Michelle Obama Calls Building Border Wall “Fear of Diversity”. Really?

th (72)We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables, y’all living in different dorms. I was there. Y’all not talking to each another, taking advantage of the fact that you’re in this diverse community because sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions, it makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change? – Michelle Obama, January 23rd, 2008, Columbia, South Carolina

Filed under the category of “Well, At Least She’s Consistent”…

The NBC Affiliate in New York City reports that

Michelle Obama praised the diverse graduates of the city’s oldest public institution of higher learning and took a mild swipe at Donald Trump as she delivered the last commencement address of her tenure as U.S. first lady on Friday.

“I really want you all to know that there is a reason why, of all of the colleges and universities in this country, I chose this particular school in this particular city for this special moment,” Obama told the graduates of the City College of New York.

Noting that students at the 169-year-old college come from 150 countries and speak more than 100 languages, she said, “You represent just about every possible background – every color and culture, every faith and walk of life.”

Obama, the wife of Democratic President Barack Obama, told the graduates that “with your glorious diversity, with your remarkable accomplishments and your deep commitment to your communities, you all embody the very purpose of this school’s founding.”

She made a thinly veiled reference to Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, by saying “some folks” don’t value the diversity that City College embodies.

“They seem to view our diversity as a threat to be contained rather than as a resource to be tapped,” Obama said. “They tell us to be afraid of those who are different, to be suspicious of those with whom we disagree.

“They act as if name-calling is an acceptable substitute for thoughtful debate, as if anger and intolerance should be our default state rather than the optimism and openness that have always been the engine of our progress.”

Trump has promised to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, proposed banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and said it’s risky to take in Syrian refugees because terrorists could be among them.

Obama added that “here in America, we don’t give in to our fears. We don’t build up walls to keep people out because we know that our greatness has always depended on contributions from people who were born elsewhere but sought out this country and made it their home.”

City College, founded as the Free Academy of the City of New York in 1847, gained a reputation as the poor man’s Harvard in the 1930s, when it educated a generation of Jewish intellectuals who were shut out of elite private colleges.

The Godfather of Conservative Talk Radio, Rush Limbaugh, once said about outgoing (Thank God) First Lady Michelle Obama that

I think the essence of hope and change, I think the hope was not so much hope for the country’s future economically, hope for people’s personal economic success.  I think the hope was that if this country made the statement, a majority white country electing an African-American president, that alone would serve a significant role, play a significant role and cause there to be massive progress toward eliminating, or not eliminating, but reducing the racial strife in this country, and the exact opposite has happened.

Rush is right.

Like her husband, President Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama has done her best to play The Race Card at every opportunity.

In this case, by erroneously claiming that the reason Donald J. Trump’s. along with the majority of Americans’, desire to secure our Southern Border, is because we have a fear of people who look different from us.

If that were the case, American would have never become the “Great American Melting Pot”, as the old cartoon from Scholastic Rock, that we used to watch as kids on Saturday Mornings on ABC, so aptly explained.

And, “The Donald” would have an all-white workforce in his companies.

This country was built by LEGAL IMMIGRANTS of all Ethic Backgrounds, who assimilated into our culture and became AMERICANS, who were loyal to their now-found country, not the country that they left behind to come here for a better life.

“Mooch” is purposefully assigning a “nobility” and “righteousness” to those who would enter this country illegally, to take American Jobs , while remaining loyal to their country of origin and to those who are entering illegally for the purpose of destroying our nation through the mindless violence of Islamic Terrorism.

Michelle Obama does not speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

She never has.

Most of the other First Ladies in my 56 years have brought a certain degree of class and decorum to their unelected position as “FLOTUS”.

Hillary Clinton being a notable exception.

Where that woman spits, grass never grows again.

But, I digress…

Michelle Robinson Obama is the most useless, racially divisive, and downright hateful excuse for a First Lady that this country has ever seen.

Bess Truman was Mother Teresa compared with the woman whom I affectionately refer to as “Mooch”…

Her expensive tastes, which include Wagyu Beef and Lobster, her penchant for taking the most expensive vacations ever imagined by man (with larger entourages than an NBA Player), along with her attempts at telling Americans what we HAVE to feed our children and grandchildren, and how we should be raising them, have not exactly endeared herself to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Quite frankly, all of us out here in the Heartland, think that she stinks on ice.

For Michelle Obama to drop her carefully concealed mask of racial intolerance this late in the game, with still time left in her husband’s presidency, shows how little regard she has, not only for the decorum of her position, but, for the well-being of America and her citizens, both black and white.

She’s classless.

That being said, here is a little ditty I wrote a while back, in “honor” of the most beloved mate of a national leader since Eva Braun:

50 Ways to Get Your Mooch On (to the tune of “50 Ways to Leave Your Lover” by Paul Simon)

A young lady came up to

The First Lady

She said, “Like you I want to

get everything free”

‘Chelle said, “You’ve come to the right

person, baby”

I’ll teach you fifty ways

To get your “mooch” on

She said it’s easy if you put

your mind to it

By gaming the system 

you can get a lot of sh#t.

In Presidential Politics,

Taxpayers’ money you will get

And, if you’re a Democrat

if you’re caught, they will acquit

There are Fifty ways to get your ‘mooch’ on

[CHORUS:]

Go vay-cay in Spain, Jane

Get you some pearls, girl

Chow down on Wagyu,Sue

Pay attention to me

Just listen to ‘Chelle, Nell

You don’t need a brain cell

Marry The Prez, honey

And get it for free

She said I hope my rap

Is getting through to you

I am laying it out very plainly

These things that you should do

The girl said,” I am diggin’ this,

But, would please tell me some more 50 Ways”?

‘Chelle said. “Please take everything I’m telling you

and place it in your heart

Marrying a politician is

a great place to start”

And, then ‘Chelle left her

And she caught on to the game

‘Chelle did have 50 ways to get her “mooch” on

50 Ways to get her “mooch” on

CHORUS:

Go vay-cay in Spain, Jane

Get you some pearls, girl

Chow down on Wagyu,Sue

Pay attention to me

Just listen to ‘Chelle, Nell

You don’t need a brain cell

Marry The Prez, honey

And get it for free.

It is a shame that we can’t impeach the President’s Spouse.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Ramadi: Obama’s War By Remote Control Has a “Minor Setback”

 

 

Knowing-NRD-600In a Sept. 13, 2007, Oval Office address, United Stated President George W. Bush warned that “Iran would benefit from the chaos” after U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Current United States President Barack Hussein Obama should have heeded that warning before he experienced his “premature evacuation”.

Fox News reports that

The fall of Ramadi to Islamic State forces — despite Obama administration efforts to downplay it as a short-term setback — has kicked up a sandstorm of problems for the White House: 

— The possibility that Iran-backed Shiite militias will take a lead role in the fight to retake the city; 

— Fresh political fallout over President Obama’s decision to withdraw virtually all troops in 2011 — against the advice of his top military commanders — only to watch hard-fought U.S. gains undone by ISIS; and, 

— Congressional pressure from both sides of the aisle to rethink the current anti-ISIS military strategy. 

Taken together, the problems pose a political and strategic migraine for an administration trying to manage the Iraq-Syria madness — while also forging a nuclear deal with Iran, seeking a resolution in war-torn Yemen and keeping tabs on the rest of the tumultuous post-Arab Spring nations, including Egypt and Libya. 

On Tuesday, congressional pressure mounted over the course of the U.S. military’s anti-ISIS strategy. 

House Speaker John Boehner said Obama should “start over” with his congressional request for use of military force against ISIS — a request that has stalled on Capitol Hill. Boehner said Obama needs to come up with a clear strategy, adding: “We know that hope is not a strategy. The president’s plan isn’t working.”

While skepticism from GOP leaders is hardly new, the criticism took on a bipartisan streak Tuesday as the top House intelligence committee Democrat piled on. 

“Alarm bells should be going off,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., according to The Daily Beast. Schiff reportedly questioned the current strategy that relies largely on airstrikes, and also voiced concern that the on-the-ground approach relies too much on Iran-backed militias. (At the same time, Schiff said he was “deeply disappointed” by Boehner’s call to restart talks on the authorization for use of force.) 

He’s not alone in his concerns over strategy and Iran’s role. On Sunday, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told Fox News the Shiite militias will only inflame the Sunni tribes in Iraq. As they did in the battle for Tikrit, the Shiite militias once again are being looked to by the Iraqi government to help in Ramadi.  

“I think this is a prescription for disaster,” McCaul said. 

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., voiced similar concerns. 

“I think they may be able to take Ramadi back, but you know who they’re going to take it with? The Shia militias, which are Iranian-run, sponsored, trained and equipped,” McCain told Fox News. “And they are going to go into a Sunni area and they’re not going liberate, my friend. The Sunnis will never reconcile with the Shia militias, which are sponsored by the Iranians. 

“… And that, of course, will mean a lot more bloodletting.” 

Aside from concerns about Iran taking a lead role in the battle to retake Ramadi, the weekend’s defeat of Iraqi security forces marks a troubling reversal of U.S. gains in the region — Ramadi is part of the so-called Sunni Triangle, which saw heavy fighting in the intermediate years of the Iraq war. 

McCain noted that hundreds of Americans died trying to wrest Ramadi from Al Qaeda in Iraq, out of which spawned ISIS. 

“I can’t imagine what some of the troops are thinking as they see where they had such terrible sacrifices,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Fox News. 

He said, at this point, sending in a “huge new U.S. force” would be a mistake, but said the U.S. could “more effectively” use the assets it has in the region. 

“Getting [ISIS] out of these cities is going to be incredibly tough,” Gates acknowledged. But he said if ISIS is allowed to keep the territory permanently, “What you have is a cancer in the middle of the Middle East.” 

With the Obama administration again facing criticism for not keeping a residual force on the ground after 2011, Gates said the reason the country was better off in 2010 and 2011 was “we had a presence on the ground.” 

A Pentagon spokesman vowed Monday that “we will retake Ramadi.” 

A senior defense official also denied there were plans to change the approach to fighting ISIS in light of the weekend’s takeover. 

“There are no plans to change our strategy,” he said. 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday that “overall,” the U.S. strategy to fight ISIS has been a success. 

In a glimmer of good news, Iraqi forces reportedly were able to repel an ISIS attack overnight in a location west of Baghdad. 

For President Barack Hussein Obama to continue to attempt to prosecute the war against ISIS by remote control, and by not even calling it “Radical Islam’, with apparently no military strategic input in place at all, is one of the silliest, and most dangerous,things I’ve ever seen in my life.

And, to compound their incompetency, they referred to this major victory, the taking of Ramadi by ISIS, as a “minor setback”.

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

Meanwhile, Obama’s bombing runs are doing minimal damage, at best.

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

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

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

As I wrote, back when all of this started,

Welcome to Iraqi-Nam.

Where’s King Richard the Lion-Hearted when we need him.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Scott Walker Now Lead Candidate With Conservative Base. Liberals Launch Attack.

Scott WalkerI have been politically depressed for the last couple of weeks.

The reason?

Because, among those already actively seeking the office of the President of the United States of America, there has been no one who represents the Conservative Base.

However, just when I thought that we were going to be stuck with Jeb Bush, a light appeared at the end of the tunnel… and it was not an oncoming train.

It’s Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Gov. Walker set tongues wagging as a result of his appearance last month in Iowa, as The Washington Examiner reported:

Ditching a suit coat for casual rolled-up sleeves, Walker paced across the stage as he ticked through his accomplishments as the two-term governor of a blue state.

“In Washington, they keep trying to find ways to take more of your money. In Wisconsin, we’re trying to find ways to give more of the money back to the people who earned it,” Walker said, highlighting the tax cuts he brought to his state and suggesting he could do the same for the rest of the country.

“Our property taxes are lower today than they were four years ago,” he said. “How many governors can say that?”

Among the political victories Walker cited was the passage of pro-life state legislation, an issue that likely resonated with the audience of conservative activists given lawmakers’ ultimately unsuccessful attempt to pass a late-term abortion ban in the House this week.

Walker recounted the personal upheaval he experienced when the Occupy Wall Street movement swept through Wisconsin during his first term.

He said Occupy protesters gathered outside his family’s home and threatened his wife and children.

“Someone sent me a threat that said they were going to gut my wife like a deer,” Walker said. “All they did was remind me how important it was to stand up for the people of my state.”

Taking a subtle swipe at the president’s reluctance to engage extremists abroad, Walker pushed for a stronger national position on defense.

“We need leaders who will stand with our allies against radical Islamic terrorists,” he said, drawing one of the loudest waves of applause of the speech.

Why are Conservatives, like myself, in the state of euphoria, over this possible candidate?

Rush Limbaugh nailed it, once again, yesterday.

I’m telling you, this is why Scott Walker is running away with every Republican poll right now.  The consultant class doesn’t get it. The Republican establishment doesn’t understand it. They’re scratching their heads, what’s Walker done?  They do not get it.  They don’t understand.  For two years I have been ballyhooing Scott Walker, not personally, but here’s a guy not only has he drawn the blueprints for beating the left — what are blueprints?  They are designs for building something.  Well, he’s built the house. He wrote the blueprints and he built the building.  He built the machine that defeats the left.  He has shown how to do it, and he did it.  He is a walking gold mine.

Scott Walker has been targeted every bit as much as any other Republican has as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, as a criminal, as a mean-spirited whatever. He had to win three elections in four years.  Think of that.  Think of that.  Three elections in four years.  He had the federal judiciary trying to hamper him and punish him.  He had the entire Democrat Party and its union support base throwing money and thug like tactics against him and his family, and he did not try to appease them once.  He stood up to them in his way.

He won elections, and then afterwards he did not give a speech about how now it’s time to come together for the people of Wisconsin.  Well, he might have said that but he did not mean it’s time to let them now have a role in his government.  His objective was to overcome them.  His objective was to defeat them, in their schools, in their school curriculum, in the way the unions, public and private, were ruining Wisconsin, and he has succeeded.

I would think that everybody at the RNC and the consultant class who wants to win would be taking notes and would be talking to him and his people about how they did it.  Instead, they’re trying to ignore it.  He’s winning every flash poll.  Drudge is doing one, just saw this.  Your vote for Republican presidential candidate.  He’s got Bush, Carson, Christie.  I would lay you 10 to one that whenever Drudge starts publishing results Walker is gonna be well over 50% in this poll.

Now, nothing scientific about it.  This is just an Internet poll.  But the reason why is because, as I said, Scott Walker could be wrong on immigration.  He could be wrong on global warming, to the base.  The base may not like his view on this or that, but they’re gonna support him because he is fighting back.  That’s what has been missing.

Right on, right on.

You know why I believe that Scott Walker might just be the candidate that those of us in the conservative wing of the Republican Party have been waiting on?

Because, on Facebook yesterday, on the political pages, the Liberals started attacking him, like he was Sarah Palin’s kid brother.

Liberals were calling Walker everything but a child of God, in an effort to squash his candidacy, before it even begins.

Because, when a Republican actually starts to fight back, against the Tyranny of the Minority, as I call Liberal Oppression, the minority political ideology  in this nation (Liberalism) stands up and takes notice.

The members of the Hive Mind, that is the Democratic Party, are not used to having to defend themselves against a Republican who will fight back and not compromise his/her ideals or values, as so many up on Capitol Hill have.

I am jazzed up. Things are starting to get interesting.

For this Christian Conservative American Blogger, “business” is about to pick up.

Let the games begin.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Do Americans Fear Our Own Government?

obamabiggovernmentIn America of 2013, what do you think that Americans fear the most? Our enemies from without or within?

One might think, with the New Boston Massacre fresh on their minds, that Americans would fear the uncertainty of where the terrorists would attack next.

Unfortunately, “one” would be wrong.

A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.

For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.

In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.

But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.

Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.

A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.

“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.

Ronald Reagan once famously said,

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

Ronaldus Magnus was a prophet.

On October 23rd of last year. Rep. Eric Cantor issued his Majority Leader’s Report, in which he wrote…

There is no excuse for this continuous disregard of legislative authority and the Constitutionally-required separation of powers. In some instances, President Obama attempted to garner legislative authority, failed and then acted unilaterally in defiance. In other instances, the President never even sought to find consensus and instead ignored Congress and its authority from the outset. In speeches, the President has proudly acknowledged that he has acted without Congress, contending that he has no other alternative.

This is no way to govern. The President has set a precedent that even his supporters should find troubling. After all, what would now prevent a subsequent President, with opposite policy predilections, from bypassing the checks on his own authority and enacting his own policies in this same manner? The Founding Fathers wisely gave the President many powers, but making law was not one of them. They understood that laws should not be made by one individual acting alone, but rather through elected representatives working to achieve consensus.

House Republicans have acted to prevent and overturn the President’s harmful actions in order to return economic growth, opportunity and certainty to the American people and American job creators. However, the majority of the bills the House has passed are sitting idly in the Democrat-led Senate, without any action on the part of Democratic Leader Harry Reid or President Obama.

Throughout our nation’s history, presidents have sought common ground and achieved legislative success with opposing party leaders. Many of the laws circumvented in this report were achieved in that manner. Congressional authority must not be disregarded to suit political interests, create unpopular regulations and to avoid the hard work of bipartisan negotiation that has been a hallmark of our Republic since its inception.

Little did Rep. Cantor know that Obama was just getting started.

Just as average Americans feared, after re-election Obama has put “the pedal to the metal” in his pursuit of  his mission to “radically change” the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Just look at the issues he been attempting to push down the our throats: Gun Confiscation, Homosexual Marriage, and Amnesty, or, as the Administration and all their Liberal allies euphemistically refer to these issues: Gun Control, Gay Marriage, and Immigration Reform.

And, it does not appear that Obama is going to take “NO” for an answer.

Just yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that he and the rest of the Liberals and RINOs (but, I repeat myself) in the Senate are going to continue in their efforts to make it possible for this Administration to confiscate law-abiding Americans guns, even though their most recent attempt failed miserably.

Look at Homosexual Marriage. This summer the Supreme Court will have to make a ruling on it, even though 39 states have already voted against allowing it, including California, whose vote was overruled by a Homosexual Judge.

No “Judicial Activism” there, huh?

Finally, as far as the Gang of Eight, including the naive Sen. Mario Rubio’s, efforts at “Immigration Reform” are concerned, all the country, except, evidently him, knows that it is nothing but a ploy to create 33 million new Democratic Voters.

It is not surprising then, that these polls show that Americans are more afraid of our own government than we are of any external threat that we face in today’s dangerous and oft-times confusing world.

Americans, even after everything we’ve gone through, since Reagan was President, still know the difference between public servants and hack politicians, between freedom and oppression, and between right and wrong.

I believe that the strength of our nation, lies not at 1600 Pennsylvania, Avenue in Washington, DC, nor up on Capitol Hill.

Ronald Reagan said it best: 

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

That applies to all of those who seek to take away our FREEDOM…foreign or domestic.

Until He Comes,

KJ