as a Master Sergeant, in World War II, and who jumped off of a perfectly good boat into a hail of gunfire to join his American Brothers in the tide-turning American Victory known as “D-Day”.

Between him and my Mother, they taught me what it was to be a hard-working, Middle Class Christian American Conservative….and, to be proud of it.

But now, at 56 years old, living in a nation whose president, an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, card-carrying Communist, got re-hired for a job in which, if he were in the private section, his butt would have gotten canned  within the first 7 months, I feel as if I’m beating my dadgum head against the wall until it’s bloody, and for no cotton-pickin’ reason at all.

Why am I feeling that way?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. This country re-elected an idiot. Now, I realize that’s been done before. But, they all paled in comparison to this guy. I believe that “Scooter”, my pet name for Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmm), burnt up the vast majority of his gray matter during his “Choom Gang” days in Hawaii, and now, as an old friend, a former Meth-head, who, sadly, later committed suicide, used to tell me, he has “2 brain cells left and they’re fighting to the death”. I pray we survive until the end of his tenure, which, praise God, is coming quickly.

2.  Evidently, Americans, at least the majority of the ones that actually got up off the couch (Pookie, included) to vote on that November 6th, wanted the Federal Government to take care of them, cradle to grave. Rush Limbaugh labelled this symptom, “The Baracky Claus Effect”.  I pray, that, just as the Proletariat eventually figured out in the old Soviet Union, Americans are going to wake up one day, to find that mega-dependence on The State to run your life, leads to the loss of personal freedom. And those, who believe that they are “the most enlightened people in the room”, will be the first ones hollering, when they discover that their freedom has been taken away.

3. America seems to be devolving into a collection of Libertines. Notice, I did not say “Libertarians”, although, both descriptive words come from the same root word. A Libertine is, per Merriam-Webster.com,

a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality: one leading a dissolute (lacking moral restraint) life

Being a Libertarian used to mean you wanted less Government in your life and less restrictions on your personal happiness. Notice I said used to mean. Now, Libertine and Libertarian both seem to mean the same thing to the majority of posters self-identifying as members of the latter group on Internet chat boards.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

I suppose I could pontificate on the fallen nature of Man at this point, but, that’s fairly self-evident…and, as the late Freddie Prinze used to say, “Ees not my yob, man.”

4. Finally, but not the least important observation, by any means, I have watched The Faith upon which our nation was built, come under attack, by this president and his Administration, and by the “smartest people in the room”, who seem to empathaze more with those who wish to tear this country asunder, our enemies, both internally and externally.

A while back, I was asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative.  After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word:  Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others.
2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc.
3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.”
4) It was a term of contempt or derision.
5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.”
6) It literally means “Christ-followers.”
7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation.
8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.”
9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something
Follow Something
Live Something
A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family.
2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

Second word: American – A citizen of the United States of America.

Stephen M. Warchawsky, wrote the following in an article for americanthinker.org:

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

J. Matt Barber wrote in the Washington Times that

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Even the Brits understand what American Conservatism is.

Per blogs.telegraph.co.uk:

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

So, where do I go from here? Do I run away, with my tail between my legs, and live out the rest of my days in quiet desperation?

To any of you who repled, “yes”…you don’t know me very well.

Greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world.

My Creator, while endowing me with certain inalienable rights, also endowed me with an indomitable will. Then, somewhere along my journey, He gave me the gift of being able to express my thoughts and feelings on this computer keyboard.

I will not give up. I will not surrender my Christianity, my love of the greatest nation on God’s green Earth, or my Conservatism, to appease those who wish everybody would just get in line and acquiesce to the prevailing “societal norms”.  I follow another set of guidelines, written a long time ago, but which remain as relevant as the moment in which the Hand of God guided those who wrote them down.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, – Colossians 3:23 (ESV)

I pray that you, the reader, are able to glean that from my blogs.  Because, as Matthew 6:21 tells us:

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

May God bless you and yours,

KJ