Trump and the Average American Voter: Gladly Accepting the “Mantle of Anger”

Fox-Business-Republican-Debate-January-2016-Line-up-of-candidates-e1452562725740-620x433As anyone who has been paying attention already knows, another Republican Presidential Primary Debate took place.

One of the seminal moments in the debate came when Republican Front-Runner Donald J. Trump, responded to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who said the following, during her nationally-televised State of the Union Rebuttal, which she made on behalf of the Republican Party on Tuesday Evening.

Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.

The Christian Post reports that

Billionaire real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proudly declared that he assumes the “mantle of anger,” then proceeded to double down on earlier comments demanding a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration.

Tuesday night South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley mentioned in her response to the State of the Union that angry voices were driving the Donald Trump campaign.

At a debate held at the North Charleston Coliseum and Performing Arts Center in South Carolina on Thursday evening, the Republican frontrunner responded, “I gladly accept the mantle of anger.”

“But [Haley] did say there was anger. And I could say, oh, I’m not angry. I’m very angry because our country is being run horribly and I will gladly accept the mantle of anger,” said Trump.

“Our healthcare is a horror show. Obamacare, we’re going to repeal it and replace it. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people. And yes, I am angry.”

Later in the debate moderator Maria Bartiromo asked Trump if he would reconsider his position on having a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, to which Trump said no.

“We have to get down to creating a country that’s not going to have the kind of problems that we’ve had with people flying planes into the World Trade Centers,” argued Trump.

“We have to find out what’s going on. I said temporarily. I didn’t say permanently. I said temporarily. And I have many great Muslim friends. And some of them, I will say, not all, have called me and said, ‘Donald, thank you very much; you’re exposing an unbelievable problem and we have to get to the bottom of it.'”

Trump’s comments came as he was part of the main stage set of Republican candidates at the Thursday evening debate hosted and moderated by the Fox Business Channel.

In addition to Trump, other GOP hopefuls on the stage were U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Ohio Governor John Kasich.

“The next Commander in Chief is standing on this stage,” said Sen. Cruz in his opening remarks, eliciting cheers from the audience.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum debated earlier in the evening as part of the undercard debate.

Trump’s doubling down on his plan for a ban on all Muslim immigration did not come unopposed by the other candidates on the main stage.

Jeb Bush denounced the Trump ban as counterproductive to United States’ efforts abroad to build a coalition to battle Islamic States and other terrorist groups.

“I hope you reconsider this, because this policy is a policy that makes it impossible to build the coalition necessary to take out ISIS. The Kurds are our strongest allies. They’re Muslim. You’re not going to even allow them to come to our country?” said Bush to Trump.

“The other Arab countries have a role to play in this. We cannot be the world’s policeman. We can’t do this unilaterally. We have to do this in unison with the Arab world. And sending that signal makes it impossible for us to be serious about taking out ISIS and restoring democracy in Syria.”

Other candidates, including Gov. Kasich, stressed their support for banning Syrian refugees for security reasons but not all Muslim immigrants.

“I’ve been for pausing on admitting the Syrian refugees. And the reasons why I’ve done is I don’t believe we have a good process of being able to vet them. But you know, we don’t want to put everybody in the same category,” stated Kasich.

“If we’re going to have a coalition, we’re going to have to have a coalition not just of people in the western part of the world, our European allies, but we need the Saudis, we need the Egyptians, we need the Jordanians, we need the Gulf states.”

The undercard and main stage debates for the Republican Party came as the influential first-in-the-nation caucus in Iowa is nearly two weeks away, on Feb. 1.

I agree with “The Donald.”

I’m angry, too.

That is one of the reasons that I began writing, way back in 2010.

It is a great way to vent one’s anger and frustration, without punching holes in the wall.

As the polls show, and will continue to show, Trump is striking a resonant chord in the hearts of Average Americans, living here in the part of America, which the snobbish Political Elites refer to as “Flyover Country”, but which we refer to as “America’s Heartland”, or, quite simply, “HOME”.

Our palpable anger is one which has been building since January of 2009, when a Lightweight, who seems to have as much in common with us as a Martian would, was inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

That anger, a result of his anti-American actions and resulting policies, which have affected Americans’ daily lives, has been exacerbated by the Republican Elite, who, in their desire to “reach across the aisle” and “go along to get along”, have distanced themselves from the Conservative Voting Base, who elected them to Congress in the first place.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like you and me, remain mired up to our necks in an abysmal swamp of bills and taxes, living paycheck-to-paycheck, afraid to make a move, for fearing of drowning in an ocean of debt.

Seemingly forgotten, in all of the forgotten promises, made by Barack Hussein Obama, are the 94 million Americans, who are no longer, largely through no fault of their own, participating in our Workforce.

You want to talk about anger and frustration?

Try looking for work, when you are over 55 years of age.

It makes you want to give up…daily.

But, I digress…

Anger has played an important part in the forging of this great country, which will be lucky to survive Obama’s final year in office.

It was anger that formed our country….an anger over being held captive to “Taxation Without Representation”…an anger which, as a prime example of history repeating itself, Americans are experiencing, even as I type this blog.

It is this anger, which has propelled Donald J. Trump to his lead in the Republican Primary Race…and those who prefer the Washingtonian Status Quo know it.

Hence, Governor Haley’s alluding to it in her Rebuttal, something which has never been done before.

When delivering a Rebuttal to the SOTU Address, the Opposition Party’s Spokesperson is supposed to discredit the sitting President, not one of their own.

In conclusion, concerning the “Mantle of Anger”, I, like Trump, wear it proudly.

It is an American’s Right…and Heritage.

And…it shows that you actually have a clue.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Iran Hostage Situation and Gov. Nikki Haley’s SOTU Rebuttal: When Did Mistreating Our Own Become Acceptable?

conservative1The are two major stories presently in the news.

The first story involves the capture and the release, a day later, of 10 American Navy Personnel by the partner in Barack Hussein Obama’s Legacy-Securing “Gentleman’s Agreement”, which gave Iran a ton of cash and the nuclear capability to make America a footnote in history.

The second story involves the Republican Party Rebuttal to Obama’s last (Amen.) State of the Union Address, delivered by South Carolina’s perky Governor, Nikki Haley, in which she spent much of her allotted time attacking Republican Presidential Primary Front-Runner, Donald J. Trump, instead of President Barack Hussein Obama, who delivered the address, which she was supposed to be rebutting.

The reason that both are National Water Cooler Topics for discussion is that both illicit a response of incredulity from average Americans.

Regarding the seizing of our two Naval Vessels and their crews by the Worldwide Sponsors of Radical Islamic Terrorists, Iran…

Several things make this whole incident smell as rotten as Hillary Clinton’s Bathtub.

  1. Obama and Kerry’s Response – Any actual President of the United States of America would have immediately parked a Navy Gunship off the coast of Iran and told those turban-wearing barbarians that, unless our Brightest and Best were freed immediately, their desert sands would become glass. Instead, the White House’s response was that this was not “a Hostile Act”. In fact, the Dhimmi-in Chief did not even mention it, during his barely-watched SOTU Address.
  2. The Crippling of our Vessels – The GPS Navigation Systems on our boats were busted by the Iranians. What if we did not actually stray into “their Territorial Waters”?
  3. The Treatment of our Sailors – After they returned our nine men and one woman, the Iranians released both videos and photographs, which showed the humiliation which they put these sailors through, including making the woman hide her face and having a Commander apologize, in a video which was disseminated around the world.
  4. Thank you for Humiliating Us – Secretary of State John F. (I served in Vietnam…and threw my fellow soldiers under the bus) Kerry publicly thanked the Iranians for how magnanimous they were for actually returning our Navy Personnel.
  5. The Kissing of Iran’s Hindquarters by “The Leader of the Free World” – In conjunction with my first point, what kind of AMERICAN PRESIDENT bows and scrapes to a nation of barbarian whackadoodles, who would rather behead us than look at us, and whose subjugated population lives in fear and abject poverty?

As Rush Limbaugh observed on his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program yesterday…

This Iranian business.  Folks, you can think what you want, but I’m gonna tell you something.  This kind of story where we apologized, and, “Boy the Iranians were so nice. Oh, my God, it was so much fun be with them! They were so nice. It was our fault; we shouldn’t have been there. We apologize. they treated us so well,” you might think that’s cool.  I’m telling you, that’s one of the biggest propaganda victories that this Satanic country could get. 

In the Middle East, where this is the kind of stuff that matters, it’s gonna make it look like they totally dominate us.  It’s gonna come across as another huge victory over the Great Satan, the United States of America.  Now, last nightin his State of the Union speech, Obama’s going on and on, “We’re the most powerful country in the world! we got the best fighting force in the world. We got the best military in the world! We spend more on our military than the first eight nations behind us combined. We got the greatest battle machine world!”

Ask yourself a question.  All of that may be true.  We may be the most powerful nation in the world.  What kind of rules of engagement are they saddled with.  But more importantly than that, why…? I’m dead serious about this.  Why, given that fact we have the most powerful military, the greatest fighting force ever — we can project more power than any nation on earth can even dream of — why are all of our enemies growing in power?  Why are they getting bigger?  Why are they stronger?  Why are our enemies more dangerous than ever?  Why are they bigger, more dangerous, and wreaking more havoc than ever before under Obama?

That’s how you measure it.  We can have the best, most powerful fighting force in the world and if it’s led by a wuss or somebody who thinks that it’s the problem in the world, what good is it, under his command?  And make no mistake: Barack Hussein Obama is one of these people that thinks the United States military is one of the greatest problems in the world, historically and at present.  Do not doubt me. It falls right in line with this whole belief system that in the United States is not the solution to the world’s problems.  We are the problem. 

The second hot topic is the SOTU Rebuttal, as delivered By South Carolina’s Republican Governor, Nikki Haley.

Supposedly written by the Governor, herself, this rebuttal, at times, seemed not to be a rebuttal at all, but a personal attack against Donald J. Trump, the Business Entrepreneur and Showman, who is leading the other Republican Primary Candidates for their party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination by a wide margin.

As I pointed out on Twitter, yesterday,

The purpose of a SOTU Rebuttal is to discredit the opposition…not the potential Presidential Candidate of your own Political Party.

So, why would the Republican Party allow, and probably encourage, Governor Haley to attack Trump like that?

As I have written before, I believe that the main reason that Trump is leading among the other Republican Candidates, is that he, while sparse on details on of his platform, is empathetic on what he personally believes.

He is “flying” BOLD COLORS, while the other candidates are “flying” PALE PASTELS.

For example, while others up on the CNN Stage last night, watched, Trump boldly stated that “we speak English in America”, referring to the unprecedented accommodations that Liberal Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have made for Illegal Aliens, here in a country whose very sovereignty they have violated.

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.

As Ronald Reagan said in his famous speech, given so long ago, today’s Republican Party needs to be “flying” “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.

The majority of Republican Congressmen and women seem to be quite content with the Washingtonian Status Quo and the self-serving political practice of “reaching across the aisle”, even if making “concessions” screws us “rubes’ back here in “Flyover Country”, America’s Heartland.

And, they don’t want anything, or ANYONE, to stop their “Gravy Train”.

That is why they are attacking Trump and the other Republican Primary  Front-Runner, Senator Ted Cruz.

For the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans, it’s a matter of survival…theirs, not that of us “rubes”.

What both of these topics have in common is a betrayal of the heritage and the principles which made America the Greatest Country on the Face of Good’s Green Earth.

Our Ancestors, Family Members, and Friends did not make the ultimate sacrifice on the Field of Battle for Professional Politicians and Spineless Bureaucrats (but, I repeat myself) to assist a megalomaniac Muslim-sympathizing Marxist in “radically changing” the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave into The Land of the Proletariat and the World’s Doormat.

This November, it’s time to fight back.

Are you with me?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Saturday Morning Conversation With Bubba: About Hillary, Trump, and “Secret Weapons”

clintoncartoonWhy, hello, Mr. President.  It’s good to see you.  Please sit down.  Waitress, a glass of sweet tea and a Waffle House All-Star Breakfast with a Pecan Waffle for President Clinton, please.

Bubba, welcome back to the Mid-South.  Don’t worry, I won’t tell Hil about you breaking your diet.  It’s been some kind of Presidential Primary Campaign Season, huh?

You always said that you were a man of the people.   So, as a man of the people, I know you can appreciate what’s going on.

Your party, the Democrats, and their “friends across the aisle” the republicans are both in a tizzy over a “rank outsider”, who has the nerve to run for President of the United States.

You remember your old acquaintance, Donald J. Trump, don’t you?

Well, Bubba, you had better refresh your memory about “The Donald”, because, according to the Political Pundits, you are about to come to your blushing bride’s rescue, in her quest to make you the new “First Dude”.

According to The Wall Street Journal,

A new and more combative phase of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign opens next month when she sends her husband out to stump for her in important early states.

Waiting for him will be businessman Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner.

The former president has been a low-key figure since Mrs. Clinton entered the race for the Democratic nomination in April, offering private advice and helping her raise money at closed-door fundraisers. In January, the campaign intends to showcase him in public forums in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where the front-runner is locked in a tight race against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Speaking to supporters recently, Mrs. Clinton described her husband as a “secret weapon.”

Throwing Mr. Clinton into the mix could further escalate the rhetoric between the Trump and Clinton campaigns. In the 2008 presidential race, the former president would bristle at criticism directed at his wife and got in hot water when he suggested Barack Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary was less significant because of the large African-American vote.

This past week saw back-and-forth volleys over whether comments Mr. Trump made about Mrs. Clinton were sexist. He said Mr. Obama “schlonged” her in the 2008 race and said her brief absence from a recent Democratic debate stage, when she was reportedly using the restroom, was “disgusting.”

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump has “demonstrated a penchant for sexism.” That drew a response from Mr. Trump on Twitter: “Hillary, when you complain about ‘a penchant for sexism,’ who are you referring to. I have great respect for women.’ ” In capital letters he then wrote, “BE CAREFUL!”

Asked what Mr. Trump meant, his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said: “Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and his tweets speak for themselves. And he’s very clear about what those tweets say.”

Another Trump spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, suggested in an interview with CNN that the Trump campaign intends to make Mr. Clinton’s behavior an issue should Mrs. Clinton pursue this point. Mr. Clinton, during his presidency, paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones stemming from an encounter when he was governor of Arkansas. His affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky led to his impeachment by the U.S. House in 1998. He was acquitted by the Senate the following year.

“Hillary Clinton has some nerve to talk about the war on women and the bigotry toward women when she has a serious problem in her husband,” Ms. Pierson told CNN. Representatives for Mr. Clinton and the Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Mrs. Clinton holds a commanding lead among Democrats nationally, but polling shows the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire are up for grabs. Losses in both states could potentially alter the dynamics of a race she is dominating.In a conference call with supporters this past week, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said that Mrs. Clinton was in a “dog fight” in New Hampshire.

“Her greatest fear is she loses both,” said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and consultant who has advised Mr. Clinton. “Then, even though she is still on a path to win the nomination, there would be complete chaos.”

Mr. Schoen, a Clinton adviser during the Lewinsky scandal, said he wasn’t concerned about Mr. Trump, given how the former president emerged from that period with higher poll ratings than previously.

“It’s not a path of action that I think will necessarily help Donald Trump, nor do I think it will hurt Hillary Clinton,” he said.

Mr. Clinton is a revered figure in Democratic circles and was a key surrogate for Mr. Obama in his 2012 re-election bid. A survey conducted in part by The Wall Street Journal last year said he was by a margin of more than 2 to 1 the most admired president of the past quarter century.

Marc Lasry, a friend of Mr. Clinton’s and head of New York hedge fund firm Avenue Capital Group, said: “President Clinton campaigning for Hillary is a huge asset. People love seeing him and he’s able to explain things to people in a way that’s unique.”

(Friday, authorities in Hope, Ark., said a fire that caused minor damage to Mr. Clinton’s childhood home, now a National Historic Site, was apparently caused by arson, according to the Associated Press.)

Because of the spotlight he attracts, some analysts said the Clinton campaign would be wise to have the two campaign separately so that Mr. Clinton doesn’t overshadow the candidate.

“He’s a luminescent figure. That’s always an issue,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser in both of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns. He added, “It’s important for people to see her out there on her own.”

As far as Mr. Trump is concerned, one person close to Mr. Clinton said he isn’t troubled by the Republican’s recent comments and isn’t taking them personally. Mr. Clinton doesn’t see Mr. Trump as likely to capture the GOP nomination, this person said.

I’m sure, just like the rest of your party and the Beltway Insiders, it hit you like the ’94 Elections.  The American people are torqued off.  Ever since your party took control of Congress in 2006, things have been going downhill like a skier on Mt. Everest.  What was supposed to be the most ethical Congress evah, turned out to be The Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight.  By the way, have you talked to Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters lately?

Anyway, as you well know, some unknown yahoo named Barack (don’t say his middle name) Obama came out of the cesspool known as Chicago Politics to grab the Democratic nomination away from your beloved Hil.  So, you and Hill made a deal with the powers-that-be for her to be his Secretary of State.  Man, whatever do you do with yourself while she’s on those long trips out of the country?  Oh….never mind.

So, in comes this guy, riding on the campaign promise of Hope and Change, and he gets himself elected by fooling 52% of the country into believing he’s a moderate, like you pretended to be after the ’94 Election.

Since his ascension to the throne along with his faithful sidekick, Plugs, he’s been in full-speed Alinsky mode, attempting to turn American into something it was never meant to be:  a full-blown Socialist Utopia.

Not that the Republicans have been blameless in this whole deal.  They started spending like there’s no tomorrow under Dubya and got way too comfy sitting on their reserved barstools at the Beltway Elite Country Club.

When the Regime ascended to the Throne and started implementing their plans for radical change, that stubborn ol’ streak that Americans possess, known as patriotism and individualism, started kicking in.  Y’see, Bubba, we really resented Scooter apologizing for us to our enemies.  You probably need to tell your wife that.  We weren’t very thrilled about that Porkulus bill that he had his buddies at the Apollo Foundation draw up for him, either.  Then, while spending our money to create the largest federal deficit in American history, Plugs said that paying more taxes was patriotic.

And now, New Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and the Beltway Republicans’ Club, just passed a Porkulus Bill of their own, the Omnibus Bill.

Are you kiddin’ me?

Back when the first Porkulus Bill was passed, Americans from all walks of life and every part of the country started getting together and formed something called The Tea Party Movement.  Your buddies in the Main Stream Media and the members of the Beltway Elite Country Club all had a big laugh at that one.

Then, “us peons” started getting into the faces of our elected representatives at Townhall Meetings and the unthinkable happened.  A Tea Party Rally in Washington, D.C. drew what looked to average Americans like a million people, all fed up with the people they elected working for nobody but themselves.

Meanwhile, your buddy Barry was holding hand-picked pep rallies, closed to the public, seemingly oblivious to the wishes of average Americans.  He exhibited an unparalleled tone-deafness that presented itself in a Captain Ahab-like quest to pass a National Healthcare bill that the majority of the American people wanted no part of.  After a 10 minute Christmas Eve Senate vote to approve this unwanted albatross, which followed a House vote of 220-215 on November 7th,  Congress passed Obamacare on March 21st, 2010.

Americans were left with the image of Speaker Pelosi, with a giant gavel, walking with her fellow Democrats through protesting Americans, grinning like a mule with a mouthful of yellowjackets.

While Beltway politicians have been trying to figure out new ways to spend our money, Americans have been struggling  just trying to pay their monthly bills, Bubba.

To this very day, we’re still being laid off, right and left, and some of us are so down, we’ve just given up on trying to find a job.  Folks are doing whatever they can, including clearing out their attics and getting a booth at the flea market.

That is why Donald J. Trump is kicking the Presidential Hopefuls’ elevated derrieres BOTH sides of the Political Aisle, including Hillary’s.

Trump has promised to make America GREAT again.

I’m betting that the Taliban will not ask the next deserter, like they did Bowe Bergdahl about Obama, if Trump is gay.

But, I digress…

Bubba, all the Establishment politicians, pundits, and so-called journalists on either side of the aisle have no right to be surprised by what’s going on.  They’ve severely underestimated the American people.  The pendulum has swung back to the Political Right for a reason:  it works.  Socialism never has.

The American People are not THEIR servants. They are OURS.

All the “smartest people in the room” had better figure this out quickly or they are going to be competing with you for gigs on the Professional Speakers’ Circuit.

By the way, have you heard from Monica lately?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Republican Debate Aftermath: It’s Time for the Party to Embrace “Bold Colors” and Dump “Pale Pastels”

conservative1The last Republican Presidential Primary Debate was held last night on CNN.,,and things got a little heated.

Foxnews.com reports that

The rivalry between Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio flared Tuesday at the final Republican primary debate of the year, as all the leading GOP candidates battled to show their tough-on-terror credentials.

Donald Trump, as in past debates, sparred sharply with his rivals on stage over his controversial proposals, notably his call to ban Muslims from entering the country. But the changing dynamics in the race appeared to drive frequent clashes between the senators from Texas and Florida – who are now battling to be the Trump alternative in the race as Ben Carson slides in the polls.

With the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., refocusing the race squarely on security issues, Cruz from the outset tried to sound a tough message against radical Islam.

“We will utterly destroy ISIS,” Cruz vowed, later adding: “ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism will face no more determined foe than I will be.”

But he repeatedly was challenged by Rubio over his Senate positions – including for legislation reining in NSA metadata collection. Rubio accused Cruz of helping take away a “valuable tool” for security officials, while Cruz said: “Marco knows what he’s saying isn’t true.”

Rubio later cited a budget vote by Cruz to say: “You can’t carpet bomb ISIS if you don’t have planes and bombs to attack them with.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie used the arguing to contrast his own executive experience against the senators’ legislative history. He described their jobs as “endless debates about how many angels on the head of a pin from people who have never had to make a consequential decision.”

But Rubio and Cruz returned to the fray later on as they tried to cast each other as soft on illegal immigration. “I led the fight against [Rubio’s] legalization-amnesty bill,” Cruz charged.

Some analysts had expected the tensions Tuesday to flare between Trump and Cruz, as the Texas senator surpasses Trump in Iowa polls and is surging nationally. But Cruz avoided taking on Trump in favor of Rubio – he even jokingly backed Trump’s plan to build a border wall.

“We will build a wall that works, and I’ll get Donald Trump to pay for it,” Cruz said.

Later on, Trump backed off comments where he said Cruz acted in Congress like “a bit of a maniac.” Trump said Tuesday, “He’s just fine, don’t worry about it.”

Instead, Trump took heat mostly from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who slammed Trump’s plan to ban Muslims from entering the United States as “not a serious proposal.”  

“He’s a chaos candidate, and he’d be a chaos president,” Bush said.

Trump fired back that “Jeb doesn’t really believe I’m unhinged” and only went after him because he’s “failed in this campaign.”

The Trump-Bush acrimony simmered throughout the debate, with Bush later telling Trump he can’t “insult your way to the presidency,” and Trump once again reminding Bush that his poll numbers have plummeted while Trump is leading.

Whether Bush’s attacks will help the struggling candidate remains to be seen. Perhaps more consequential is whether Rubio or Cruz can present himself as more capable of taking on the country’s security challenges.

All the leading candidates, though, focused on the terror threat throughout the CNN-hosted primary debate Tuesday night in Las Vegas – an event held just hours after Los Angeles closed its school system over a terror threat.

Citing that closure, which is now thought to have been prompted by a hoax threat, Christie said children will be going back to school filled with anxiety. And he said the country’s overall security environment has been hurt by President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s policies.

“America has been betrayed,” he said.

Christie cited his experience as a federal prosecutor, and governor, in saying that under a Christie presidency, “America will be safe.”

Carson also dismissed “PC” concerns about some of his own plans for taking on the terror threat.

“We are at war … We need to be on a war footing,” Carson said, while later making an argument against toppling foreign dictators. He compared the situation to being on a plane, where passengers in an emergency are advised to use oxygen masks themselves before helping others.

“We need oxygen right Citing that closure, which is now thought to have been prompted by a hoax threat, Christie said children will be going back to school filled with anxiety. And he said the country’s overall security environment now,” Carson said, adding the government needs to think of the needs of the American people before solving everyone else’s problems.

Trump also sparred at times with other lower-polling candidates.

As before, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul questioned Trump’s policy proposals, including to restrict the Internet to clamp down on ISIS’ social media use. “Do you believe in the Constitution?” Paul said of Trump supporters. Trump clarified he’s only talking about restricting the Internet in parts of Iraq and Syria.

And when Trump suggested that the money spent toppling Mideast dictators could have been better spent on building America’s roads and bridges, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina compared him to Obama.

“That’s exactly what President Obama has said. I’m amazed to hear that from a Republican presidential candidate,” she said.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich also took issue with suggestions from Cruz and Trump that the priority in Syria is not to remove Bashar Assad.

“We can’t back off of this,” Kasich said. “He must go.”

CNN also hosted a debate Tuesday for the second-tier GOP candidates — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki. Graham was particularly critical of Trump’s Muslim ban plan at that debate, accusing him of declaring war on Islam and delivering a “coup” for ISIS.

About the scourge known as “Political Correctness”…it definitely was one of the topics for discussion last night…

Candidates in the GOP presidential primary debate Tuesday said “political correctness” has contributed to the rise of attacks by Islamic extremists in the U.S. and other Western countries.

“Political correctness is killing people,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said.

He and several of the other candidates suggested in the CNN debate that fear of offending Muslims has resulted in the U.S. intelligence community failing to aggressively find the “radicalized” members who commit terror acts.

Cruz, surging in recent polls to challenge front-running Donald Trump, also criticized the Department of Homeland Security. He suggested the agency failed to vet social media well enough to learn that the female Muslim attacker in the deadly San Bernardino, Calif., shootings this month wanted to commit jihad.  

Trump, who after the Dec. 2 massacre proposed a temporary ban on Muslims coming into the United States, has said repeatedly that he will not hew to political correctness, especially on issues of national security.  

Candidate Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, in the earlier, second-tier debate said, “We’ve defunded and tied the hands behind the backs of our intelligence agencies because of political correctness.”

You will notice that Senator Ted Cruz and Billionaire Entrepreneur Donald J. Trump have backed off going after reach other…at least, for now.

They realize that now is not the time, politically speaking.

Now is the time to narrow the field.

The Republican Party needs to encourage some of the lower-tier candidates to ease on out of the Primary Race.

Especially the one whom they were backing…Jeb Bush.

They are not helping what, at this point, appears to be the inevitable fact that the next President of the United States will be a Republican.

The problem for the Republican Establishment, is that is will not be one of them.

The public wants new ideas. We are tired of dancing to the Washington Two-Step.

That is the reason for the popularity of Trump and Cruz. They have been saying the things that Americans have been wanting to hear for some time now.

That is the reason that they are the Leaders in the Republican Primary.

Contrast them to the candidates whom the Democrats are offering: old white folks from the Northeast Corridor, one who is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg and the other, a demented old socialist, who resembles Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”.

The “Vichy Republicans” as I refer to them, are looking a Gift Horse in the mouth.

They are positioned to sweep the nation, on the way to placing their candidate in the Oval Office, buoyed by a Grassroots Movement, the likes of has not been seen since the 1980 Presidential Election, which put into office the greatest president in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

All the Republicans have to do to be successful is something that they seem to have forgotten how to do, since they themselves were swept into Congressional Power in the 2010 and 2012 Mid-Term Elections.

They need to pay attention and actually listen to the voters who gave them their cushy jobs.

The need to stop backing the wrong “horse”.

As Ronald Reagan, himself, said, at CPAC in 1975,

It is time to raise a banner of BOLD COLORS! Not PALE PASTELS!

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Majority of Americans Identify Radical Islam as Our Enemy. Why Won’t Obama?

Say-It-NRD-600We know that ISIL — which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq and Syria — depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

This work will take time. There are no easy answers to Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our NGOs can help as well — because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves. – President Barack Hussein Obama, Speech to the U.N. General Assembly, 9/27/2015

Thehill.com reports that

The majority of Americans say the country is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, according to a new poll taken in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist attacks in France.

A survey by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports published Friday found that 60 percent of likely voters believe the country is at war, compared with 24 percent who say the U.S. is not at war.

“President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats refuse to say America is at war with ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for fear of insulting all Muslims, but voters beg to disagree,” the polling agency said.

Majorities from both major parties said the U.S. is engaged in a conflict with radical Islam: 56 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans, as well as 54 percent of independents.


Ninety-two percent of respondents also said they regard radical Islamic terrorism as a “serious” threat to national security, including 73 percent who said the threat is a “very serious” one, which is up from 50 percent inOctober of last year.



American attitudes toward the Islamic faith as a whole also appear to have shifted.

Although a plurality of Americans, 46 percent, still said terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) do not represent the true Muslim faith, that number is down from 58 percent in February. Thirty-five percent said ISIS does represent the Muslim faith.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attack last week in which at least 130 people were killed and hundreds were injured.

 The Rasmussen poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters Nov. 17–18. The margin of error for the poll is 3 percentage points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They never did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Lord, I hate it when I’m right.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

While Obama Scolds Americans for Worrying About ISIS Among “Refugees”, ISIS is Entering America At Our Southern Border.

AFBrancoRadicalIslamUnicorn21215This is a petulant, childish man-child who’s having trouble getting his way without opposition.  Opposition offends him.  How dare anybody oppose him.  There are real concerns and we see them on television every day.  We’re living daily fear.  The media.  If there is no terror attack during the day, the media’s got everybody in crisis mode on something else.  Every day, everybody keyed up, there’s a crisis of something happening that is threatening our health, our lives, our existence some way.  Every day in the news.  And here comes a real-life terror event, which is predictable, there will be more, and Obama impugns those who react to them. – Rush Limbaugh, November 18, 2015

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama threatened late Wednesday to veto legislation aimed at improving screening for Syrian refugees, potentially putting the White House and Congress on a collision course in a matter of days. 

The veto threat came as the House was preparing the bill — which sets high hurdles for refugee admission including FBI background checks and sign-offs by top officials — for floor action as early as Thursday. In a committee meeting, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused the president of confusing the public about the intentions of the legislation. 

Moments later, the White House issued a statement defending the current screening process and claiming the changes called for under the bill would create “significant delays and obstacles” for the existing vetting program. 

“Given the lives at stake and the critical importance to our partners in the Middle East and Europe of American leadership in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis … [Obama] would veto the bill,” the White House said. 

But House Republicans touted the legislation as a common-sense answer to security concerns. 

Further, while Republicans a day earlier called for a “pause” in Syrian refugee admissions, some on Wednesday indicated a willingness to accept refugees from Syria and Iraq who are fleeing the civil war and Islamic State militants — provided the screening process is improved, under the terms of the bill.  

“America has a proud tradition of welcoming refugees into our country, and we lead the world in humanitarian assistance. However, we also must put proper measures in place to ensure our country’s safety,” House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in a statement. 

The bill introduced Wednesday would require the FBI director to certify a background investigation for each refugee — and several top security officials to certify that each refugee is not a security threat to the U.S. — before a refugee from Iraq or Syria can be admitted. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan said the chamber would vote on the bill later this week, and stressed that it would not subject applicants to a religious test. He made this clarification after some GOP presidential candidates suggested preference should be given to Christians. 

McCaul, in a statement, said that while he wants a “temporary suspension” of Syrian refugee admissions, “It is apparent that the President will ignore these concerns, making this legislation necessary to toughen security measures.” 

Indeed, Obama on Wednesday continued to defend plans to bring in an additional 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year as he threatened to veto the House bill. 

“Slamming the door in the face of refugees would betray our deepest values. That’s not who we are. And it’s not what we’re going to do,” Obama tweeted late Wednesday morning. 

Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., also touted the latest House bill, saying it was based on legislation he introduced just days earlier. Hudson said the new bill would likely be voted on in the House on Thursday. 

“America is a compassionate nation. No country on Earth does more or spends more to care for our fellow man. But being compassionate doesn’t mean we have to have reckless policies that put American lives at risk,” he said in a statement. 

McCaul’s committee also released a report Wednesday on the Syrian refugee flow, saying it reveals “alarming gaps in the vetting of Syrian refugees at home and abroad.” 

Already, the new legislation was facing criticism from both sides of the aisle — and not just the White House. 

Heritage Action executive officer Michael A. Needham said in a statement that the bill, while setting up better vetting, “provides no leverage for Congress to weigh in and relies solely on President Obama’s appointees to carry out the new vetting process.” 

House Democrats also voiced opposition, with one House Democratic leadership aide telling Fox News the bill would “end the refugee program altogether.” The aide said they hope to “negotiate a bipartisan bill” and are weighing introducing an “alternative bill.” 

Meanwhile, CIA Director John Brennan said in a speech Wednesday that about half of Syria’s population — or about 12 million people — has been displaced by the ISIS onslaught and the civil war, a number that includes both those who have been internally displaced and those forced to flee the country. 

Speaking at the Overseas Security Advisory Council Conference, Brennan said Syria is “approaching 50 percent of the population” that has been displaced.

House Republicans aren’t the only ones concerned.

News.investors.com reports that

National Security: Speaking in another country 8,600 miles away from the U.S. capital, President Obama viciously attacked anyone who dares oppose his Syrian refugee plans. Does he include his fellow Democrats?

‘Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America.” That was how Obama, in Manila, rebuked Republicans on Tuesday for expressing concern about ISIS terrorists slipping into America amid the 10,000 Syrian refugees he wants to bring here.

The president’s sense of timing these days leaves something to be desired. Hours after he declared ISIS was “contained,” it launched a well-coordinated, multi-pronged surprise terrorist attack in Paris.

And hours after chastising the GOP for being scaredy-cats about widows, a woman connected with the Paris attacks blew herself up during a raid.

As his feckless anti-ISIS policy gets exposed by facts on the ground, Obama is become increasingly bellicose, agitated and hostile — against Republicans, not ISIS, which Obama insists on calling ISIL.

And he’s becoming increasingly isolated as Democrats come to realize how detached he is from reality.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sharply criticized Obama for his “all is well” boasts, saying — on MSNBC, no less — that she’s “never been more concerned. I read the intelligence faithfully. ISIL is not contained. ISIL is expanding.” Now Feinstein is urging caution on admitting Syrian refugees.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York has also refused to fall into line, saying a “pause” might be necessary.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., signed a letter to Obama urging him to stop admitting refugees until “federal authorities can guarantee with 100% assurance that they are not connected” to ISIS.

New Hampshire’s Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan says she doesn’t want to accept Syrian refugees until the government can “ensure robust refugee screening.”

Other governors, Democrats and Republicans alike, are complaining that the administration won’t share information on how many or what kind of refugees may be headed their way.

Even top officials in Obama’s administration don’t buy his reassurances about the vetting process.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in September that he wouldn’t “put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees,” adding that it’s “a huge concern of ours.”

FBI director James Comey told Congress last month that he couldn’t “offer anybody an absolute assurance that there’s no risk associated with this.”

He should know, since the FBI arrested two “robustly vetted” Iraqi refugees on terrorism charges six years ago, and suspended admission of more for months while investigating other possible infiltrations.

We haven’t even mentioned the fact that ISIS itself said it was going to use refugees as cover.

In the face of such unstoppable facts, Obama’s arrogance remains an immovable object.

It would be pathetic if it weren’t so dangerous.

Dangerous, indeed.

However, ISIS is also coming into our Sovereign Nation via a different route.

Breitbart.com reports that

Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. The federal agents spoke with Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity, however, a local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally entering the country in the Laredo Sector. The reports have caused a stir among the sector’s Border Patrol agents.

The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015. According to the sources, the Syrians were in two separate “family units” and were apprehended at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo, Texas, also known officially as Port of Entry 1.

Border Patrol agent and NBPC Local 2455 President Hector Garza told Breitbart Texas, “Border Patrol agents who we represent have been contacting our organization to voice concerns about reports from other agents that Syrians crossed the U.S. border from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. Our agents have heard about Syrians being apprehended in the area from other federal agents.” Agent Garza added, “At this time, I cannot confirm or deny that Syrians have crossed, for security reasons.”

Agent Garza further stated that in matters as sensitive as Syrians crossing the border from Mexico, it would be highly unlikely that federal agencies would publicize it or inform a broad group of law enforcement. He did say that Local 2455 is taking the reports seriously and that they “will be issuing an officer safety bulletin advising Border Patrol agents to exercise extra precautions as they patrol the border.”

Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”

Unfortunately, agents of Islamic State have been entering from our Southern Border for quite a while now.

The following information is from a blog I posted on August 29, 2014, titled “ISIS Gathering At Our Southern Border. No Strategy = No America.”:

Former Congressman, Lt. Col. Allen B. West, reported the following on July 11th on his website…

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) told CBS’s local Dallas Fort Worth affiliate he believes that ISIS will use Texas’s southern border to enter the United States. “Of course the way they would come to the United States would be through the porous border with Mexico. The drug cartels will bring people into the country no matter who they are — for money,” says Poe.

The U.S. Border Patrol has a specific classification for those caught illegally entering America called OTMs (Other than Mexicans) which denotes those not of Hispanic descent. It is well known that drug cartels are assisting Islamic terrorists in gaining entrance and crossing the border. In fact it’s been going on for some time.

According to Breitbart.com, Human Events reported in 2010 that Iranian currency and prayer rugs were regularly found near the southern border.

A November 2012 House Committee on Homeland Security report from the Oversight Sub-Committee stated:

“U.S. Government officials who are directly responsible for our national security continue to affirm the vulnerability. In August 2007 former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell stated that not only have terrorists used the Southwest border to enter the United States but that they will inevitably continue to do so as long as it is an available possibility. In a July 2012 hearing before the full U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that terrorists have crossed the Southwest border with the intent to harm the American people. Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol regularly apprehends aliens from the 35 “special interest countries” designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” From Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, there were 1,918 apprehensions of these Special Interest Aliens at our Southwest border.”

An independent security contractor told Breitbart News last week that six Special Interest Aliens (SIA’s) from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen were picked up by U.S. border patrol near Laredo, Texas. Each one had 60,000 Iraqi Dinars ($51.00) apiece on them.

Last week  [the second week in July] in Arizona, a Muslim prayer rug was found.

Wrap your heads around that information for a while, gentle readers.

Thanks to Obama’s Open Border Policy, the Radical Islamic Terrorists known as ISIS, have been coming into America, with the rest of the Illegal Aliens, via our Southern Border.

How many are already here, living among us, plotting attacks against us?

Obama’s willful and arrogant obtuseness, concerning the danger of a wide open Southern Border, has added to the now apparent critical situation which our nation finds itself in, concerning these barbarians, who slaughter innocent people in the name of Islam, a political ideology masquerafing as a faith.

…Whose Call to Prayer, our president has stated, is “one of the most beautiful sounds on the face of the Earth”.

God protect us.

…Because Obama certainly does not seem to be inclined to.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Ole Miss Liberals Remove State Flag From Campus Because of Confederate Flag in Its Corner

thB1USW3NQOn the wall beside my computer desk, hangs my family crest, which I shipped to my Daddy (Southern Colloquialism for male parental unit) in the summer of 1978, from an insignia shoppe in York, England.

This same family crest also hangs in the home of Jefferson Davis, distinguished Graduate of West Point Academy, and the President of the Confederate States of America.

I am a proud Southerner, living in the NW Corner of the state of Mississippi.

As a Christian American, I attend church on Sunday mornings with my brothers and sisters in Christ, both black and white.

American Progressives, both Democrat and Republican, continue to try to take advantage of the horrible church massacre in Charleston, SC, in order to accomplish something that they have been trying to do for years: minimize the South’s political clout and erase our uniqueness as a region, through the taking away of a symbol of our heritage, and, any traces of the historical aspects of the Confederate Side of the Civil War, as exemplified by the current mission of Outgoing Memphis Mayor AC Wharton and his minions on the City Council, to dig up Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, and move their bodies and a statue of the general, which all currently “reside” in a downtown park in the Medical Center.

The Alinsky-approved Tactics, currently being employed by Barack Obama and his Liberal minions on both sides of the aisle, are giving them, at best, a temporary victory, as shown by the results of a CNN poll, which shows that the opinion of Americans concerning the Confederate Flag remains unchanged in the last 15 years.

The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride.

Why have Liberals shown such disrespect for this integral part of American History?

Modern American Liberals have no respect for any of our nation’s symbols of our heritage.

And now, that same cowardly, revisionist history has reared its ugly head in Oxford, Mississippi.

As they say (instead of “Once Upon a Time”) in Southern Fairy tales,

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this s@#t…

Foxnews.com reports that

The University of Mississippi took down the state flag from campus on Monday morning, heeding calls from students and administrators who said the inclusion of the Confederate symbol in one portion of the flag made it unfit to fly.

The flag, which was lowered and furled by the UM Police Department, is slated to be preserved in the University Archives, alongside student and faculty resolutions calling for its removal, according to aUniversity statement issued on Monday.

“The University of Mississippi community came to the realization years ago that the Confederate battle flag did not represent many of our core values, such as civility and respect for others,” Interim Chancellor Morris Stocks said in the statement. “Since that time, we have become a stronger and better university. We join other leaders in our state who are calling for a change in the state flag.”

The student senate voted 33-15-1 to take the flag down on Oct. 20 and, six days later, the banner came down, following similar recommendations from the Faculty Senate, the Graduate Student Council and the Staff Council.

More than 200 people took part in a remove-the-flag rally Oct. 16 on the Oxford campus. It was sponsored by the university chapter of the NAACP.

The University of Mississippi has struggled with Old South symbolism for decades. In 1962, deadly riots broke out when James Meredith was enrolled as the first black student, under court order. Ole Miss administrators have tried to distance the school from Confederate symbols. Sports teams are still called the Rebels, but the university several years ago retired the Colonel Rebel mascot — a white-haired old man some thought resembled a plantation owner. The university also banned sticks in the football stadium nearly 20 years ago, which eliminated most Confederate battle flags that fans carried.

“As Mississippi’s flagship university, we have a deep love and respect for our state,” Stocks said. “Because the flag remains Mississippi’s official banner, this was a hard decision. I understand the flag represents tradition and honor to some. But to others, the flag means that some members of the Ole Miss family are not welcomed or valued. That is why the university faculty, staff and leadership have united behind this student-led initiative.”

Since 1894, the Mississippi state flag has featured the Confederate insignia in the upper left quadrant. Three thick strips of blue, white and red, from top to bottom, compose the remainder of the flag. Residents chose to keep the flag during a 2001 statewide vote.

The Confederate flag became a contentious public issue following the shooting deaths of several black parishioners at a historic South Carolina church during an allegedly racially-motivated incident in June. The alleged shooter was pictured in online profiles posing with the Confederate flag, images which, in part, led to new calls for the symbol to be removed from various public locations.

Yesterday, Mississippi Governor Ed Bryant provided the following statement to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger:

Mississippians overwhelmingly voted in 2001 to adopt the current Mississippi state flag.  I believe publicly funded institutions should respect the law as it is written today. It clearly states ‘The state flag shall receive all the respect and ceremonious etiquette given the American flag.

Last Thursday, Governor Phil Bryant told reporters he did not think the university’s associated student body senate, who voted 33-15 with one abstention to request the removal of the flag from campus, had the “legal authority” to determine whether the flag flies, due to the fact that it was a public building.

Evidently, just like Liberal Trolls on Facebook, these spoiled Liberals at the University of Mississippi believe themselves to be “above it all”.

According to their yearly Financial Report, in 2014, the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) received approximately $250,000 in State Appropriations.

Governor Bryant, here’s an idea:

If the students and faculty of Ole Miss are not proud enough of their state to fly the State Flag, they, evidently, don’t need the State of Mississippi’s support.

Withhold the State Appropriations until the State Flag is, once again, flown over the Campus of Ole Miss in Oxford, Mississippi.

Spoiled Brats always need to be taught a lesson.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Establishment Republicans Pushing Ryan For Speaker. Want Conservatives to be “Reasonable”.

Whats-First-NRD-600The Establishment Republicans are pushing hard to make Paul Ryan the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Yesterday, the 2012 Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate received an unsolicited endorsement.

Politico.com reports that

Harry Reid just gave Paul Ryan an unwelcome endorsement for speaker.

The Democratic leader offered his surprise backing for Ryan (R-Wis.) to assume the House speakership, saying he hopes Ryan runs and wins the job because he’s a “Paul Ryan fan.”

“He appears to me to be one of the people over there that would be reasonable. I mean look at some of the other people,” Reid said. “I don’t agree with him on much of what he does. I think what he’s done with Medicare and Medicaid, what he’s wanted to do I disagree with. But generally speaking we’ve been able to work with him.”

Indeed, Ryan’s work with Reid lieutenant Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on a two-year budget deal in 2013 remains a bipartisan highlight for a Congress otherwise beset by gridlock. But did Reid hurt Ryan by praising him?

The Nevada Democrat shrugged when asked if he was giving Ryan a kiss of death as the Wisconsin lawmaker weighs a speakers bid amid ever-growing criticism from the right for his policy positions.

“I just speak the truth,” Reid said.

“If it helps him fine, if it doesn’t that’s too bad.”

Okay, so the Senate Minority Leader approves of Paul Ryan becoming the Speaker of the House.

Big whoop.

It would seem to me that Dinghy Harry’s is one endorsement that a Republican Leader, who actually wishes to rally the Conservative Base, would not want to have.

Later yesterday, Paul Ryan started his “exploratory campaign” for the position of the Speaker of the House.

The Washington Post  reports that

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) moved closer to the House speakership Tuesday, telling fellow Republicans that he would consider taking the job if he could be assured that the caucus would stand behind him.

Ryan faced his colleagues — and his political future — at a private evening meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol basement. He said he would be willing to step up and meet the calls to serve, ending weeks of GOP leadership turmoil, as long as disparate factions moved in the coming days to unite around him.

“I hope it doesn’t sound conditional, but it is,” he said, according to members inside the room. He paused after saying the word “conditional,” they said, for effect.

Ryan, the 45-year-old chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a 2012 vice presidential nominee, has long resisted pressure to assume a higher-profile role in party leadership. And he signaled Tuesday that his decision to serve was far from assured.

Much depends on what assurances of support he can win from Republican hard-liners. Before entering the evening meeting, Ryan met privately with leaders of the House Freedom Caucus, an influential group that helped push Speaker John A. Boehner out of his post and derailed Majority Leader Kevin O. McCarthy’s bid to succeed him.

That meeting ended without firm commitments, and at the subsequent GOP conference meeting, Ryan made clear he would need a formal endorsement from the Freedom Caucus before moving forward.

In remarks to reporters, Ryan laid out his vision for moving the House GOP from “being an opposition party to being a proposition party” and set terms under which he would assume the speaker’s post. Those terms effectively put the onus on his colleagues to coalesce behind him rather than forcing Ryan to campaign for the job.

“This is not a job I ever sought; this is not a job I ever wanted,” he said. “I came to the conclusion that this was a dire moment.”

Should he agree to assume the speaker’s post, Ryan would once again emerge as a leading force in national politics, three years after serving as his party’s vice presidential nominee and amid mass unrest in GOP ranks.

“If Paul Ryan can’t unite us, no one can. Who else is out there?” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a moderate. “That’d be a sign of utter dysfunction, total madness.”

Ryan’s demands reflect a desire to lead the House GOP as its spokesman and agenda setter without the threat of revolt from the right, halting a dynamic that has dominated the tumultuous speakership of Boehner (R-Ohio), who announced last month that he would leave Congress at the end of October. Another aim would be to delegate some of the job’s travel and fundraising demands so that Ryan could spend enough time with his wife and school-age children.

“My only caution is that he should go very slow and make sure that the whole conference is coming to him,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R). “Don’t underestimate the degree of getting chewed up. We are not like the Democrats right now. They are relatively cohesive. . . . We are a movement in enormous ferment, with enormous anger and enormous impatience.”

Looming over Ryan’s deliberations is a churning frustration among Republicans nationally about the party’s ability to oppose President Obama and a presidential primary field led by anti-establishment outsiders who have made common cause with the House GOP’s right flank.

Those conservative House members have pushed for a suite of rules changes, ranging from an overhaul of the party’s internal steering committee to a more open process for considering legislation. Ryan, they say, would not be exempt from those demands, which, if adopted, could give the new speaker less control.

Ryan’s allies say his conditions for becoming speaker are likely to include an understanding that he would have a free hand to lead without a constant fear of mutinous reprisals.

Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said Ryan wants House conservatives to make clear that they would not seek to “cripple him” from the start.

“He doesn’t have a moral obligation to get Republicans out of the rubble they’ve created for themselves,” Wehner said. “Asking for their goodwill is completely reasonable.”

“Reasonable”.

There’s that word…again.

Why is it always us Conservatives, who are called upon to be “reasonable”, i.e., whether in dealings with the Democrats or the Establishment Republicans, to compromise the Traditional American Values which we hold dear, for the sake of Political Expediency?

Why can’t the Vichy Republicans be “reasonable” and actually start representing the wishes of the Conservative Base, which gave them their phony-baloney jobs?

In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and how we, the Conservative Base of the Republican Party, need to handle the Republican Party leadership, quite well.

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

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

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

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

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

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

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

I believe that the Republican Party is stuck in a cycle in which their desire to protect their own hindquarters and cushy “jobs” have lead to a self-imposed isolation from the very American Citizens who were responsible for their having those cushy “jobs” in the first place.

I believe that average Americans, like you and me, have the power to relieve them of the burden of such a stressful job, and send others to Washington, who will listen to their “bosses”.

Just as Ronaldus Magnus said those 39 years ago, it is time to “let them go their way”.

Cryin’ John Boehner’s “resignation” was a good start.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Cryin’ John Boehner to Go Sobbing Into the Sunset. That’s a Good Start.

thLKOAET0PYesterday, Cryin’ John Boehner, the Vichy (Moderate) Republican who assumed the mantle of Speaker of the House of Representatives, after the Conservative-powered Political Tsunami, known as the Mid-term Elections of 2010, announced his resignation yesterday, effective at the end of October.

Hallelujah. And don’t let the screen door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya, O Spine of Jello.

Here is some information you may not have known about the Speaker of the House, courtesy of sourcewatch.org, from a blog I wrote in March of 2013

In 1981 Boehner served on the board of trustees of Union Township, Butler County, Ohio. In 1984, he served as president of the township board of trustees.

Boehner served as a Ohio state representative from 1985 to 1990. In 1990, when U.S. Rep. Donald “Buz” Lukens (R-Ohio) was caught in a sex scandal involving a minor, Boehner challenged Lukens in the Republican primary and defeated the incumbent, while also upsetting the district’s former representative, Tom Kindness, who Boehner declared had abandoned his district to become a lobbyist. Boehner went on to victory in the 1990 general election and began serving in the U.S. House of Representatives the 102nd Congress.

He was a member of the Gang of Seven, a group of seven freshmen Republicans who assailed the Democratic leadership with accusations of corruption and arrogance over the misuse of the House Bank. According to a 1992 San Francisco Chronicle article the Gang “set the match to the bank scandal that has now engulfed the House, blackened its leadership and sparked a ‘spontaneous political combustion’ that many analysts say will fuel a record turnover in Congress.” (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/30/02)

Boehner told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: “I came as a reformer. But when people in charge don’t want to reform – the only way…is revolution.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/15/93)

The banking scandal involved 355 members, Democrats and Republicans, writing 8,331 overdrafts to the bank. The Gang pounced on the issue and forced the Democrats into a corner and eventually led to the tidal wave Republican Revolution of 1994.

Boehner came to Congress as one of the most pro-business, anti-government members in 1990. He advocated a flat tax and abolition of whole government agencies including the Department of Education and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Boehner quickly rose to the fourth highest position in the Republican leadership – Republican Conference Chairman – after chairing Newt Gingrich’s 1994 run for the Minority Leader post.

Boehner was on of the principal architects of the Contract With America. He also championed the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act.

When Newt Gingrich resigned his post as Speaker in the wake of the GOPs loss of seats in the 1998 election Boehner’s leadership post was challenged by J.C. Watts, the only black Republican congressman. Boehner lost to Watts 121-93.

In 2001 Boehner was named the Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee where he would oversee numerous agencies that he planned on abolishing in the early 1990s. Boehner worked diligently to pass [[President Bush]]’s No Child Left Behind Act, reaching across the aisle as a conference committee chairman to work with Democrat George Miller (D).

Boehner has also been a strong supporter of school vouchers for private and religious schools and helped to push through the school voucher program for the District of Columbia.

Boehner has repeatedly tried to get a pension reform bill, favored by business leaders, passed by Congress. It has passed the House multiple times, but has consistently failed in the Senate.

Boehner was elected House Majority Leader on February 2, 2006, following Tom DeLay’s departure because of a criminal indictment.

There was brief controversy on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.[22] However, this turned out to be due to a misunderstanding on whether or not Congressman Luis Fortune was allowed to vote on leadership.

Boehner campaigned as a reform candidate who could help the House Republicans cleanse and recover from the political damage caused by charges of ethics violations, corruption and money laundering leveled against prominent conservatives such as DeLay and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, in spite of his own ties to Abramoff.

He bested fellow candidates Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri and Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, even though he was considered an underdog candidate to House Majority Whip Blunt. It was the most contested election among House Republicans since 1998. Boehner received 122 votes compared to 109 by Blunt in a run-off vote. Rep. Shadegg dropped out of the race after a loss in the first round of voting and his supporters backed Boehner.

Blunt kept his previous position as Majority Whip, the No. 3 leadership position in the House. Boehner has a strong pro-business reputation but the social conservatives in the GOP are questioning his commitment to their values. According to the Washington Post “From illegal immigration to sanctions on China to an overhaul of the pension system, Boehner, as chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, took ardently pro-business positions that were contrary to those of many in his party. Religious conservatives — examining his voting record — see him as a policymaker driven by small-government economic concerns, not theirs….. [He opposes] a tough illegal immigration bill that passed in December [2005] with overwhelming Republican support over Boehner’s opposition. One provision in the bill would mandate that every business verify the legality of every employee through the federal terrorism watch list and a database of Social Security numbers. For the bill’s authors, the measure is central to choking off illegal immigrants’ employment opportunities. To business groups and Boehner, it is unworkable.” Feb 12, 2006

Boehner has since backtracked on his reform platform, stalling on lobbying and ethics reform proposals put forward by Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA). Boehner stated on “Fox New Sunday” that Congress may be overreacting to the current lobbying scandal and voiced his opposition to a proposed congressional travel ban and a ban of earmark projects. The Washington Post writes that Boehner’s ascension to the Majority Leader post “make[s] it less likely that the more far-reaching proposals to restructure lobbying will become law.”  Boehner called the travel ban proposal “childish” in another interview.

Boehner is one of the top recipients of private travel, ranking 7th out of 638 members and former members at American Radio Works Power Trips. His trip totals cost $157,603.85.

So, why is Boehner vacating his cushy, phone-baloney job?

Perhaps he hears footsteps behind him, leading to the embarrassment of being fired.

Foxnews.com reports that

Most Republicans feel betrayed by their party — and show their displeasure by supporting outsiders over establishment candidates in the GOP presidential race. 

Real-estate mogul Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson are the favorites in the Republican race in the latest Fox News national poll on the 2016 election.  Neither has held elected office before and yet the two of them — together with businesswoman Carly Fiorina — capture the support of more than half of GOP primary voters.

On the Democratic side, support for Vice President Joe Biden — who is still considering a run — has almost doubled since August.  But make no mistake: Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner. 

Trump stays on top with 26 percent among GOP primary voters, followed by Carson at 18 percent.  Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are next, tied at 9 percent.  All four have gained ground. After the August Fox News debate, Trump had 25 percent, while Carson had 12 percent, Fiorina 5 percent and Rubio 4 percent. 

Trump holds his leader status even though he was once again rated in the poll as having done the worst job in the debate. Fiorina, Rubio and Carson receive positive marks for their performances.

The appeal of outsiders comes from significant dissatisfaction with the party establishment:  62 percent of Republican primary voters feel “betrayed” by politicians in their party, and another 66 percent say the recent Republican majorities in Washington have failed to do all they could to block or reverse President Obama’s agenda.  For comparison, 40 percent of Democratic primary voters feel betrayed by their party.  

Frustration with party leaders has been a recurring theme for one sitting GOP senator in the race, Ted Cruz of Texas, who is next in the poll at eight percent.  He was at 10 percent in August. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush garners seven percent, a new low for him in the Fox News poll.  He had 15 percent support as recently as early August. 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is up a couple of ticks to five percent and Ohio Gov. John Kasich gets four percent.  Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee receives three percent and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul two percent.  All other candidates receive one percent or less. 

The favorites among white evangelical Christians voting in the Republican primary are Trump (29 percent), Carson (21 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).

The top picks among self-described “very” conservatives voting in the GOP primary are Carson (23 percent), Trump (22 percent), Cruz (13 percent) and Rubio (11 percent).

Straight talk is part of Trump’s outsider appeal — but does he go too far?  Not for GOP primary voters: 65 percent of them say Trump just tells it like it is, compared to 30 percent who think he is “too mean and blunt” to be president.  Trump’s style may be a liability in the general election, though. Overall, 49 percent of voters find him too mean and blunt, while 44 percent say we need his directness. 

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

It has been especially bad since Boehner gained the Speakership in January of 2011, as the House and Senate Republican Leadership apparently cherish their friendship with the Democrats more than they do the wishes of the folks back home. Yes, they talk a good game, but so did Jon Lovitz in those “Liar Sketches” during the old days of Saturday Night Live, back when that show was actually funny.

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

In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and how we need to handle the Republican Party leadership, quite well.

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

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

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

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

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

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

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

I believe that the Republican Party is stuck in a cycle in which their desire to protect their own hindquarters and cushy “jobs” have lead to a self-imposed isolation from the very American Citizens who were responsible for their having those cushy “jobs” in the first place.

I believe that average Americans, like you and me, have the power to relieve them of the burden of such a stressful job, and send others to Washington, who will listen to their “bosses”.

Just as Ronaldus Magnus said those 39 years ago, it is time to “let them go their way”.

Cryin’ John Boehner’s “resignation” is a good start.

It’s time for Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell to pack his bags, as well.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Pope Visits White Obama. White House Compares Obama to Pope. “Social Justice” Abounds.

th (28)Today’s top news story reminds me of a joke…

These two socialists walk into the White House…

Just kidding….or, am I?

The Washington Examiner reports that

Pope Francis and President Obama have both dedicated their lives to helping the less fortunate, and that commonality will be central to their meeting Wednesday during the pope’s first visit to the United States, a White House spokesman said hours before Obama left to greet the pontiff as he landed at Andrews Air Force Base Tuesday afternoon.

“[B]oth men have talked, quite publicly, about their commitment to social justice,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in previewing their Oval Office meeting scheduled for Wednesday morning. “And both men have dedicated their, not just their careers, but their lives, to that effort.”

“Certainly the kind of commitment that we’ve seen from Pope Francis is unique and singular,” Earnest allowed “but I think the values that both men live out have some common ground.”

Earnest talked about how Obama turned down high-paying jobs upon graduating law school to instead work in Chicago’s poor South Side, and how Francis is known for advocating on behalf of impoverished communities in his home country of Argentina before ascending through the Roman Catholic Church’s ranks.

When it comes to internet history, Faulkner said it best: ‘The past isn’t over. It isn’t even past.’

“And you know, the president actually worked quite closely with other Catholics in that community, and the president has talked about that quite a bit … this has been a value that has animated the president’s career choices since he was a young man.”

Earnest said Francis’s story is similar.

“[P]rior to rising through the leadership ranks of the Catholic Church … Pope Francis earned a reputation in Latin America [as being someone] willing to roll up his sleeves” to help the less fortunate, “particularly those who were economically destitute,” Earnest said.

Earnest said many in the administration are looking forward to greeting Francis because they feel they are working toward the same goals.

They’re “animated by the same kinds of values that animate the pope,” Earnest said about White House staffers. “And I think that’s why the opportunity to have Pope Francis, somebody who shares those values, here in this building tomorrow, makes for a really special day.”

A crowd of 15,000 is expected to welcome Francis at a ceremony on the White House lawn Wednesday morning.

According to press reports, several hundred people were on hand at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base to watch “Shepherd One” land and cheer the pope as he deplaned.

“We love Francis, yes we do,” people reportedly chanted. “We love Francis, how about you?”

In addition to Obama, First Lady Michelle, Vice President Joe Biden his wife Jill, and their extended families, nearly 20 other dignitaries were on hand at Andrews, including all of the Washington and Baltimore areas’ Catholic bishops.

“Ho, ho, hey, hey, welcome to the USA,” the larger crowd chanted, welcoming Francis on his first trip ever to the United States.

Interesting. Why are Obama and his Liberal Minions embracing “Il Papa”, when they have done everything in their power to minimalize the role of our Christian Faith in the day-to-day lives of Americans?

Rush Limbaugh explained why, on his radio program yesterday…

It’s a political thing.  It’s rooted in political power. It’s rooted in money.  They have this utter contempt, the American left.  What do you think the reasons they object to Southern culture really is about?  It’s those pro-lifers and gun nuts and those Bible thumpers, people that drive old pickups.  They get to the church parking lot Saturday night to get a good spot for the sermon the next day.  They speak with utter contempt of all this.  And who are they embracing? 

So why are they embracing a man more powerful than they are who stands for everything they supposedly oppose.  They must think something is different about this guy.  We’ve already read that Obama plans to hide the advancement of his agenda behind the pope.  We know that’s gonna happen.  That’s why what Josh Earnest just said insults my intelligence. 

You know, I don’t have any patience for that.  Just lie to me, just tell me, look at my face and tell me you’re gonna lie to me instead of trying to get me to believe your lie, because it just insults my intelligence. (imitating Earnest) “Oh, no, these are not two political figures meeting.  No, no, no.  These are two men who hold similar views about life and are simply meeting to try to find common ground.”  Right.  That’s why Obama is making sure that we’ve got a nun that’s pro-abortion, that we’ve got lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered Catholics showing up. 

By the way, apparently the Vatican let it be known that they were not happy with this guest lest.  I don’t know what’s become of it.  My guess is Obama doesn’t give a rear end what the Vatican thinks.  You talk about hypocrites or irony.  But what it shows is they’ll sidle up to anybody if it’ll help ’em disguise their agenda in order to advance it. I mean, what could be better for them?  Here you have these anti-religion zealots known as your modern-day Democrats, and here comes Pope Francis, first ever trip to America, and because he has said a couple of things that arouses them — and make no mistake, when the pope starts talking about anti-capitalism, they get all hot and bothered, excited. 

So they’ll sacrifice what they really believe, these phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock ‘n’ rollers to hide behind this guy and make it look like his agenda is theirs.  And in the process, if anything, make it look like this pope is abandoning his own church in favor of the liberal church.  If not abandoning, then what would be the word?  Drastically restructuring his own organization to fit with theirs.  That’s a definite narrative that they’re going to try to promulgate out there. 

But I just think it’s phony as it can be.  I mean, this is a party that raises money and gets elected on their outright utter contempt for religious people, now welcoming the man who represents an organization they despise and are trying to undermine.  And make no mistake, any time you hear some Democrat or member of the media or some liberal activist just anywhere demand that the church moderate its tone or demand that the church modernize and realize that women today have many more needs than the church is meeting.  Women today want abortions, and they want to be able to have access to church sponsored and paid-for contraception, and it’s up to the church to moderate and modernize and modify its beliefs in order to be more in touch and have more in common with average, normal people.

If they think a religious leader is doing that, then of course they will embrace.  They’ll embrace anybody they think is willfully, willingly doing damage to an organization they despise.  I’m not exaggerating this.  They hold the Catholic Church in contempt.  Why do you think Catholic charities and so forth are spelled out in Obamacare? The Democrat Party and Obama would love to nullify the Catholic Church and its opposition to things that are doctrinal.  Oh, man, if they can get the church to change its doctrine, oh, man, if they could pull that off, that’d be even better to ’em than subverting the Constitution.  That would be a bigger success story to them than subverting the Constitution. 

Per usual, the Godfather of Political Talk Radio is spot on.

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