Not Even Sworn in yet, Trump Already Standing Up for Israel and a Strong Foreign Policy

too-cozy-600-li-2

It’s great to have an AMERICAN President, again.

The Washington Post reports that

Before lunchtime Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump said he would expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal, upending a reduction course set by presidents of both parties over the past four decades, and called for the United States to veto a pending U.N. resolution that criticized Israel’s settlements policy.

The policy prescriptions, communicated in morning tweets, followed calls since last month’s election to reconsider the arms-length U.S. relationship with Taiwan and to let China keep an underwater U.S. vessel seized by its navy. Trump declared within hours of this week’s Berlin terrorist attack that it was part of a global Islamic State campaign to “slaughter Christians” and later said it reaffirmed the wisdom of his plans to bar Muslim immigrants.

Late Thursday, Trump suggested in another tweet that the U.S. military’s years-in-the-making plans for a new stealth fighter, Lockheed Martin’s F-35, might be reconsidered, saying he had “asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!”

With weeks to go before he becomes president, Trump has not hesitated to voice his opinions on national security issues of the day and to publicly advise the current president on what to do about them.

Ultimately, the nuclear statement was tempered by a Trump spokesman. And the likely fallout from a tentative decision by the Obama administration to break years of precedent and abstain on the Israel resolution was avoided when Egypt, its sponsor, abruptly postponed it just hours before a scheduled Security Council vote.

But the president-elect’s pronouncements have privately riled a White House that has repeatedly insisted in public that the transition has been smooth sailing.

Asked last week whether he was trying to help Trump, a professed admirer of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, understand Russia’s responsibility for the civil-war carnage in Aleppo, Syria, President Obama said he would “help President-elect Trump with any advice, counsel, information that we can provide so that he, once he’s sworn in, can make a decision.”

“Between now and then,” Obama said firmly, it was up to him to decide what to do. “These are decisions that I have to make based on the consultations that I have with our military and the people who have been working this every day.”

Even as the White House has held its tongue, however, others have not.

Trump provided no details in his tweet calling for the United States to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” But “if he means what he says,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a Washington-based security foundation, “this could be the end of the arms-control process that reduced 80 percent of our Cold War arsenal.”

Former congressman John Tierney (D-Mass.), executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said in a statement, “It is dangerous for the President-elect to use just 140 characters and announce a major change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy, which is nuanced, complex, and affects every single person on this planet.”

Under New START, the treaty negotiated by Obama with Russia and ratified by the Senate in 2010, the United States and Russia by February 2018 must have no more than 1,550 strategic weapons deployed. While there is widespread agreement that the U.S. deterrent must be modernized, little enthusiasm has been expressed elsewhere for increasing the number of nuclear warheads.

Trump spokesman Jason Miller later said that was not precisely what Trump meant. Rather than calling for more nuclear weapons, Miller told Yahoo News, he was referring to “the threat of nuclear proliferation” and “the need to improve and modernize our deterrent capability.”

The president-elect’s U.N. tweet was more explicit and more immediate. “The resolution being considered . . . should be vetoed,” he said in a pre-dawn tweet referring to the Egyptian measure. The resolution condemned “the construction and expansion of settlements” in the West Bank and mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem, along with “the transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians.”

Saying the settlements have “no legal validity,” it demanded that Israel “immediately cease all settlement activities.”

Although consideration of such a measure has been circulated at the United Nations for weeks — and similar measures have for years brought a consistent U.S. veto — it was not until Wednesday night that word began to circulate that the United States might abstain and allow it to pass.

While successive administrations have considered the settlements an impediment to an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration has grown increasingly irate over what it feels is Israel’s flouting of its concerns.

Over the past six months, Israel has announced plans to add hundreds of units to existing settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A July announcement that 770 new homes were to be built in the East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo drew particularly sharp U.S. criticism.

At the same time, right-wing voices in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are pushing for legislation that would legalize settlements built on privately owned Palestinian land. The “legalization bill” stems from a court-ordered demolition of the Amona settlement, which sits on land owned by a Palestinian farmer.

Amona was meant to be demolished next week, but on Thursday it received an additional month of reprieve from the court. Residents brokered a deal with the government to move their homes to a nearby location, essentially creating a new settlement.

During the campaign, Trump frequently criticized what he described as the administration’s failure to fully support Israel. Last week, he named David Friedman — a New York bankruptcy lawyer who has given strong financial support and other backing to the Israeli settlement movement and has said Trump supports Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory — as his ambassador to Israel.

During the campaign, Trump also charged that Obama had helped promote terrorism by supporting “the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt” — that of long-standing autocrat Hosni Mubarak — and more recently by failing to fully back the military government that overthrew Mubarak’s elected replacement.

In an interview last weekend with a Portuguese news agency, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi said that Trump “has shown deep and great understanding of what is taking place in the region as a whole and Egypt in particular. I am looking forward and expecting more support and reinforcement of our bilateral relations.”

Once it became clear late Wednesday that the settlements vote was scheduled for Thursday afternoon, Trump officials said the transition gave the administration a “heads-up” that the president-elect was going to publicly call for a U.S. veto.

At the end of the day Thursday, it was not entirely clear what led Egypt to withdraw the resolution. At the State Department, spokesman John Kirby said that Egypt had pulled it back in order to have “discussions with its Arab League partners” over the wording of the text.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who supported an abstention and was clearly expecting to deliver a pre-vote speech announcing it, along with an outline of future prospects for Middle East peace, canceled his plans. Elsewhere within the administration, officials said Israel had twisted Egypt’s arm and threatened to work against its interests in Congress.

Several Arab officials said they were convinced that the United States had pressured Egypt to postpone the vote.

In Israel, where a late-night cabinet meeting was convened Wednesday to consider the possibility of a U.S. abstention, Netanyahu sent out a dead-of-night tweet calling for a U.S. veto. It was quickly followed by Trump’s own, near-identical tweet.

Deriding “the imposition of terms set by the United Nations,” Trump said in a later statement that passage of the resolution would put Israel “in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

After initial hesitation on whether Trump should weigh in, the statement was written late Wednesday by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and an influential adviser to the president-elect, and Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, according to two people briefed on the deliberation who were not authorized to speak publicly. They said that Kushner and Bannon consulted with several allies in Israel and the United States but declined to name them.

The effort represented perhaps Kushner’s most significant foray to date into foreign policy and the Middle East, where Trump has said he would welcome his son-in-law’s involvement.

After the statement was issued Thursday, a transition official told the Reuters news agency, Trump spoke by telephone with Sissi.

As I have written before, a strong American President is essential to retaining the sovereignty of our country.

As a 22-year old College Senior, I was privileged to cast my first-ever vote in a National Election. That vote took place in November of 1980, and it was for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The popularity of President Reagan was not just limited to the boundaries of our nation. He was admired the world over. The things that he accomplished, along with his friends, Prime Minister of Britain Margaret Thatcher, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and Pope John Paul II, have caused the decade of the 1980s to be recorded as a seminal moment in world history.

I remember watching President Reagan speak at the Berlin Wall. When he said, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!”, I was never prouder to be an American and of an American president, than at that moment.

Liberals, around the world, lost their collective minds.

For you see, Liberal Leaders, just as they do now, hate it when Marxism gives way to Freedom.

Nothing bothers them more than when a strong American President is at the forefront of a conquering moment, when a strong foreign policy is based on the reality that negotiating from a position of strength is always more effective than negotiating from a position of weakness.

Fast forward to the present, where an ineffective President Barack Hussein Obama was already looking like a fool, before Donald J. Trump was even elected as his successor, to a world who used to look to America as a bastion of strength and freedom, not weakness and political expediencies.

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

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

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

America must have a president who will man up and negotiate from a position of strength with both our friends and our enemies.

It appears that we have found him in President-elect Trump.

Unfortunately for our present safety as nation, Obama’s Fantasyland view of the world, which is not unlike the old Coca Cola Advertisement where everyone had a Coke and a smile, set him up to be a disastrous failure at Foreign Policy.

A failure, which finds our enemies in Iran still working on a nuclear bomb and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin beginning the process of annexing surrounding countries and rebuilding the old Soviet Union, which was dissolved, thanks to the efforts of a real leader and American President, Ronald Reagan.

The popular defense, currently being thrown against the wall to see if it sticks by Liberals on behalf of their fallen messiah’s failed Foreign Policy, is to attack those who are critical of it, by claiming that we are all of bunch of “Christianist Raaaciiist Hate Mongers”.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Failure explains the resistance of foreign leaders to the possible Presidency of Donald J. Trump before his election.

It also explains all of their donations to the Clinton Foundation.

But, I digress…

Ronald Reagan, when he was “out on the stump” for Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, in October of 1964, delivered a powerful speech titled, “A Time for Choosing”. At one point in that now-classic speech, he spoke about America’s role in the world, stating that

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

…You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Foreign Leaders, who like the advantage that they have gained, under the weak and vacillating Foreign Policy of Barack Hussein Obama, do not want the United States to regain our position as the Leader of the Free World.

And, they certainly do not want a President who will honor our friendship with our ally, Israel.

That is why they fear a Trump Presidency.

It was far more lucrative for them, when the United States “negotiated from a position of weakness”, when we had a vacillating dhimmi in the White House.

Now, they have to negotiate with an American President who has mastered “The Art of the Deal”.

…one who will place America and her best interests, first.

Isn’t that refreshing?

Until He Comes,

KJ

MSM’s Knickers in a Twist Over Trump Calling Foreign Leaders (It’s Almost as if He’s the President-Elect or Sumpin’.)

derangement-600ab-la

Once again, the hand-wringing Pajamaboy (and girl) Liberals in the Main Stream Media are positively apoplectic over something that President-elect Donald J. Trump has done.

His latest “crime”?

He has dared to contact World Leaders to start the foundation of relationships which will , in his opinion, strength our place among the World’s Nations.

The following is an article which appears in The New York Times titled “How Trump’s Calls to World Leaders Are Upsetting Decades of Diplomacy”…

President-elect Donald J. Trump has broken with decades of diplomatic practice in freewheeling calls with foreign leaders. Dec. 2

Mr. Trump talks to the president of Taiwan, becoming the first U.S. president or president-elect to do so since 1979.
Why it matters
The call with President Tsai Ing-wen risks infuriating China, which considers Taiwan a breakaway province governed by Chinese rebels. By honoring the Taiwanese president with a formal call, Mr. Trump’s transition team implicitly suggests that it considers Taiwan an independent state. The U.S. has declined to recognize Taiwan since 1979, when it shifted recognition to the government in Beijing. Taiwan itself has yet to declare formal independence. Mr. Trump tweeted, “The President of Taiwan CALLED ME today to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency.”
Dec. 2
Mr. Trump invites Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, to visit Washington.
Why it matters
Mr. Duterte has been accused of gross human rights abuses, referred to President Obama as a “son of a bitch” and declared his country’s “separation” from the U.S. during a recent trip to Beijing. (The Trump transition team has not confirmed the invitation, which was reported by Reuters, citing a Philippine government official.) Honoring Mr. Duterte with a presidential invitation implies U.S. approval of his behavior, which Mr. Obama’s administration had been working to curb.
Nov. 30
Mr. Trump praises Kazakhstan’s leader for “fantastic success.”
Why it matters
Mr. Trump praised Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, the president of Kazakhstan since 1991, in tones that suggest approval for Mr. Nazarbayev’s strongman rule. According to the Kazakh government’s readout of the call, Mr. Trump “stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country over the years of independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle.’”
Nov. 30
Mr. Trump accepts an invitation to visit Pakistan, “a terrific country.”
Why it matters
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif invited Mr. Trump to visit, according to a Pakistani government readout of their call. Should Mr. Trump follow through, he risks alienating India, which sees Pakistan as a major antagonist, and appearing to reward Pakistan’s behavior; should he renege, he risks upsetting Pakistani leaders who are sensitive about perceived American intransigence. Either way, the call could upset the delicate balance of India-Pakistan ties, which the U.S. has struggled to manage amid a history of wars and recent skirmishes.
Nov. 17
Ivanka Trump joins a meeting with the Japanese prime minister.
Why it matters
Rather than inviting State Department officials to staff his meeting with Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, Mr. Trump invited his daughter Ivanka. The meeting alarmed diplomats, who worried that Mr. Trump lacked preparation after a long record of criticizing Japan. It also blurred the line between Mr. Trump’s businesses, which Ms. Trump helps run, and the U.S. government, with which she has no role.
Nov. 10
After brushing off the United Kingdom, Mr. Trump offers a casual invitation to the British prime minister.
Why it matters
Mr. Trump spoke to nine other leaders before British Prime Minister Theresa May, an unusual break with the two countries’ long-standing special relationship. “If you travel to the US you should let me know,” he told her, far short of a formal invitation.Trump also met with Nigel Farage, former leader of the fringe U.K. Independence Party — a slap to Ms. May. He later said that Mr. Farage should become the British ambassador to the United States, though presidents typically avoid telling foreign counterparts how to staff their governments.

What the Liberal Media are not talking about is the reason that Trump is already working on setting his Foreign Policy in motion.

That reason is the failure of the ineffectual Foreign Policy over the last 8 years, courtesy of the Empty Suit in the White House that Trump is replacing.

Nature abhors a vacuum, as evidenced, by the escalation in violent world events, especially in the Islamic world.

And the vacuum that has nature particularly ticked off right now, is the empty suit that sits behind the desk in the Oval Office in Washington, DC.

Before Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) ascended to the throne of The Regime, he did something no other candidate for American President has ever done.  He campaigned in Europe, where he was treated like a rock star, by both the Europeans and the sycophantic Main Stream Media.  This set the stage for Obama’s Foreign Policy efforts as President.

There have been so many issues that have weakened America on the world stage as Obama has pursued his Foreign Policy, it’s hard to know where to begin.  Come along as I try to relate a few high (low?) points.

1.  The World Apology Tour – Shortly after he took office, President Obama set off for the first of a two-part “World Apology Tour”.   After less than 100 days, he had apologized on three continents for what he viewed as the sins of America and previous presidents.

Per Karl Rove:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.  In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

By apologizing to the world, then- White House Press Secretary Robert “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs said that Scooter had “changed the image of America around the world” and made the U.S. “safer and stronger.”

Having the British call him “President Pantywaist” made us “safer and stronger”?

2.  Global War on Terror –  In a memo e-mailed the week of March 25th, 2009, in the middle of the World Apology Tour, to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review proclaimed that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”  And so it began.

On Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at the University of Cairo, Obama addressed the Muslim World.  Here is an excerpt from the 6:35 a.m. speech:

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith-based lives upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Scooter believed that by reaching out to the Muslim world through changing and softening our terminology as it pertained to the Jihad declared against the United States by Muslim Extremists, his administration would make huge inroads in America’s relationship with the Islamic World.  After 8 long years, it has done nothing but encourage our enemies, as evidenced by the increasing number of attacks by Muslim Extremists here in our country.

3.  Smart Power! – At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton said:

We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well.

Excessive humility has never been one of Hil’s problems.

Of course, Smart Power led to Arab Spring, which replaced Moderate Muslim Dictators, with Radical Muslim Dictators, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Great plan, y’all.

4.  Afghanistan – When Obama took office, he announced that Afghanistan was the true center of extremist activities.  He then told us that the Overseas Contingency Operation would be making a hard pivot from the main focus being on Iran to the main focus being on Afghanistan.  From there, he decided that the mountainous country of Pakistan (pronounced by the president, Pock-ee-stahn) was where all the truly evil Extremists were hiding.  He had two problems with this strategy:  the mountainous geography and unfriendly government of  Pock-ee-stahn.  Obama was advised by his military advisors that the best strategy was to use unmanned drones to attack Taliban (pronounced Tawl-ee-bohn by Obama) strongholds.  While the drones were very successful in killing members of the Tawl-ee-bohn, they have occasionally killed civilians as well.   That did not endeared us to that country’s government. Obama subsequently pulled out the majority of troops in Afghanistan, only recently to have had to send troops back in again.

While no President can control the actions of other countries come in their own affairs, the position of President of the United States has not historically been referred to as the Leader of the Free World for no reason.

That position has historically Ben the Vanguard in the fight against despotism and tyranny.

Unfortunately, for lovers of freedom the world over, instead of being the leader that the world and America itself needed, Barack Hussein Obama has instead been an example of the Peter Principle.

He rose quickly to his level of incompetence.

It is time to try a new and better approach.

A strong American President is essential to retaining the sovereignty of our country.

As a 22-year old College Senior, I was privileged to cast my first-ever vote in a National Election. That vote took place in November of 1980, and it was for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The popularity of President Reagan was not just limited to the boundaries of our nation. He was admired the world over. The things that he accomplished, along with his friends, Prime Minister of Britain Margaret Thatcher, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and Pope John Paul II, have caused the decade of the 1980s to be recorded as a seminal moment in world history.

I remember watching President Reagan speak at the Berlin Wall. When he said, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!”, I was never prouder to be an American and of an American president, than at that moment.

Liberals, around the world, lost their collective minds.

For you see, Liberal Politicians and Political Pundits, just as they do now, hate it when Marxism gives way to Freedom.

Nothing bothers them more than when a strong American President is at the forefront of a conquering moment, when a strong foreign policy is based on the reality that negotiating from a position of strength is always more effective than negotiating from a position of weakness.

America must have a president who will man up and negotiate from a position of strength with both our friends and our enemies.

Ronald Reagan, when he was “out on the stump” for Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, in October of 1964, delivered a powerful speech titled, “A Time for Choosing”. At one point in that now-classic speech, he spoke about America’s role in the world, stating that

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

…You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

Foreign Leaders, who like the advantage that they have gained, under the weak and vacillating Foreign Policy of Barack Hussein Obama, did not want the United States to regain our position as the Leader of the Free World.

That is one reason that they funneled money into the Pay-For-Play Money Laundering Scheme known as the Clinton Foundation.

That is why they fear a Trump Presidency.

It is far more lucrative for them, when the United States “negotiates from a position of weakness”.

They did not want to negotiate with an American President who was a master at “The Art of the Deal”.

So, let the apologizing Globalists in the Democratic Party and their Propaganda Department, known as the Main Stream Media, continue to voice their “concern” over the actions that he is taking to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”.

Americans did not listen to them on November 8th.

What makes them think that we will listen to them now?

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Obama/Clinton/Kerry Foreign Policy Leads to Iranian Pay-Offs and North Korean Nukes

untitled (72)

A few years back, I began to refer to Barack Hussein Obama as “Petulant President Pantywaist” due to his feckless and dangerous Foreign Policy which alienated our allies and embraced our enemies.

I should have been using harsher terms.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

Iran may have received an additional $33.6 billion in secret cash and gold payments facilitated by the Obama administration between 2014 and 2016, according to testimony provided before Congress by an expert on last summer’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

Between January 2014 and July 2015, when the Obama administration was hammering out the final details of the nuclear accord, Iran was paid $700 million every month from funds that had previously been frozen by U.S. sanctions.

A total of $11.9 billion was ultimately paid to Iran, but the details surrounding these payments remain shrouded in mystery, according to Mark Dubowitz, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

In total, “Iran may have received as much as $33.6 billion in cash or in gold and other precious metals,” Dubowitz disclosed.

New questions about these payments are emerging following confirmation from top Obama administration officials on Thursday that it was forced to pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash prior to the release of several U.S. hostages earlier this year. The administration insisted that cash had to be used for this payment.

Top administration officials were adamant that the cash payments were the best way to ensure that Iran got immediate access to this money due to its ongoing difficulty accessing international funds still sanctioned by the West.

Lawmakers and others are now pressing the administration to disclose how a slew of other payments to Iran were made in the years leading up to the final nuclear accord.

“In July, the Associated Press cited U.S. officials who estimated that Iran ‘brought home less than $20 billion.’ Were these funds repatriated to Tehran in cash or in gold and precious metals? Through the formal financial system? Or through some combination?” Dubowitz asked in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee.

“The administration should also clarify if the $20 billion dollars is inclusive of the $11.9 billion in [Joint Plan of Action] funds, or if the $20 billion was in addition to the $11.9 billion,” he said. “Either way, it is important to understand how funds were sent. The worst-case scenario here is that Iran may have received as much as $33.6 billion in cash or in gold and other precious metals.”

At least some of this money was likely sent in cash and other assets, according to Dubowitz.

The Obama administration was forced to disclose on Thursday that current sanctions and banking restrictions prohibited it from transferring funds to Iran via electronic methods.

The cash payment of $1.7 billion earlier this year was the easiest way to ensure Iran got immediate access to the money, according to these officials.

“Iran had to have it in cash,” Paul Ahern, assistant general counsel for enforcement and intelligence at the Treasury Department, told lawmakers. “Iran was very aware of the difficulties it would face in accessing and using the funds if they were in any other form than cash, even after the lifting of sanctions.”

A cash delivery “was the most reliable way that they received the funds in a timely manner and it was the manner preferred by the relative foreign banks,” Ahren said.

Given the situation, it is likely that the multiple past payments to Iran were conducted in a similar fashion, according to Dubowitz.

“If the White House could only send cash to Iran from the start of the JPOA period through the Tribunal payment that could amount to a grant total of 33.6 billion,” he said. “Did any of this money go through the formal financial system? If so, the administration is not being truthful about the 1.7 billion. If many billions arrived in Iran on pallets [of cash] this would be a pretty astounding revelation.”

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and expert on rogue regimes, said that cash payments of this nature are “highly irregular.”

“There’s no reason it needed to be paid now. After all, successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have delayed payments so as to avoid funding Iranian terrorism,” Rubin said. “Likewise, if the United States freezes accounts linked to al Qaeda or Hamas, releasing it and saying, ‘It’s their money anyway,’ would not be a tenable explanation. Cash payments are highly irregular.”

The Iranians have been clear that they “perceived the payment to be a ransom” despite the administration’s protestations, Rubin explained.

“Not only has the delivery of the millions of dollars been perceived as a ransom, provided as an incentive to seize more hostages …. but because the money was delivered in cash the payment bolstered the strength of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and augmented its ability to finance and conduct terrorism,” he said.

So now, thanks to the actions of Petulant President Pantywaist, the Mad Mullahs of Iran are our new best friends, right?

Wrong.

Breitbart News reports that

Seven fast-attack Iranian military vessels engaged in yet another provocative confrontation with the U.S vessel the USS Firebolt over the weekend, resulting in one Iranian boat coming to a halt in front of the U.S. coastal patrol ship.
This incident is the latest dangerous interaction between the two countries in the international waters of the Persian Gulf, CNN has learned.

An anonymous American defense official told CNN: “The provocative maneuver, which on Sunday brought the Iranian boat within 100 yards of the [USS] Firebolt, a coastal patrol boat that carries a crew of about 30, was assessed by the US to be unsafe and unprofessional and could have led to a collision.”

Last week, Fox News obtained new data from an official at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on condition of anonymity, showing that there have already been 30 dangerous interactions with Iran so far this year, surpassing the 24 that occurred throughout of all last year.

In just the first half of 2016, there were 19 confrontation incidents, nearly doubling the 10 that took place during the first six months of 2015.

CNN, citing the anonymous defense official, reports similar figures, saying, there have been 31 unsafe America encounters with Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf so far this year, more than during all of 2015.

The news network’s figure may include the recent confrontation.

Meanwhile, Americans woke up this morning to the news that

North Korea said it has hit the button on its fifth and potentially most powerful nuclear test Friday morning, claiming to have successfully tested a nuclear warhead.State media said the warhead could be mounted on ballistic rockets and would enable North Korea to produce “a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of higher strike power.”
 
“It’s hard for us to verify their claim. My deep fear is that they will launch a live nuclear weapon on one of their missiles, but that would be extremely dangerous as that could trigger a war,” said Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Are you beginning to see a pattern, boys and girls?

Nature abhors a vacuum, as evidenced, by the escalation in violent world events, especially in the Islamic world.

And the vacuum that has nature particular ticked off right now, is the empty suit that sits behind the desk in the Oval Office in Washington, DC.

Before Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) ascended to the throne of The Regime, he did something no other candidate for American President has ever done.  He campaigned in Europe, where he was treated like a rock star, by both the Europeans and the sycophantic Main Stream Media.  This set the stage for Obama’s Foreign Policy efforts as President.

There have been so many issues that have weakened America on the world stage as Obama has pursued his Foreign Policy, it’s hard to know where to begin.  Come along as I try to relate a few high (low?) points.

1.  The World Apology Tour – Shortly after he took office, President Obama set off for the first of a two-part “World Apology Tour”.   After less than 100 days, he had apologized on three continents for what he viewed as the sins of America and previous presidents.

Per Karl Rove:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.  In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

By apologizing to the world, then- White House Press Secretary Robert “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs said that Scooter had “changed the image of America around the world” and made the U.S. “safer and stronger.”

Having the British call him “President Pantywaist” made us “safer and stronger”?

2.  Global War on Terror –  In a memo e-mailed the week of March 25th, 2009, in the middle of the World Apology Tour, to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review proclaimed that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”  And so it began.

On Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at the University of Cairo, Obama addressed the Muslim World.  Here is an excerpt from the 6:35 a.m. speech:

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith-based lives upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Scooter believed that by reaching out to the Muslim world through changing and softening our terminology as it pertained to the Jihad declared against the United States by Muslim Extremists, his administration would make huge inroads in America’s relationship with the Islamic World.  After 7 1/2 years, it has done nothing but encourage our enemies, as evidenced by the increasing number of attacks by Muslim Extremists here in our country.

3.  Smart Power! – At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton said:

We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well.

Excessive humility has never been one of Hil’s problems.

Of course, Smart Power led to Arab Spring, which replaced Moderate Muslim Dictators, with Radical Muslim Dictators, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Great plan, y’all.

4.  Afghanistan – When Obama took office, he announced that Afghanistan was the true center of extremist activities.  He then told us that the Overseas Contingency Operation would be making a hard pivot from the main focus being on Iran to the main focus being on Afghanistan.  From there, he decided that the mountainous country of Pakistan (pronounced by the president, Pock-ee-stahn) was where all the truly evil Extremists were hiding.  He had two problems with this strategy:  the mountainous geography and unfriendly government of  Pock-ee-stahn.  Obama was advised by his military advisors that the best strategy was to use unmanned drones to attack Taliban (pronounced Tawl-ee-bohn by Obama) strongholds.  While the drones were very successful in killing members of the Tawl-ee-bohn, they have occasionally killed civilians as well.   That did not endeared us to that country’s government. Obama subsequently pulled out the majority of troops in Afghanistan, only recently to have had to send troops back in again.

While no President can control the actions of other countries come in their own affairs, the position of President of the United States has not historically been referred to as the Leader of the Free World for no reason.

That position has historically Ben the Vanguard in the fight against despotism and tyranny.

Unfortunately, for lovers of freedom the world over, instead of being the leader that the world and America itself needed, Barack Hussein Obama has instead been an example of the Peter Principle.

He has risen to his level of incompetence.

Barack Hussein Obama’s disdain for all of the core values of our country, such as American Exceptionalism, American Rugged Individualism, American Achievement, the American Family Unit, and the Faith of Our Fathers, has been shown through his words and actions, over and over again, through this long National Nightmare, through which we have been suffering, hoping fervently that the light at the end of the tunnel, is not an oncoming train…or a Nuclear Explosion.

The Good News is…

As a Constitutional Republic, those of us, the overwhelming majority of Americans who still believe in the concept of right and wrong, maintain the Rights which our Founding Fathers bestowed upon us, to speak our mind…regardless of what the current Presidential Administration, the Main Stream Media, and the rest of the mindless sycophants, who worship at the dual altars of popular culture and political correctness, want us to do.

We shall not be assimilated into the Hive-Mind.

That still, small voice which resides within each one of us, has led Americans to do great things, in service to their country and the concept of American Freedom, as personified by Lady Liberty, standing so majestically in New York Harbor.

God gave us this nation, ensconced in the concept of “Liberty and Justice for all”.

By His Grace, we will keep it.

As President Ronald Wilson Reagan, himself, said,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

America is standing on a precipice, looking down into a abyss.

This November, do not push her in by wasting your vote or voting for Hillary Clinton.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Nature Abhors a Vacuum: The Turkey Coup and the Empty Suit in the White House

After the failed coup attempt in Turkey yesterday, some of you out there might be wondering,

“Just who is this leader of the Turkish Government, that the military attempted a coup against?

I’m glad you asked.

The following biographical information comes courtesy of BBC News

Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AK Party enjoys a fierce and loyal support among Turkey’s conservative, Muslim base, while outside the country outrage grows over his silencing of critics, often by force.

Turkish journalists have been investigated and put on trial, foreign journalists have been harassed and deported. Last month, police raided Turkey’s biggest newspaper, Zaman. Its staff emerged bloodied and cowed.

Zaman’s last independent edition said Turkey’s press had seen one of its “darkest days”. Its first edition under state control carried unabashedly pro-government articles.

And Mr Erdogan’s authoritarian approach is not confined to Turkey’s borders. His bodyguards harassed reporters in the US, and a German satirist is under investigation in his home country for offending the Turkish president on TV.

…Born in 1954, Recep Tayyip Erdogan grew up the son of a coastguard, on Turkey’s Black Sea coast.

When he was 13, his father decided to move to Istanbul, hoping to give his five children a better upbringing.

As a teenager, the young Erdogan sold lemonade and sesame buns on the streets of Istanbul’s rougher districts to earn extra cash.

He attended an Islamic school before obtaining a degree in management from Istanbul’s Marmara University – and playing professional football.

While at university, he met Necmettin Erbakan – who went on to become the country’s first Islamist prime minister – and entered Turkey’s Islamist movement.

In 1994, Mr Erdogan became the mayor of Istanbul. Even his critics admit that he did a good job, making Istanbul cleaner and greener.

But in 1999 he spent four months in jail after a conviction for religious incitement.

He had publicly read a nationalist poem including the lines: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.”

In 2001 Mr Erdogan launched the AKP with allies, having broken away from the Virtue Party, which had been banned.

His rise to power was complete when the AKP won a landslide election victory in 2002 and he became prime minister.

…He spent 11 years as Turkey’s prime minister before becoming the country’s first directly-elected president in August 2014 – a supposedly ceremonial role.

In June 2015 the AK Party suffered a dip in the polls and failed to form a coalition. But a snap election in November, after Turkey’s worst suicide bombing prompted Mr Erdogan to escalate his war against the PKK, gave the party a convincing majority.

…In the decades before the AKP’s rise to power, the military had intervened in politics four times to curb Islamist influence.

In 2013 Mr Erdogan triumphed over the military elite when senior officers were among 17 people jailed for life, convicted of plotting to overthrow the AKP in what was known as the “Ergenekon” case.

Hundreds of other officers were also put on trial, along with journalists and secularist politicians, in that investigation and a similar one called the “Operation Sledgehammer” case.

When more than 200 officers were detained in the Sledgehammer investigation in 2011, the heads of Turkey’s army, navy and air force resigned in protest.

Critics accused Mr Erdogan of using the judiciary to silence political opponents, and there were many allegations of trumped-up charges.

But his supporters applauded him for taking on previously untouchable establishment figures, who saw themselves as guardians of the state created by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Mr Erdogan also unleashed the power of the state to crush mass protests in Istanbul in June 2013, focused on Gezi Park, a green area earmarked for a huge building project.

The protests spread to other cities, swelled by many secularist Turks suspicious of the AKP’s Islamist leanings.

A major corruption scandal battered his government in December 2013, involving numerous arrests, including the sons of three cabinet ministers.

Mr Erdogan raged against “plotters” based outside Turkey, condemning supporters of Fethullah Gulen. He also lashed out against social media, vowing to “wipe out” Twitter.

He has a combative charisma that many Turks in the teeming cities and small Anatolian towns love.

But his reputation took a hit in May 2014 when he reacted coldly to a mine disaster in Soma, western Turkey, which killed 301 people.

Mr Erdogan has denied wanting to impose Islamic values, saying he is committed to secularism. But he supports Turks’ right to express their religious beliefs more openly.

That message goes down particularly well in rural and small-town Anatolia – the AKP’s traditional heartland. Some supporters nicknamed him “Sultan” – harking back to the Ottoman Empire.

In October 2013 Turkey lifted rules banning women from wearing headscarves in the country’s state institutions – with the exception of the judiciary, military and police – ending a decades-old restriction.

Mr Erdogan’s wife Emine wears a headscarf to official functions, as does the wife of his long-standing AKP ally Abdullah Gul, who was president before him.

Critics also pointed to Mr Erdogan’s failed bid to criminalise adultery, and his attempts to introduce “alcohol-free zones”, as evidence of his alleged Islamist intentions.

Mr Erdogan’s political opponents saw a lavish new presidential palace as a symbol of his alleged authoritarian tendencies.

Perched on a hill on the outskirts of Ankara, the 1,000-room Ak Saray (White Palace) is bigger than the White House or the Kremlin and ended up costing even more than the original £385m ($615m) price tag.

Mr Erdogan owes much of his political success in the past decade to economic stability, with an average annual growth rate of 4.5%.

Turkey has developed into a manufacturing and export powerhouse. The AKP government kept inflation under control – no mean feat, as there were years in the 1990s when it soared above 100%.

But in 2014 the economy began flagging – growth fell to 2.9% and unemployment rose above 10%.

On the international stage he has bitterly condemned Israel – previously a strong ally of Turkey – over its treatment of the Palestinians. The policy not only galvanised his Islamic base, but also made him a hugely popular leader across the Middle East.

He has backed Syria’s opposition in its fight against Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus.

But his tentative peace overtures to the Kurds in south-eastern Turkey soured when he refused to help Syrian Kurds battling Islamic State militants just across the border.

Okay. So, whose side was the president of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, on during this attempted coup in Turkey?

Why, the guy who supports Hamas and the Syrian rebels, of course.

The Business Insider reports that

US President Barack Obama delivered a clear signal of support for the “democratically elected government of Turkey” on Friday night, amid anapparent coup attempt by factions of the Turkish military.

The White House said that Obama called US Secretary of State John Kerry late on Friday night to discuss the unfolding events in Turkey.

The White House said in a readout of the call:

“The President and Secretary agreed that all parties in Turkey should support the democratically elected government of Turkey, show restraint, and avoid any violence or bloodshed. The Secretary underscored that the State Department will continue to focus on the safety and security of US citizens in Turkey. The President asked the Secretary to continue to keep him updated as the situation unfolds.”

Nature abhors a vacuum, as evidenced, by the escalation inviolent world events, especially in the Islamic world.

And the vacuum that has nature particular ticked off right now, is the empty suit that sits behind the desk in the Oval Office in Washington, DC.

Before Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) ascended to the throne of The Regime, he did something no other candidate for American President has ever done.  He campaigned in Europe, where he was treated like a rock star, by both the Europeans and the sycophantic Main Stream Media.  This set the stage for Obama’s Foreign Policy efforts as President.

There have been so many issues that have weakened America on the world stage as Obama has pursued his Foreign Policy, it’s hard to know where to begin.  Come along as I try to relate a few high (low?) points.

1.  The World Apology Tour – Shortly after he took office, President Obama set off for the first of a two-part “World Apology Tour”.   After less than 100 days, he had apologized on three continents for what he viewed as the sins of America and previous presidents.

Per Karl Rove:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.  In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”

By apologizing to the world, then- White House Press Secretary Robert “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs said that Scooter had “changed the image of America around the world” and made the U.S. “safer and stronger.”

Having the British call him “President Pantywaist” made us “safer and stronger”?

2.  Global War on Terror –  In a memo e-mailed the week of March 25th, 2009, in the middle of the World Apology Tour, to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review proclaimed that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”  And so it began.

On Thursday, June 4th, 2009 at the University of Cairo, Obama addressed the Muslim World.  Here is an excerpt from the 6:35 a.m. speech:

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith-based lives upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Scooter believed that by reaching out to the Muslim world through changing and softening our terminology as it pertained to the Jihad declared against the United States by Muslim Extremists, his administration would make huge inroads in America’s relationship with the Islamic World.  After 7 1/2 years, it has done nothing but encourage our enemies, as evidenced by the increasing number of attacks by Muslim Extremists here in our country.

3.  Smart Power! – At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton said:

We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.” The same truth binds wise women as well.

Excessive humility has never been one of Hil’s problems.

Of course, Smart Power led to Arab Spring, which replaced Moderate Muslim Dictators, with Radical Muslim Dictators, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Great plan, y’all.

4.  Afghanistan – When Obama took office, he announced that Afghanistan was the true center of extremist activities.  He then told us that the Overseas Contingency Operation would be making a hard pivot from the main focus being on Iran to the main focus being on Afghanistan.  From there, he decided that the mountainous country of Pakistan (pronounced by the president, Pock-ee-stahn) was where all the truly evil Extremists were hiding.  He had two problems with this strategy:  the mountainous geography and unfriendly government of  Pock-ee-stahn.  Obama was advised by his military advisors that the best strategy was to use unmanned drones to attack Taliban (pronounced Tawl-ee-bohn by Obama) strongholds.  While the drones were very successful in killing members of the Tawl-ee-bohn, they have occasionally killed civilians as well.   That did not endeared us to that country’s government. Obama subsequently pulled out the majority of troops in Afghanistan, only recently to have had to send troops back in again.

While no President can control the actions of other countries come in their own affairs, the position of President of the United States has not historically been referred to as the Leader of the Free World for no reason.

That position has historically Ben the Vanguard in the fight against despotism and tyranny.

Unfortunately, for lovers of freedom the world over, instead of being the leader that the world and America itself needed, Barack Hussein Obama has instead been an example of the Peter Principle.

He has risen to his level of incompetence.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

A Special KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed: “If I Were a Socialist United States President”

untitled (40)Prologue: A while back, I wrote a blog describing what I would do, if “I were a Socialist U.S. President”. I have since decided to add to it, since things have further spiraled out of control, as we begin Barack Hussein Obama’s last six months as President of these United States.

**In respectful honor and memory of the late, great Paul Harvey, an American Original, (September 4, 1918 – February 28, 2009

If I were a Socialist United States President…

I would begin to plant seeds during my Inaugural Address, concerning the disparity between the Haves and the Have-nots. In other words, I would intentionally begin to divide the nation through the use of Racial Animus and Class Warfare.

Also, during that address I would push for a National Healthcare System, regardless of the fact that such a monstrous entity has never worked, anywhere it has been tried.

I would preach about hope and change, but like all Marxists, I would be hoping to bring subjugation and looking to “radically change” a nation, all in the name of “Fairness and Equality”.

The first thing I would do, when I took office, would be to send money around the world, to finance abortions. In this way, I would show the world that there is a new boss in the United States, who wants to radically change the Shining City on a Hill into just another country.

Next, I would push for the passage of an outrageous spending bill that would actually be a cover for paying back political favors.

I would invite the already-sycophantic Main Stream Media to come to the White House for closed-door meetings, where I would tell them to “get with the program”, if they wanted to receive any news stories from this White House at all.

I would makes speeches about how marvelous a Government-run National Healthcare  System would be, making hollow promises like,

If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

…all the while knowing that I was lying my hindquarters off.

Once I got my slaves in the Congress to pass this nation-changing National Healthcare Law, I would put the pedal to the metal and continuously push for other outrageous and expensive programs designed to grow the central government.

I would convince Americans that growing the central government is the only solution to a rapidly failing economy and that being unemployed and unable to provide for your family is actually a “fun-cation”.

And, while Americans were suffering through this Economic Depression, I would rant and rave about “Income Inequality”, while my family and I would take frequent vacations, costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and throw lavish private parties at the White House, in a manner reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s Politburo.

Realizing that the Heartland of America was still Conservative in nature, I would reach out to those Americans who believe themselves to be a mistreated minority. I would reach out to those on the fringes of society. Those Americans, who because of poor upbringing, poor education, or simply making bad decisions concerning their lives, now consider themselves deprived of the American Dream.

These people would compose about 47 percent of the population. They would be my core supporters, much like Nikolai Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Having done a miserable job in my First Term as President, I would promise these Bolsheviks that if reelected, I would be their Santa Claus.

And, I would continue to blame my predecessor for the wretched state of the economy, even though, by now, it would be my responsibility.

Once I was reelected, there would be no stopping me. It would not matter to me what the popularity polls said, I would continue to claim that those who provide Americans with jobs were “the evil 1%” and identify their success in creating the Greatest Economic System in the World, as the “real reason” for the Economic Depression that America was in.

I would change the Moderate political stances which I “supposedly” held during the campaign for my first election as President, and show my true colors, following a political path pursuant to my true Far Left Radical Political Ideology.

Reverting back to the one job in my life that I was good at, that of being a “Community Organizer”, I would encourage an “Us Vs. Them” Racial Division in America, supporting out-of-control rioters over those who protect the Citizens of the United States, the Thin Blue Line, America’s Police Departments, because then, I could use the situation to create my own National Police Force.

I would alienate Conservative Christians living in America’s Heartland by vilifying them as “Bitter Clingers”, marginalizing them throughout my presidency, even to the point of lecturing them in my Easter Address, telling them to get off their “high horse”, basicially saying that the followers of Jeus Christ, the Son of God, are no better than the murderous followers of Mohammed, whose Ideological Brethren continue to murder Christians in the Middle East.

I would push for “gay marriage”,  demonizing Bible-believing Christians, who might oppose it as “bigots” and “haters” and I would voice my support for the legalization of marijuana.

Through redefining the definition of the family unit, and eliminating Christianity from everyday American Life, I will eliminate the “backbone” of the nation…the two main barriers that will keep me from radically changing America into a socialist nation.

Through pushing for the legalization of marijuana, I would succeed in dumbing down the population and eliminating their desire to succeed as individuals, making them even more subservient and reliant on the Almighty State for their very existence, thus creating a new “Proletariat”.

Regarding Foreign Policy, I would bow in deference to other world leaders, demonstrating to them and the rest of the world, that I do not believe that the United States of America, whom I am supposed to be the Biggest Advocate for, is exceptional in any way.

I would not negotiate with America’s Enemies from a position of strength. Instead, I would blindly trust those who have sworn to kill us, even if they are on the threshold of building a nuclear bomb, simply because I identify with their Political Ideology, which masquerades as a religion.

I would pull out of still turbulent areas in the Middle East, encouraging the Barbaric Forces of Radical Islam to move in and conquer the very cities where our Brightest and Best sacrificed their lives in service to America.

On the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, I would sit at a solemn International Memorial Service, smacking my gum like a cow chews his cud, as if I was behind the bench at a Chicago Bulls Basketball Game, dishonoring our fallen and enraging our allies.

In other words, I would embrace America’s Enemies, and alienate America’s Friends.

I would use the finest military in the world as a subject for Social Engineering Experiments, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and moving women into combat positions, even though their lack of physical strength would endanger the American Soldiers they are fighting beside.

Following this, I would  eventually allowing the “Transgendered” to serve in our Armed Forces.

I would remove God from the Armed Forces and forbid soldiers from speaking about Christ to others. I would also begin Military Training which would identify Evangelicals as “Terrorists”.

While I am at it, I would push for my wife to be able to place the military on a diet plan that is similar to the one which would already be failing in America’s Public Schools.

I would trade 5 Murderous Muslim Terrorist Generals, for one useless, traitorous, American Army Deserter, who was discharged in 2006 from the Coast Guard for Psychological Issues, who later converted to the Religious/Political Ideology of his Captors, and whose Father’s Youtube Account praised the same Radical Muslims and their Political Ideology which poses as a religion, just because I wish to make a Political Point about closing the prison in which the enemies of our country were being held.

I would use the Judicial System, The Department of Justice, the NSA, and  Internal Revenue Service as my Palace Guard, using Activist judges to overturn the will of the people and harassing political opposition through uncalled-for Tax Audits.

I would use unmanned drones and blimps for unwarranted surveillance on American Citizens.

I would push for Gun Confiscation, calling it “Gun Control”, in the “name of the children”, all the while supporting the murder of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs, because having a baby is “a punishment”.

Because, after all, as Vladimir Lenin said,

One man with a gun can control 100 without one. 

I would imperiously announce that if Congress did not pass the laws that I wanted them to pass, I would go around them and rule by Executive Order.

I would open our Southern Borders, bypassing our immigration laws, encouraging millions of illegal aliens to enter our nation, including unaccompanied minors, spurred on by propaganda intentionally leaked to their Latin American Home Nations in support of this Mexican Munchkin Migration.

All the while, pushing Congress for “Immigration Reform”, i.e., “Amnesty”, in order to assure that my Political Party would hold onto their Political Power, in order to finish the intentional “Radical Change” of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

And, if Congress refused to follow my wishes, I would attempt to grant Amnesty through “Executive Order”, bypassing the System of Checks and Balances that America’s Founding Fathers put into place, so long ago, in order to avoid a monarchy, such as they rebelled against.

Finally, if I were a Socialist U.S. President, I would blame others for my incompetency. I would portray myself as a victim of a Capitalist System and a Racist Ideology that was still prevalent in a nation that was too narrow-minded to allow me to lead them to a Socialist Paradise, even though my wife and I were worth millions or dollars, I was the President of the United States of America, and we took numerous vacations and went on “fact-finding missions” at the expense of the American Taxpayers.

Of course, that could never happen HERE, could it?

Norman Matoon Thomas (1884-1968) was a six-time Presidential Candidate  representing the Socialist Party of America.  In a campaign interview in 1948, he said the following:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Clinton to Give Address Attacking Trump on “National Security”. Irony is Embarrassed.

The 3 a.m. Phone Call
The 3 a.m. Phone Call

Have you ever known someone who had been an abysmal failure at their previous job, but still claimed to be an “expert’ at it?

Case in point…

Thehill.com reports that

Hillary Clinton will launch an attack on Donald Trump’s national security policy Thursday, focusing on an issue the likely Democratic presidential nominee could use to her advantage over the billionaire New Yorker.

The address in San Diego will “make clear the threat that Donald Trump would pose to our national security and to put forth her own vision for keeping America safe at home and leading in the world,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

For Clinton, the move is part of an effort to paint Trump as fundamentally unsuited to lead the world’s most powerful military as she hopes to pivot away from the extended Democratic primary and toward a general election match-up with the presumptive GOP nominee. Trump has at times appeared ignorant of major global dynamics and stumbled on foreign policy in the past, exposing what could be a vulnerability in a campaign against Clinton, a former secretary of State. Prominent officials in both parties have criticized his “America first” foreign policy doctrine.

The attacks on Trump’s lack of national security bona fides have increased speculation that he might pick a running mate with more experience in the defense or foreign policy, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker.

“Throughout this campaign, Trump has refused to outline any coherent foreign policy doctrine, failed to demonstrate a basic understanding of world affairs, and repeatedly proven he’s temperamentally unfit to serve as our commander-in-chief,” Clinton’s campaign said on Wednesday. 

“Clinton will rebuke the fear, bigotry, and misplaced defeatism that Trump has been selling to the American people,” it added. “She will make the affirmative case for the exceptional role America has played and must continue to play in order to keep our country safe and our economy growing.”

Despite his apparent weaknesses, however, Trump benefitted the most when the GOP primary contest took on a national security focus following deadly terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino last year. Notwithstanding their radical nature, Trump’s proposals to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and temporarily ban foreign Muslims from entering the country have attracted a fair amount of support from fellow Republicans.

Let’s talk about what a bang-up job that Former Secretary of State Clinton did in preserving our “National Security” during her tenure in that position, shall we?

Here are seven Foreign Policy Disasters, which happened under Hillary’s watch as the Architect of “Smart Power!”, in no particular order:

The decision to overthrow President Gaddafi in Libya – The short-sighted, ill-conceived action not only undermined an ally in the (now defunct) “Global War on Terror,” it also served to throw gasoline on the bonfire known as “Arab Spring”.

President Ronald Reagan had a missile fired into Gaddafi’s bedroom, resulting in him keeping quiet for 25 years. Just sayin’…

The Afghanistan “surge”- A military campaign that fails to result in a desired political outcome is con only be considered a failure. What exactly was Obama and Hillary’s desired outcome when they called for this?

It is a fait d’accompli that the Karzai Government will be able to survive long once the U.S. completes its withdrawal of its combat forces from the country in 2014. This is can only be considered a failure, A failure which cost too many of our Brightest and Best.

Granting Afghanistan major non-NATO U.S. ally status – Why did Barry and Hill decide to grant Afghanistan the status of a major non-NATO ally? When we pull out, our enemies will pour in. And, with “friends” like these, you don’t need enemies.

Maintaining the status quo with Pakistan – Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring Sunni jihadists of various stripes. Following the 2001 attacks on the United States, they did an about-face, becoming a chief partner in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan as well as its “global war on terror.”

10 years later, following the successful May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, Pakistan promptly denounced the U.S. and closed its vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan.
Hil and Barry got “played”.

The East Asia “pivot” – Strictly an exercise in containment,attempts at containing China will only fuel Chinese fears of foreign encirclement, that will encourage Chinese assertiveness, that will further encourage containment.

This pivot is only a bluff on behalf of the feckless purveyors of “Smart Power” to begin with.

As shown by the continued drawing of “Red Lines”, they will not stand up to our enemies.

Arab Spring – The Arab Spring was a series of protests and uprisings in the Middle East that began with unrest in Tunisia in late 2010. The Arab Spring has brought down regimes in some Arab countries, sparked mass violence in others, while some governments managed to delay the trouble with a mix of repression, promise of reform and state largesse.

Through this all Hillary and Obama have back the Muslim Brotherhood, the Godfather of Muslim Terrorist Organizations, in deposing Moderate Muslim Leaders.

Doesn’t make a while lot of sense, does it?

BenghaziGate – On September 11, 2012, Muslim Terrorists stormed the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, slaughtered 4 brave Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stephens, whose lifeless, sexually assaulted body they drug through the streets, while taking cell phone pictures of his corpse.

I have written several blogs about the Administration’s Cover-up of this atrocity, but the seminal moment, regarding Hillary Clinton came in January of 2013, during an exchange between her and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Johnson asked her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. Hillary, as we say down here in Dixie, “got on her high keys” and said,

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

When I first sat down to write today’s article, I considered the ironic Bizarro-World suspension of reality of  Failed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticizing the Presumptive Republican Candidate for President Donald J. Trump’s lack of experience in the field of National Security.

A  great many thoughts entered my head…some of them even repeatable.

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind, right now, as I sit here at my computer.

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

I also remembered the image of Benghazi Barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones.

My mind envisioned the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well.

I imagined Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remembered the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration, including then-Secretary of State Clinton, solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Former Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…even after all this time, to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

You have no room to criticize anyone concerning their National Security “Bona Fides”.

And, you should be ashamed to be running for the office of President of the United States of America.

But, your Machiavellian Ego and sense of entitlement will not allow you to be.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Trump to Outline Foreign Policy Platform Today

image

Today, after sweeping five states last night in the Republican Primary Elections, while mathematically eliminating chief rival Ted Cruz in the process, Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee Donald J. Trump will outline his Foreign Policy Platform, in a televised speech.

Reuters.com reports that

Donald Trump will set aside his bad-boy antics on Wednesday and, with the help of a teleprompter to keep him on message, outline what his foreign policies would be if he is elected U.S. president in November, campaign aides say.

Governments alarmed at the prospect of a Trump presidency will be paying close attention. Critics have accused the Republican front-runner of bigotry and posing a danger to U.S. national security.

Many foreign policy and defense advisers say his views are worrying, mingling isolationism and protectionism, with calls to force U.S. allies to pay more for their defense and proposals to impose punitive tariffs on some imported goods.

“Part of what I’m saying is we love our country and we love our allies, but our allies can no longer be taking advantage of this country,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday night in a speech preview.

He said he would focus on nuclear weapons as the single biggest threat in the world today. “I’m probably the last on the trigger,” Trump told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday, citing his opposition to the Iraq war.

Trump, 69, said he agreed with President Barack Obama’s decision to send an additional 250 U.S. Special Forces into Syria but would not have made the decision public. “I would send them in quietly because right now they have a target on their back,” he told CNN.

He also said his speech would focus on the economics of foreign policy “because we’re getting killed on economics.”

The billionaire businessman promises to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States and to build a wall to block off Mexico.

His policies are popular with many voters who want change, but foreign policy elites are concerned.

“It’s a perfect storm of isolationism, muscular nationalism, with a dash of pragmatism and realism,” said Aaron David Miller, a foreign policy scholar who has worked in Republican and Democratic administrations.

The speech at noon (1600 GMT) in a Washington hotel will address issues including global trade, economic and national security policies as well as building up the U.S. military, his campaign said.

Boys and girls…all of this “voiced concern” is a good thing.

A strong American President is essential to retaining the sovereignty of our country.

As a 22-year old College Senior, I was privileged to cast my first-ever vote in a National Election. That vote took place in November of 1980, and it was for the greatest American President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The popularity of President Reagan was not just limited to the boundaries of our nation. He was admired the world over. The things that he accomplished, along with his friends, Prime Minister of Britain Margaret Thatcher, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and Pope John Paul II, have caused the decade of the 1980s to be recorded as a seminal moment in world history.

I remember watching President Reagan speak at the Berlin Wall. When he said, “Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!”, I was never prouder to be an American and of an American president, than at that moment.

Liberals, around the world, lost their collective minds.

For you see, Liberal Leaders, just as they do now, hate it when Marxism gives way to Freedom.

Nothing bothers them more than when a strong American President is at the forefront of a conquering moment, when a strong foreign policy is based on the reality that negotiating from a position of strength is always more effective than negotiating from a position of weakness.

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

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

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

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

America must have a president who will man up and negotiate from a position of strength with both our friends and our enemies.

Unfortunately for our present safety as nation, Obama’s Fantasyland view of the world, which is not unlike the old Coca Cola Advertisement where everyone had a Coke and a smile, set him up to be a disastrous failure at Foreign Policy.

A failure, which finds our enemies in Iran still working on a nuclear bomb and Russian Leader Vladimir Putin beginning the process of annexing surrounding countries and rebuilding the old Soviet Union, which was dissolved, thanks to the efforts of a real leader and American President, Ronald Reagan.

The popular defense, currently being thrown against the wall to see if it sticks by Liberals on behalf of their fallen messiah’s failed Foreign Policy, is to attack those who are critical of it, by claiming that we are all of bunch of “Christianist Raaaciiist Hate Mongers”.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Failure explains the resistance of foreign leaders to the possible Presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Ronald Reagan, when he was “out on the stump” for Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater, in October of 1964, delivered a powerful speech titled, “A Time for Choosing”. At one point in that now-classic speech, he spoke about America’s role in the world, stating that

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

…You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Once again, we have “a rendezvous with destiny.”

Foreign Leaders, who like the advantage that they have gained, under the weak and vacillating Foreign Policy of Barack Hussein Obama, do not want the United States to regain our position as the Leader of the Free World.

That is why they fear a Trump Presidency.

It is far more lucrative for them, when the United States “negotiates from a position of weakness”.

They certainly do not want to negotiate with an American President who has mastered “The Art of the Deal”.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Hypocritically Lectures UK. American Citizens to British: “Welcome to the party, pal!”

th (67)I believe the most compelling explanation of Obama’s actions is that he is, just like his father, an anti-colonialist. Anti-colonialism is the idea that the rich countries got rich by looting the poor countries, and that within the rich countries, plutocratic and corporate elites continue to exploit ordinary citizens. – Dinesh D’Souza. “Why Obama is an Anti-colonialist”, The Washington Post, 10/18/2010

The Daily Mail reports that

President Barack Obama told Britain today that it would have to ‘go to the back of the queue’ if it leaves the European Union, then tries to negotiate its own trade deal with the United States.

A US-UK trade agreement is not going to happen ‘any time soon,’ Obama said during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

‘Not because we don’t have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements, which is hugely inefficient,’ the U.S. leader said.

Obama faced a furious backlash overseas this morning over what has been called a ‘downright hypocritical’ push for Britain to stay in the European Union.

In a highly controversial intervention in the EU referendum campaign, Obama pleaded with British voters in a local newspaper and then the press conference not to cut ties with Brussels.

‘The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it is helping to lead a strong Europe,’ Obama said during a news conference at Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

In his op-ed Obama also invoked the spirit of the Second World War by claiming the sacrifice of GIs meant America has a stake in the EU debate and said the decision in June’s referendum ‘will echo in the prospects of today’s generation of Americans as well’.

London Mayor Boris Johnson accused him of making an ‘incoherent’ and ‘inconsistent’ argument.  

A furious Johnson said this morning: ‘The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU, for themselves or for their neighbors in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?’

Obama told residents of the UK today he doesn’t believe he’s overstepping.

Ultimately ‘this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make,’ he told them.

‘I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I’m offering my opinion, and in democracies everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made.

He said, ‘That’s not a threat, that should enhance the debate.’

The U.S. president said he feels its his prerogative to clarify the U.S. position rather than have it defined by British politicians. 

‘So they are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do,’ he said.

‘And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.

He added, ‘The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.’

Obama brought up WWII and the international institutions the US and UK designed together including the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO.

‘All of those in some degree constrained our freedom to operate and occasionally we had to deal with some bureaucracy,’ he said, ‘it meant that on occasion we had to persuade other countries and we don’t get 100 percent of what we want in each case but we knew that by doing so, everybody was going to be better off.’ 

He again the UK involvement in the EU ‘magnifies’ the nation’s power – ‘it doesn’t diminish it’ and argued that ‘divisions in Europe’ would weaken NATO.

‘That’ll have an impact on our collective security,’ he stated. ‘I have a confidence in the UK, and I know that if we are not working effectively with Paris or Brussels then those attacks are going to migrate to the United States and to London, I want one of my strongest partners in that conversation.’ 

Hitting back at his critics, Obama said, ‘All of us cherish our sovereignty – our country is pretty vocal about that – but the US also recognizes that we strengthen our security through our membership of Nato, we strengthen our prosperity through organisations like the G7 and the G20.’

‘I believe the UK strengthens both our collective security and prosperity through the EU.’

If you have not heard about this, it’s a miracle.

First, Obama’s audacity is breathtaking.

The leaders of the United Kingdom did not ask us about our opinion of their planned exit from the European Union, a fractured organization at best.

For Obama to waltz in there, as if he was a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago, like he was in his younger days, is the height of arrogance.

Yesterday’s lecture was just one example of his true feelings about the United Kingdom , feelings which stem from an anti-colonialism, which he harbors, due to the fact that his ancestral homeland of Kenya, was once subservient to the British Empire.

Secondly, as the people of Great Britain noted, Obama is a hypocrite.

Just as he has lectured the American people, throughout his tenure as president of the United States, Obama is infamous for attempting to make people do as he says, and not as he does.

Petulant President Pantywaist, a name which I bestowed upon Obama, is actually a play on words that originated from a British writer, shortly after Obama took office, as Britain and the rest of our allies realized that Obama was spineless.

And…he was in way over his head.

As I have written before, Obama’s Foreign Policy has been feckless, to say the least.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Doctrine is comparable to the actions of pyromaniac, who lights a fire wherever he goes, oblivious to the consequences of his actions.

Just as the actual pyromaniac costs an untold amount of damage to people’s lives, so has Obama cost the United States of America an untold amount of possibly-unrepairable damage, by embracing our enemies and alienating our friends, during his tenure as president.

And, since Hillary Clinton, as Obama’s first Secretary of State, was responsible for a great deal of this damage, she most certainly does not need to be Obama’s successor.

Our next president has to be someone who can successfully negotiate, who is skilled at speaking to people one-on-one or around a Conference Table, and who will always have the best interests of the United States of America at heart, placing our nation and our people first, in everything that he does.

Hopefully ,the alienation of America’s allies, which has, intentionally or unintentionally, been accomplished by Obama and his two Secretary of States, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John F. Kerry, can be repaired.

Like the people of our country, I know that the citizens of our allies around the world, will breathe a sigh of relief, next January, when Obama leaves office.

As we have all found out,

With a “friend” like Barack Hussein Obama, who needs enemies?

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

It Takes a Radical: The Very Political Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (An Unauthorized Biographical Analysis)

PROLOGUE:  I researched the following information and recorded it as a 4 part series about the 2016 presumptive Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am offering it today, as a 5,500 word essay, because, with many still insisting that, despite all of the controversy concerning the impropriety involving her handling of Top Secret E-mails while Secretary of State, that she still remains the inevitable Democratic Candidate for President in the Elections of November 2016,  I feel that it is imperative to share this information in a form where it will be easy for you , gentle readers, to share with your friends and family. 

She is presently the Front-runner for the Democratic Nomination as their Candidate for the Presidency. Even though, she is constantly attempting to present herself as a “Moderate” Democrat, and “Woman of the People”, as a  linchpin of her Campaign Strategy, the story of her life reveals someone quite different.


Hillary Clinton 1On October 26, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham entered this world in Chicago, Illinois.Hillary Rodham, the oldest daughter of Hugh Rodham, a prosperous fabric store owner, and Dorothy Emma Howell Rodham, was raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, a quaint little suburb located 15 miles northwest of downtown Chicago. Hillary has two younger brothers, Hugh Jr. (born 1950) and Anthony (born 1954).In her youth, the future Democrat was active in young Republican groups, even campaigning for the 1964 Republican Presidential Nominee, Barry Goldwater.According to Hil, she was inspired to work in some form of public service after hearing the Reverend Martin Luther King speak in Chicago. She became a Democrat in 1968.The young ingenue attended Wellesley College, where she was active in student politics, being elected Senior Class President before she graduated in 1969.After that, Hilary enrolled in Yale Law School, where she met Bill “Bubba” Clinton.  Afer graduating with honors in 1973, she then enrolled at Yale Child Study Center, where she took courses on children and medicine and completed one post-graduate year of study, which explains her whole “It takes a village” philosophy.While a college student, Hillary worked several summer jobs. In 1971, she arrived in Washington, D.C. to work on U.S. Senator Walter Mondale’s sub-committee on migrant workers. The next summer found her out west, working for the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern.Then, in the spring of 1974, Rodham became a member of the presidential impeachment inquiry staff, advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal.Her boss back then, Jerry Zeifman, now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, tells a very revealing story concerning her work there.According to Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former Yale Law Professor, Burke Marshall, also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.When the Watergate Investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. That made the Future First Lady and Secretary of State one of only three people who earned that badge of dishonor in Zeifman’s 17-year career.Why?

According to Zeifman,

Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Zeifman claims that she was one of several individuals including Marshall, Special Counsel John Doar, and Senior Associate Special Counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum, who plotted to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Zeifman believes  that they were deathly afraid of putting the break-in’s mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by Counsel to the President.  The reason being, Hunt had the goods regarding some dirty dealings  in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a kid busting open his Piggy Bank…dealings which purportedly included Kennedy’s complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

Hillary and her associates were acting directly against the decision of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, who all believed that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel.

The reason that Hillary and the rest came up with the scheme is because they believed that they could gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

In order to pull off this scheme, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

Hillary wanted to present in her brief that there was no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. Zeifman told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970….

As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer.

Douglas was allowed to keep counsel by the Judicial Committee in place at the time, which clearly established a precedent. Zeifman told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

That was  a mistake, per Zeifman…

Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public.

Hillary then wrote a legal brief which argued that there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding…ignoring the Douglas case completely.

The brief was so laughingly fraudulent, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had ever actually submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary and her associates had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even be a part of the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

After President Richard M. Nixon resigned in August, rendering the matter of her deception moot, Hillary became a faculty member of the University of Arkansas Law School in Fayetteville, where her Yale Law School classmate and boyfriend Bill Clinton was also teaching.

Hillary Rodham married Bill Clinton on October 11, 1975, at their home in Fayetteville. Before he proposed, Bubba had secretly purchased a small house that Hillary had previously said that she liked. When she accepted his marriage proposal, he revealed that they owned the house.

Hillary Clinton #2After she married Bill in 1975, Hillary Rodham Clinton worked on Jimmy Carter’s successful campaign for presidenti in1976, while Bill got elected Attorney General of the state of Arkansas.

Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock after Bill became Attorney General, and made partner only after he was elected governor, according to Former Clinton Confidante Dick Morris.

That event occurred in 1978.

President Carter appointed Mrs. Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in 1978. This was a federally funded nonprofit organization which was designed as a way to expand the social welfare state and grow social welfare spending. According to Dick Morris, the appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary went on to become board chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Hillary more than tripled LSC’s annual budget, from $90 million to $321 million, in taxpayer funds (OUR money). LSC used these funds in several different ways, most notable among them, the printing of political training manuals showing “how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources,” and the financing of training programs that taught political activists how to harass their opposition.

While Hillary was running the LSC board, the Corporation also

1. Worked to defeat a California referendum that would have cut state income taxes in half

2. Called for the U.S. government to give two-thirds of the state of Maine to American Indians

3.  Paid Marxist orators and folk singers to wage a campaign against the Louisiana Wildlife Commission

4.  Joined a Michigan initiative to recognize “Black English” as an official language;

5.  Sought to force the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts so as to avoid “discriminat[ing]” against “minorities” who were “handicapped.”

When it became clear that Ronald Reagan was on the verge of beating Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1980, LSC redirected massive amounts of its public funding into an anti-Reagan letter-writing campaign by indigent clients. After Reagan was elected in November 1980, LSC immediately laundered its assets — some $260 million — into state-level agencies and private groups so as to keep the funds away from the board that Reagan would eventually appoint. Hillary Clinton left LSC in 1981.

While Bubba was  Governor of Arkansas from 1978 to 1980, and again from 1982 to 1992, Hillary was very active “behind the scenes”.

During these years, she continued her legal practice as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. In 1978 she also became a board member of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), and from 1986 to 1992 she served as chair of the CDF Board.

From 1982 to 1988, Hillary also chaired the New World Foundation (NWF), which had helped to launch CDF in 1973. While running the NWF, the Foundation made grants to such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Christic Institute, Grassroots International, the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (which sought to foment a Communist revolution in Central America), and groups with ties to the most extreme elements of the African National Congress.

According to Dick Morris, when Clinton was considering not running for another term as Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn’t. She and Bill even had Morris take two surveys to assess her chances of winning. The conclusion was that she couldn’t win because people would just see her as a seat warmer for when Bill came back licking his wounds after losing for president. So she didn’t run. Bill did and won. But there is no question she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.

So, while Bill was the Front Man, Hil worked “the Back of the House”, in preparation for her “moment in the spotlight”.

During the Clintons’ time in Arkansas, they also both became involved in a little matter which later became known as “The Whitewater Scandal”.

In 1978, while Bubba was Attorney General of Arkansas, Hil and he partnered with James and Susan McDougal in a purchase 220 acres of land that would evolve into the Whitewater Development Corporation. The real estate venture tanked, costing the Clintons a reported $40,000 in losses. After that James McDougal went into the banking industry, forming Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

In 1986, federal regulators investigated another real estate investment backed by James McDougal. The investigation led to McDougal’s resignation from Madison Guaranty and the eventual collapse of the bank. Questions surrounding the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater deal grew during President Clinton’s first term in office and an investigation into the legality of the Whitewater transactions was launched.

All subsequent inquiries into the Whitewater land deal yielded insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct. However, several of their associates were convicted as a result the investigations.

In July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton was nominated by the Democratic Party as their Candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

In August of that year, Daniel Wattenberg wrote the following prophetic statement in the opening of an article for “The American Spectator” titled, “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock”…

Hillary Clinton has been likened to Eva Peron, but it’s a bad analogy. Evita was worshipped by the “shirtless ones,” the working class, while Hillary’s charms elude most outside of an elite cohort of left-liberal, baby-boom feminists-the type who thought Anita Hill should be canonized and Thelma and Louise was the best movie since Easy Rider. Hillary reckons herself the next Eleanor Roosevelt. But, standing well to the left of her husband and enjoying an independent power base within his coalition, Hillary is best thought of as the Winnie Mandela of American politics. She has likened the American family to slavery, thinks kids should be able to sue their parents to resolve family arguments, and during her tenure as a foundation officer gave away millions (much of it in no-strings-attached grants) to the left-including sizable sums to hard-left organizers. She is going to cause her husband no end of political embarrassment between now and November-and who knows how long afterward.

Mr. Wattenberg nailed that one, huh?

Hillary Clinton #3Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States of America on January 20, 1993.  Standing right behind him…and pushing hard was Hillary Rodham Clinton, by now widely known as the more-driven, and politically ambitious one of the couple.

Billed as “the New Camelot” by the Main Stream Media, the Clintons strode arm-in-arm into their castle to preside over their new kingdom, where Progressivism in the name of “Moderation” would be the Law of the Land.

However, just as the reign of Arthur and Guinevere ended badly, into the Clintons’ storybook “Co-Presidency”, “a little rain” fell in the form of scandals and quite a few “Bimbo Eruptions” which brought about an inglorious end to all of their “peace and harmony”.

Rose Law Firm Billing – As I wrote previously, in 1978, while Bubba was Attorney General of Arkansas, Hil and he partnered with James and Susan McDougal in a purchase 220 acres of land that would evolve into the Whitewater Development Corporation. The real estate venture tanked, costing the Clintons a reported $40,000 in losses. After that James McDougal went into the banking industry, forming Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan.

In 1986, federal regulators investigated another real estate investment backed by James McDougal. The investigation led to McDougal’s resignation from Madison Guaranty and the eventual collapse of the bank. Questions surrounding the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater deal grew during President Clinton’s first term in office and an investigation into the legality of the Whitewater transactions was launched.

After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House announced on the evening of January 6, 1996, that it had unexpectedlydiscovered copies of missing documents from the Rose Law Firm that describe Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980′s.

Federal and Congressional investigators had issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House claimed not have them. The originals disappeared from the Rose Law Firm, shortly before Bill Clinton was inaugurated as President.

The newly discovered documents were copies of billing records from the Rose firm. The originals were found under the Clintons’ bed in the White House, shortly after the statute of limitations ran out.

All subsequent inquiries into the Whitewater land deal yielded insufficient evidence to charge the Clintons with criminal conduct. However, several of their associates were convicted as a result of the investigations.

Death of Vince Foster – On July 20, 1993, Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy counsel to the president of the United States, and former partner with Hillary, in The Rose Law Firm, was found lying neatly face-up on a steep embankment in Marcy Park with his feet pointing down, dressed in expensive trousers and a white dress shirt, less than eight miles from the White House, with a single gun-shot wound to the head. Dead. Some of the blood on Foster’s face was still wet, but starting to dry. A trail of blood flowed upwards from his nose to above his ear. The man who found his body said there was no gun, but after he left to notify police, a gun appeared in Foster’s hand. President William Jefferson Clinton’s Arkansas childhood friend, First Lady Hillary Clinton’s Rose Law Firm partner, and White House confidante’s death was to become the subject of controversy.

Due to Foster’s involvement in Whitewater, both at Rose and in the White House, the Senate Whitewater Committee investigation’s conclusion revealed that there was “a concerted effort by senior White House officials to block career law enforcement investigators from conducting a thorough investigation” into Foster’s death, and recommended “that steps be taken to insure that such misuse of the White House counsel’s office does not recur in this, or any future, administration.”

So, was Vince Foster murdered? And, why?

In 1999, a book titled, “Bill and Hillary: The Marriage”, caused a lot of consternation among the Clintons and their supporters.

The author, Christopher Andersen, claimed that in 1977 she began an intensely passionate affair with Vince Foster.

The affair supposedly took place when the two were lawyers at The Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, while Bubba was governor.

Rumors of an affair first started buzzing around after Foster was found in Marcy Park. The book did not say when the relationship ended.

To this day, the circumstances surrounding the death of Vince Foster, remain a topic for conjecture.

 Travelgate – In early summer of 1993, 6 employees of the White House Travel Office were fired, after Hil and Bubba determined that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came along with it, Coulee be taken over by a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who already owned her own travel agency.

However, they could not just go ahead and hand over a governmental office to a relative, without a backlash, so the Clintons made up a story, claiming that the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there had to be fired. An audit of the Travel Office ensued, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, no corruption or embezzlement were found. That did not matter to the Clintons, so they went ahead and pressured the FBI to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was given instructions to prosecute the employees for corruption.

Of course, the Clintons denied being behind any sort of scheme in the matter. However, leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism. Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired and the trial for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in a verdict of “NOT GUILTY”.

Clinton’s cousin was subsequently removed as new head of the Travel Office.

Afterward, Independent Counsel Robert Ray wrote a report that concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

Bimbo Eruptions – Back in the Bill Clinton era, White House advisor Betsey Wright coined the term “bimbo eruptions” to describe a long list of presidential gal pals.

BIll “Bubba” Clinton’s Bimbo List” included, but is not limited to (I’m sure) Jennifer Flowers, Former Miss America Elizabeth Ward, Paul Corbin Jones, and, of course, Monica Lewinsky.

The Lewinsky scandal was a sensation that enveloped the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1998–99, leading to his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and acquittal by the Senate.

Paula Corbin Jones, a former Arkansas state worker who claimed that Bill Clinton had accosted her sexually in 1991 when he was governor of Arkansas, had brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president. In order to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton’s part, Jones’s lawyers questioned several women believed to have been engaging in sex  with him. On Jan. 17, 1998, Bubba took the stand, becoming the first sitting president to testify as a civil defendant.

During this testimony, Clinton denied having had an affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, an unpaid intern and later a paid staffer at the White House who worked in the White House from 1995–96. Lewinsky had earlier, in a deposition in the same case, also denied having such a relationship. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel in the Whitewater case, had already received tape recordings made by Linda R. Tripp (a former coworker of Lewinsky’s) of telephone conversations in which Lewinsky described her involvement with the president. Asserting that there was a “pattern of deception,” Starr obtained from Attorney General Janet Reno permission to investigate the matter.

The president publicly denied having had a relationship with Lewinsky and charges of covering it up. His adviser, Vernon Jordan, denied having counseled Lewinsky to lie in the Jones case, or having arranged a job for her outside Washington, to help cover up the affair. Hillary Clinton claimed that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was trying to destroy her husband, while Republicans and conservatives portrayed him as immoral and a liar.

In March, Jordan and others testified before Starr’s grand jury, and lawyers for Paula Jones released papers revealing, among other things, that Clinton, in his January deposition, had admitted to a sexual relationship in the 1980s with Arkansas entertainer Gennifer Flowers, a charge he had long denied. In April, however, Arkansas federal judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Jones suit, ruling that Jones’s story, if true, showed that she had been exposed to “boorish” behavior but not sexual harassment; Jones appealed.

In July, Starr granted Lewinsky immunity from perjury charges, and Clinton agreed to testify before the grand jury. He did so on Aug. 17, then went on television to admit the affair with Lewinsky and ask for forgiveness. In September, Starr sent a 445-page report to the House of Representatives, recommending four possible grounds for impeachment: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and abuse of authority.

On Dec. 19, Clinton became the second president (after Andrew Johnson) to be impeached, on two charges: perjury—in his Aug., 1998, testimony—and obstruction of justice. The vote in the House was largely along party lines.

In Jan., 1999, the trial began in the Senate. On Feb. 12, after a trial in which testimony relating to the charges was limited, the Senate rejected both counts of impeachment. The perjury charge lost, 55–45, with 10 Republicans joining all 45 Democrats in voting against it; the obstruction charge drew a 50–50 vote. Subsequently, on Apr. 12, Judge Wright, who had dismissed the Jones case, found the president in contempt for lying in his Jan., 1998, testimony, when he denied the Lewinsky affair. In July, Judge Wright ordered the president to pay nearly $90,000 to Ms. Jones’s lawyers. On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, President Clinton agreed to admit to giving false testimony in the Jones case and to accept a five-year suspension of his law license and a $25,000 fine in return for an agreement by the independent counsel, Robert W. Ray (Starr’s successor), to end the investigation and not prosecute him.

In a later interview, Hillary claimed that Bill suffered childhood abuse which may have caused him to philanderer and experience “bimbo eruptions” later in life. She described her philandering husband as “a hard dog to keep on the porch”.

The Clinton Co-Presidency ended with the Inauguration of President George W. Bush on January 20, 2001.

However, Hillary Clinton’s “time in the Spotlight” was just beginning.

Hillary Clinton #4On November 6, 2000, Former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected Democratic Senator for the State of New York, serving unremarkably until leaving Office on January 21, 2009.

During her undistinguished career in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton voted on a variety of key pieces of legislation as follows:

  • in favor of a 2003 bill to ban oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  • in favor of an October 2002 joint resolution to authorize the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq
  • against major tax-cut proposals in 2001 and 2003
  • in favor of a 2007 proposal to end the use of a point-based immigration system, (i.e., a system that seeks to ensure that people with skills that society needs are given preference for entry into the United States)
  • against a 2007 amendment designating English as the language of “sole legal authority” for the business of the federal government, and declaring that no person has a right to require officials of the U.S. government to use a language other than English
  • against a 2008 bill urging an expansion of the zero-tolerance prosecution policy for illegal aliens; calling for the completion of 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border; allowing for the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the U.S. southern border; and encouraging the identification and deportation of illegal immigrants currently in the American prison system
  • in favor of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act), which put restrictions on paid advertising during the weeks just prior to political elections, and tightly regulated the amount of money which political parties and candidates could accept from donors
  • against separate proposals (in 2004 and 2005) to ban lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others
  • against a 2003 proposal to ban the late-term procedure commonly known as “partial-birth abortion”
  • against a 2004 proposal to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman
  • against a 2006 bill making it illegal to knowingly transport a pregnant minor across state lines in order to obtain an abortion, as a way to escape state laws requiring parental consent

One week after Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, on November 4, 2008, he called Hillary and offered her the job of Secretary of State, despite the fact that she had no Foreign Policy experience. It was a suspicious choice at best, considering that fact that when they were running against each other in the Democratic Primaries,Obama had specifically criticized Clinton’s Foreign Policy credentials and the initial idea of him appointing her had been so unexpected that she had told one of her own aides, “Not in a million years.”

The fact that she had campaigned unreservedly for Obama after he defeated her for the Democratic Nomination, led to speculation that the Secretary of State job was a “reward for her loyalty”.

Hillary accepted the position, and now, as speculation concerning a possible Presidential Campaign runs rampant, even the Main Stream Media is hard-pressed to come up with anything she accomplished as Obama’s First Secretary of State.

So, how did she do?

On January 26, 2013, after Hillary had stepped down as Secretary of State and was replaced by Senator John Kerry, the following conversation took place between Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace and Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume…

WALLACE: Yeah, I want to pick up on that, Brit, because during the hearing, what struck me was the Republicans were tough on Hillary, on Benghazi and the Democrats weren’t. But, both sides kept on saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. And here’s some of the points that have been brought up, some of her accomplishments. She helped assemble the bombing campaign in Libya to topple Muammar Qaddafi. She helped assembly the coalition that imposed the toughest sanctions ever on Iran. And, she established diplomatic ties with Burma.

Question, Brit, how do you rate Hillary Clinton’s performance, record as our top diplomat?

HUME: I think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. They do not add up to a case for greatness, after all, the groundwork on Burma had been done by the previous administration. And the administration properly followed through on it. You look across the world, now at the major issues. Are Arabs and Israelis closer to peace? How about Iran and North Korea and their nuclear programs? Have they been halted or seriously set back? Has the reset with Russia, which she so famously introduced with the photo-op in Moscow with the reset button, has they lead to a new and more cooperative relationship? Is there a Clinton doctrine that we can identify that she has articulated and formed as secretary of state? Are there major treaties that she has undertaken and negotiated through to a successful conclusion? I think the answer to all those questions is that she has not. And those are the kinds of things that might mark her as a great secretary of state.

She has certainly been industrious. She has visited 112 countries. Her conduct as secretary of state has been highly dignified. She does her homework. There have been no gaffes or blunders. So I think she has been a capable and hard-working secretary of state, but I think the case for her being a great secretary of state is exceedingly weak.

Brit was being gracious. Here are seven Foreign Policy Disasters, which happened under Hillary’s watch as the Architect of “Smart Power!”, in no particular order:

The decision to overthrow President Gaddafi in Libya – The short-sighted, ill-conceived action not only undermined an ally in the (now defunct) “global war on terror,” it also served to throw gasoline on the bonfire known as “Arab Spring.

The Afghanistan “surge”- A military campaign that fails to result in a desired political outcome is con only be considered a failure. What exactly was Obama and Hillary’s desired outcome when they called for this?
It is a fait d’accompli that the Karzai Government will be able to survive long once the U.S. completes its withdrawal of its combat forces from the country in 2014. This is can only be considered a failure, A failure which cost too many of our Brightest and Best.

Granting Afghanistan major non-NATO U.S. ally status – Why did Barry and Hill decide to grant Afghanistan the status of a major non-NATO ally? When we pull out, our enemied will pour in. And, with “friends” like these, you don’t need enemies.

Maintaining the status quo with Pakistan – Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring Sunni jihadists of various stripes. Following the 2001 attacks on the United States, they did an about-face, becoming a chief partner in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan as well as its “global war on terror.”
10 years later, following the successful May 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan that resulted in the death of Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, Pakistan promptly denounced the U.S. and closed its vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan.
Hil and Barry got “played”.

The East Asia “pivot” – Strictly an exercise in containment,attempts at containing China will only fuel Chinese fears of foreign encirclement, that will encourage Chinese assertiveness, that will further encourage containment.
This pivot is only a bluff on behalf of the feckless purveyors of “Smart Power” to begin with.

As shown by the continued drawing of “Red Lines”, they will not stand up to our enemies.

Arab Spring – The Arab Spring was a series of protests and uprisings in the Middle East that began with unrest in Tunisia in late 2010. The Arab Spring has brought down regimes in some Arab countries, sparked mass violence in others, while some governments managed to delay the trouble with a mix of repression, promise of reform and state largesse.
Through this all Hillary and Obama have back the Muslim Brotherhood, the Godfather of Muslim Terrorist Organizations, in deposing Moderate Muslim Leaders.
Doesn’t make a while lot of sense, does it?

BenghaziGate – On September 11, 2012, Muslim Terrorists stormed the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, slaughtered 4 brave Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stephens, whose lifeless, sexually assaulted body they drug through the streets, while taking cell phone pictures of his corpse.
I have written several blogs about the Administration’s Cover-up of this atrocity, but the seminal moment, regarding Hillary Clinton came in January of 2013, during an exchange between her and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Johnson asked her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. Hillary, as we say down here in Dixie, “got on her high keys” and said,

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

SUMMARY: When I first finished writing this unauthorized biography of Hillary Clinton, I considered the reality of Hillary Clinton running for President, and a great many thoughts entered my head…some of them even repeatable.

In fact, there are a lot of images that race dthrough my mind, right now, as I sit here at my computer.

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

I also remembered the image of Benghazi Barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisioned the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagined Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remembered the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration, including then-Secretary of State Clinton, solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Former Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…even after all this time, to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed to be running for the office of President of the United States.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

***The information contained in this Blog may be found at biography.comcanadafreepress.combiography.com,

discoverthenetworks.orginvestopedia.com, The American SpectatorThe New York Timescanadafreepress.com,

bbc.co.uk, frontpagemag.com, theguardian.com, infoplease.comdiscoverthenetworks.org,

realclearpolitics.compolicy mic.com,mideast.about.com, and wsj.com.***

After Giving Nuclear Capability and Money to Iran, Obama and Kerry Still Seek Tehran’s “Cooperation”

Iran-Cheat-600-LAThe following is a description of the consequences of an American President and his Secretary of State, who still refuse to negotiate from “a position of strength”.

CNSNews.com reports that

Secretary of State John Kerry appealed to Iran on Thursday to work constructively to help end the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, holding out the prospect of some form of new regional security “arrangement” should Tehran choose to cooperate.

In separate appearances in Manama with his Saudi and Bahraini counterparts, Kerry referred – without elaborating – to the possibility of such an arrangement.

Alongside Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, Kerry referred to Iran’s role in Syria and Yemen – the U.S. Navy recently interdicted an Iranian arms shipment believed destined to the Houthi rebels – and to its ballistic missile activity.

“But we say very clearly to Iran,” he said, “that we’re prepared to work a new arrangement to find a peaceful solution to these issues.”

“And we look for Iran to make it clear to everybody that they are prepared to cease these kinds of activities that raise questions about credibility and questions about intention,” Kerry added.

And in an earlier appearance with Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, Kerry said he knew from his conversations in Manama that the Gulf states “would welcome Iran to the table if they want to be part of a genuine security arrangement for the region.”

The six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates – have been leery of how the nuclear deal and sanctions relief may impact Iranian behavior in the region.

Saudi’s  Jubeir sounded somewhat more skeptical in his assessment of the chances for rapprochement, saying that “if Iran wants to have normal relations with the GCC states, it has to change its policies and to abide by the good neighborhood principle and to refrain from interfering into the affairs of the GCC states and the countries of the region.”

“But if Iran continues its aggressive policies and continues to intervene into the affairs of the GCC states,” he said, “it will be difficult to deal with Iran.”

Khalid of Bahrain said that in the wake of the nuclear deal, GCC states “are noticing two things that we kind of have expected.”

“The missile program is moving forward with full support from the top of the leadership of the Islamic Republic, and we are seeing the hegemonic interventions through proxies in several parts of our region continuing unabated without even heeding to their responsibilities of rules of good neighborliness,” he said.

Khalid said the GCC states “want to see Iran change its foreign policy, especially towards the region.”

He called on Iran to “stop the shipments of weapons and explosives, stop training of terrorists, and stop financing and supporting proxies in several places.”

Kerry visited Bahrain for meetings with the GCC ministers in preparation for a meeting between President Obama and GCC heads of state in Saudi Arabia later this month.

The president recently raised eyebrows when he was quoted in an article in The Atlantic as saying Saudi Arabia needs to “share” the region with its Shi’ite arch-rival.

“The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians – which has helped to feed proxy wars and chaos in Syria and Iraq and Yemen – requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace,” writer Jeffrey Goldberg quoted Obama as saying.

Those comments, coupled with Goldberg’s assessment that Obama “is clearly irritated that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally,” drew a sharp retort from an influential Saudi prince.

In an interview in Manama Thursday with Al-Arabiya television, Kerry was asked about the comments. Interviewer Hasan Muawad said Obama’s statements were interpreted by some in the region as indicating a shift in U.S. policy away from its traditional allies.

“That’s just not happening,” Kerry declared, suggesting that Goldberg injected his own opinion into the article in question.

“Should Tehran choose to cooperate”.

 

If he didn’t yesterday, Kerry will place a phone call today to his counter-part in Iran, Mohammed Javad Zarif.

You see, as far as Sec. Kerry is concerned, Zarif is FAMILY.

As noted on the website of Lt. Col. Allen B. West

…in 2009, the daughter of Secretary of State John Kerry, Dr. Vanessa Bradford Kerry, John Kerry’s younger daughter by his first wife, married an Iranian-American physician named Dr. Brian (Behrooz) Vala Nahed.

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

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

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

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

Does this bother anyone at all?

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

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

They were anything but polite, when they recently kidnapped one of our Navy Vessels and the men on board, interviewing, photographing and making videos of, which they released for propaganda purposes, once Obama

In order to get those sailors back, along with 4 hostages that the Iranians had been holding for years, Obama gave Iran everything they wanted: their money, nuclear capability, and acquiescence by the Government of the United States of America.

At the time this all went down, I posed the following question:

What if a condition of the Iran Prisoner Swap Agreement and the closure of the “Iran Deal” was that we humble ourselves by allowing our Navy Personnel to be captured and used as propaganda?

Am I crazy for even asking that?

Perhaps. However…

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

And, while the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and his Secretary of State John (I served in Vietnam) Kerry continue to praise their “wonderful, magnificent deal” with the Rogue Radical Islamic Nation of Iran, which they pushed down America’s throat, Iran continues their quest for World Domination, as if it never happened.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be more concerned about America’s Enemies than our Allies….and the American Citizens he has sworn to protect.

So, why does the President of these United States, Barack Hussein Obama, continue to claim to trust Iran, an enemy of freedom, to stand by its “Agreement”, “ratified” with a wad of cash, to refrain from nuking the United States of America and Israel, seeming oblivious to Iran’s continued Arms Build-up?

Iran remains our mortal enemy, who wants every single American Infidel beheaded, and, who, to this day, refers to this sacred land as “The Great Satan”.

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

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

Obama innately trusts Muslims…even radical ones.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal has shown where their loyalties unequivocally lie, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal” that is destined to not only blow up in their faces, but also “where alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears” and in the heart of the Holy Land, itself.

The irresponsible Foreign Policy of Obama and his two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry,  reminds me of a quote from an actual American President, Ronald Reagan, who said,

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.

This is why we must elect a strong American President this November…before the mad Mullahs of Iran decide that it’s “Feeding Time”.

Until He Comes,

KJ