Former Obama Staffers Advise European Leaders to Defy Trump Over Iran Nuke Deal

eod-trump-600-li

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/995758467645353985

Unfortunately, Mr. President, Iran has on their side a cadre of Modern-day Benedict Arnolds ready to sell out their own country to help them keep the “Gentleman’s Agreement” they made with your predecessor, Petulant President Pantywaist.

This past weekend, The Washington Free Beacon reported that

Two former Obama administration officials suggested in a New York Times op-ed published Thursday that European countries allied with the United States could expel American ambassadors in retaliation for President Donald Trump withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.

“Europe Doesn’t Have to Be Trump’s Doormat,” wrote Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. Simon served as the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, while Stevenson served as the regional director for political-military affairs.

“After months of swaggering hesitation, President Trump finally announced the United States’ withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, to which Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and the European Union are also parties,” they wrote. “This action tramples on European leaders, who urged Mr. Trump to exercise restraint in the interest of international security and multilateralism.”

The two men urged European countries to go beyond “mere words” and counter Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal with real, concrete actions.

“The European Union could, for instance, announce the withdrawal of member-states’ ambassadors from the United States,” they suggested. “Isn’t this what states do when diplomatic partners breach solemn agreements, expose them to security risks and threaten to wreak havoc on their economies?”

Simon and Stevenson went on to suggest that, depending on how the United States reacted, “European capitals might even follow up with expulsion of American ambassadors.”

As the U.S. and other world powers negotiated the Iran deal in 2015, the Obama administration was critical of what its officials described as Republican efforts to undermine negotiations. Vice President Joe Biden complained that Republicans “undercut a sitting president in the midst of sensitive international negotiations,” while Obama himself accused them of making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran.”

First, we found out about John Kerry and his recent meetings with the Iranians in an attempt to keep his Former Boss’ legacy intact through saving the Iranian Deal.

Now, two high-ranking members of Obama’s National Security Council have written an op ed for the New York Times advising European Leaders to “join the Resistance” against President Trump and to side with Iran against the country which they were supposed to be serving during the Obama Administration.

Also, over the weekend it was announced that Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari warned Western officials this week that if they don’t put pressure on the Trump Administration the Iranian Regime will leak the names of all Western officials who were bribed to pass the Iran Nuke Deal.

Try to wrap your heads around this, gentle readers:

A Former President and his staffers (because you can bet your Obama Phone that he is in on all of this) are committing sedition and engaging in treasonous activities against the current leadership of the United States of America.

How sick a bunch of losers do Obama, Kerry, et all, have to be to favor the Radical Islamic State of Iran over a nation which they had sworn to protect from “enemies foreign and domestic”?

The leadership of Iran, including the Mad Mullahs, are definitely “foreign enemies”.

And now, proving a lot of Americans right (God help us), it turns out that the Obama Administration were “domestic enemies” all along.

How many more “Foreign Agents” will be revealed as past and present members of our Federal Government if the Iranian Leadership releases their “Bribe List”?

President Trump won’t have to drain “The Swamp” if that happens.

The backlash against those who took a bribe from the Iranians to allow Obama’s Nuke Deal will drain it for him.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Modern American Liberals Continue to Deny Radical Islam Exists

untitled (17)As regards the existence and motivation of the sociopathic, barbaric followers of Radical Islam, Modern American Liberals, time and time again, are proving that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

According to Breitbart.com,

The Muslim man who said Islam motivated him to shoot a police officer does not represent the teachings of Islam, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney stated in a press conference on Friday afternoon, following an attempted execution by a man who had reportedly pledged to the Islamic State.
A 33-year-old Philadelphia policeman, Jesse Hartnett, was ambushed late Thursday when Edward Archer, a Muslim man, reportedly tried to execute him while he was sitting in his police vehicle. Images from the incident show a man dressed in Muslim attire firing off a reported 13 rounds at officer Hartnett. The police officer was hit three times, but did not suffer life threatening injuries and is expected to recover fully, reports said.

According to Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, the suspect said he had committed the attempted execution in the name of the Islamic State, the jihadi terrorist insurgent group that controls territory in the Middle East.

“According to him [the shooter], police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran,” said Commissioner Ross.

Mayor Kenney, who was inaugurated last week, took a strikingly different tone when coming to the podium.

He began by expressing his well-wishes for the officer who the Muslim man attempted to execute, but then spent the latter part of his statement distancing Islam from the shooter, who claimed he was carrying out the shooting for Islam.

“In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen,” said Mayor Kenney.

“That is abhorrent. It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion [Islam] in any way shape or form or any of its teachings,” he added. “This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

He also took to Twitter, expressing a similar statement:

“Last night’s shooting had nothing to do with any faith. It was a violent assault by a criminal. I urge all Philadelphians to stand together.”

Kenney, a Catholic, received his bachelor’s degree from La Salle University, and it remains unclear where his religious expertise concerning Islam derives from.

While running for office, Kenney consistently reached out to the Muslim community for support.

In July, he signed a “pledge to combat bigotry” at the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society. The pledge was created by the Arab American Institute, an anti-Israel organization that seeks to promote Arab politicians for higher office. In signing the pledge, Kenney, agreed to combat criticism of Islam, and to “speak out” against ‘Islamophobia.’

Gosh, Mr. Mayor. I have no idea why the overwhelming majority of Americans identify the political ideology masquerading as a religion, known as Islam, with those who self-identify as “Radical Islamists”.

Just kidding…

Pay attention, Mr. Mayor….

The Washington Free Beacon reports that

Following the discovery of a terrorist cell in Texas allegedly operated by an Iraqi who entered the United States as a refugee, the Washington Free Beacon has learned of an additional 41 individuals who have been implicated in terrorist plots in the United States since 2014, bringing the total number of terrorists discovered since that time to 113, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

Since August, however, the Obama administration has stonewalled Congressional efforts to obtain more detailed immigration histories of these individuals, prompting frustration on Capitol Hill and accusation that the administration is covering up these histories to avoid exposing flaws in the U.S. screening process.

The disclosure of these additional 41 individuals linked to terror operations—many already identified as immigrants, others’ immigration histories shrouded in secrecy—has stoked further concerns about flaws in the U.S. screening process and is likely to prompt further congressional inquiry into Obama administration efforts to withhold details about these suspects, sources said.

As the number of legal immigrants connected to terrorism continues to grow, the Obama administration has sought to quash congressional inquiries and rally its allies behind an effort to fund efforts to boost the number of immigrants and refugees from the Middle East.

Many of these immigrants have been caught by authorities planning terrorist attacks on American soil, while others were found to be involved in efforts to provide funding and material to ISIS, according to an internal list of migrant terrorists codified by congressional sources and viewed by the Free Beacon.

“A growing number of foreign-born terrorists are being identified operating within the United States, and yet the Administration will not provide any information about their immigrant histories,” said one senior congressional source apprised of the issue. “And one can only imagine that for every identified terrorist, there are many more individuals around them who are radicalized, extreme or otherwise detracting from American society in ways beyond the threat of terrorism alone.”

As congressional calls for increased screening methods go mostly ignored, local authorities are dealing with an uptick in terror-related crimes committed by legal immigrants.

On Thursday, the Justice Department accused two Iraqi refugees legally in the U.S. of conspiring to provide support to ISIS.

Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a 24-year-old Palestinian born Iraqi refugee who had been living in Texas, was charged with aiding ISIS. The man had been granted legal permanent residence in Houston in 2011, though it was later determined that he “swore untruthfully on his formal application when applying to become a naturalized U.S. citizen,” according to the Justice Department.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, also a Palestinian born Iraqi, allegedly “traveled overseas to fight alongside terrorist organizations and lied to U.S. authorities about his activities,” according to the Justice Department

Al-Jayab entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2012 and later travelled back to Syria, where it is believed that he resumed “fighting with various terrorist organizations,” according to the charges.

Late Thursday, a Philadelphia police officer was reportedly ambushed by an assailant sporting “Muslim garb and wearing a mask,” according to local reports.

Additional information viewed by the Free Beacon outlines another 20 previously unknown individuals brought up on similar terrorism-related charges in 2015 alone.

Those who have been charged were legally residing in the U.S. after entering from countries such as Egypt, Uzbekistan, Albania, Pakistan, and Syria, according to information provided by Congressional sources.

“The terrorism-related arrests of two more Iraqi refugees on American soil proves once again our screening process is weak and needs to be updated,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill,) said in a statement Friday.

With incidents and indictments of this nature continuing to rise, critics of the Obama administration’s immigration policy are expressing concern about a last-minute funding effort in 2015 to fully fund refugee resettlement and visa programs.

These priorities, which were granted full funding as part of a yearly spending bill approved by Congress last year, will permit around 170,000 new migrants from Muslim-majority countries to enter the United States in 2016, according to the Senate’s immigration subcommittee.

“The omnibus gave the green light for the administration to continue this failed immigration policy over the objections of the electorate,” the senior Congressional source quoted above said.

The Senate continues to uncover dozens of cases in which individuals accused of terrorism entered the country legally.

“Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of federal agents and attorneys and billions of dollars: In effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then, on the back end, trying to stop them from carrying out their violent designs,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) warned last year as Congress considered the spending bill.

In trying to figure out the hesitance of Modern American Liberals to identify the motivation of Radical Islamist Terrorists, my mind, unique space between my ears that it is, flashed back to this famous scene between the late great Rodney Dangerfield, and the late , great Sam Kinison, in the movie Back to School. Kinison is a history professor, and Dangerfield is the successful businessman father of an under-achieving freshman, who decides to go back to school, to be there for his son.

rodneysamKinison: You remember that thing we had about thirty years ago… called the Korean conflict?

Yeah. Where we failed to achieve victory.

How come we didn’t cross the 38th parallel…and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China…and take it apart brick by brick…and nuke them back into the f!@#in’ stone age forever?

How come? Tell me? Why? Say it! Say it!

Dangerfield: All right, I’ll say it.

‘Cause Truman was too much of a p!@sy wimp…to let MacArthur go in and blow out those commie b!@#ards!

Kinison: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think.  I’m gonna be watching you.

For anybody with more than 2 working brain cells, (and, I know that leaves out a lot of Liberals) once the brothers were initially identified as Muslims, it was game over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, the fact that these barbarians infiltrated France in the first place,and killed all the innocent people that they did, shows the folly of relaxing our already-porous Immigration Laws and the danger to human live of strict Gun Control Laws.

Even as these barbarous acts unfolded in France and the  Radical Muslims of ISIS continue their genocidal jihad against Christians in Iraq, I continue to hear and read from some of this “Me, First Generation” that there is not any difference between American Christianity and Radical Islam. Quite frankly, that’s like saying that there’s no difference between Mister Rogers and Ted Bundy (look them up, children).

In Islam, the way to “walk with God and escape his judgement on that final day of judgment” is through ‘falah’, which means self-effort or positive achievement. The faithful must submit to God and follow all of his laws as found in the Koran. Judgment day in Islam involves some sort of measurement of what the believer has done wrong and what they have done right. And, even then, you might not be let into heaven if Allah decides you’re not good enough.

This is the direct opposite of Christianity.

According to the Bible, no man can ever be good enough to deserve God’s favor, to win God’s heaven, because from birth we have Free Will. This Free Will may cause us to reject God and live our lives our own way. That’s why it was necessary for Jesus Christ to die for our sins, covering us in His blood of the New Covenant.

God’s Word tells us that what we need is not ‘falah,’ but faith. To have faith in, to trust, to rely on Jesus and his death as as “the expiation for our sins”. Those who have been Saved by Jesus Christ can be sure that in the future God will welcome them into heaven with wide open arms, because they have been washed by His blood.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. To pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

Now, I am not saying that every Muslim is on a jihad against “the infidels”.

However…

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

In the case of the barbarians of al Qaeda, ISIS, and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

For Liberals to deny that, and to refuse to identify Islamic Terrorism, when it rears its ugly head, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Administration Fighting to Loosen VISA Restrictions on Iranian Travelers

Missing-Piece-600-LIThe fallout (a word I am using purposefully) from the ill-advised and poorly-negotiated “Iran Deal” continues to grow.

Bloombergview.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He’s FAMILY.

Courtesy of AllenB.West.com

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

Of course you’re not aware of it.

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

Gosh, I wonder why??

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

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

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

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

Does this bother anyone at all?

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

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

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

Schmuck.

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

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

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

The following is an excerpt:

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

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

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

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

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

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

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

They only respect strength and resolve.

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

Hence, their continued threatening rhetoric.

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Donald J. Trump, White House Hypocrisy, and the Immigration Act of 1924

Rising-NRD-600The hang-wringing and blowback from the suggestion by Donald J. Trump to implement a pause in the immigration of Muslims to the United States of America, has been everything that the consummate showman now doubt hoped for…and more.

White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest was positively apoplectic at yesterday’s Daily Press Conference, as Breitbart.com reports…

President Barack Obama’s spokesman angrily lashed out at Donald Trump for proposing a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, and accused him of “offensive bluster” and “grotesque and offensive” language.

“The fact is, that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president,” spokesman Josh Earnest said, suggesting to reporters that his words were fundamentally anti-American.

Earnest denounced Trump’s “carnival barker routine” which included “outright lies” and mocked the Republican frontrunner for having “fake hair.” He said:

The Trump campaign, for months now, has had a dustbin of history-like quality to it, from the vacuous sloganeering to the outright lies to even the fake hair, the whole carnival barker routine that we’ve seen for some time now.
Earnest also denounced other Republicans for continuing to say that they would support the nominee of the Republican party even it was Donald Trump.

Earnest suggested the Republican Party is racist for failing to denounce Trump’s presidential campaign, and he reminded reporters that House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
once called himself “David Duke without the baggage.” He said:

“Earlier this year, House Republicans elected to their leadership somebody who famously bragged to a reporter that he’s David Duke without the baggage.”

“They should say right now that they will not support him for president,” Earnest said, as he called Trump’s proposal “morally reprehensible.”

Earnest said Republicans leaders should:

“Say right now that they would not support Donald Trump for president. What he said is disqualifying and any Republican who’s too fearful of the Republican base to admit it has no business serving as president either. OK?”

When asked why the White House had decided to weigh in on Trump’s hair, Earnest defended the topic as an important part of the campaign.

“Well I guess I was describing why it would be easy for people to dismiss the Trump campaign as not particularly serious,” he said.

“Because of his hair?” one reporter asked in disbelief.

“Well because he’s got a rather outrageous appearance, that’s the hallmark of his campaign and his identity, though, that’s the point I’m trying to cite there,” he said.

“How do you know that it’s fake?” asked a second reporter.

“Well I guess I’m happy to be fact checked,” Earnest replied.

Suspending immigration is not a new concept.

It’s been done before…for over 40 years.

The following information is courtesy of u-s-history.com

During the Harding administration, a stop-gap immigration measure was passed by Congress in 1921 for the purpose of slowing the flood of immigrants entering the United States.

A more thorough law was signed by President Coolidge in May 1924. It provided for the following:

The quota for immigrants entering the U.S. was set at two percent of the total of any given nation`s residents in the U.S. as reported in the 1890 census;
after July 1, 1927, the two percent rule was to be replaced by an overall cap of 150,000 immigrants annually and quotas determined by “national origins” as revealed in the 1920 census.

College students, professors and ministers were exempted from the quotas. Initially immigration from the other Americas was allowed, but measures were quickly developed to deny legal entry to Mexican laborers.

The clear aim of this law was to restrict the entry of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, while welcoming relatively large numbers of newcomers from Britain, Ireland, and Northern Europe.

The 1921 law had used the 1910 census to determine the base for the quotas; by changing to the 1890 census when fewer Italians or Bulgarians lived in the U.S., more of the “dangerous` and “different” elements were kept out. This legislation reflected discriminatory sentiments that had surfaced earlier during the Red Scare of 1919-20.

Total
Entering U.S.
Country of Origin
Great
Britain
Eastern
Europe*
Italy
1920
430,001
38,471
3,913
95,145
1921
805,228
51,142
32,793
222,260
1922
309,556
25,153
12,244
40,319
1923
522,919
45,759
16,082
46,674
1924
706,896
59,490
13,173
56,246
1925
294,314
27,172
1,566
6,203
1926
304,488
25,528
1,596
8,253
*Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. 56.

A provision in the 1924 law barred entry to those ineligible for citizenship — effectively ending the immigration of all Asians into the United States and undermining the earlier “Gentlemen`s Agreement” with Japan. Efforts by Secretary of State Hughes to change this provision were not successful and actually inflamed the passions of the anti-Japanese press, which was especially strong on the West Coast.

Heated protests were issued by the Japanese government and a citizen committed seppuku outside the American embassy in Tokyo. May 26, the effective date of the legislation, was declared a day of national humiliation in Japan, adding another in a growing list of grievances against the U.S.

(The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing these quotas.)

In 1965, the Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured America`s immigration policy since the 1920`s, replacing it with a preference system that emphasized immigrants` skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the United States.

Additionally, in April of 1980, during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, President Jimmy Carter cancelled all visas issued to Iranians for entry into the United States and warned that they would be revalidated only for “compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest requires.”

So, what Trump proposed has been done before

Evidently, no one ever told Obama and his Administration that when you point your finger at someone, there are 4 other fingers pointing back at you.

On January 7th of this year, Abraham H. Miller wrote the following blog, featured on thehill.com…

At the end of World War II, the Jewish survivors of Europe’s Holocaust found that nearly every door was closed to them. “Tell Me Where Can I Go?” was a popular Yiddish song at the time. Decades later, the Christians of the Middle East face the same problem, and the Obama administration is keeping the door shut.

America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year.  There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.

Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.

The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope. And this technicality is being adhered to with all the tenacity with which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State Department manipulated quotas and created subterfuges  to keep out the Jews fleeing the oppression of Nazi Germany. Obama no more wants the Middle East’s Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted Europe’s Jewish refugees.

We have seen in the last several weeks that President Obama has no difficulty using his “phone and his pen,” as he dramatically boasts, to circumvent the law. When it comes to immigration, he had no difficulty enacting an amnesty that a federal judge  subsequently ruled unconstitutional. He has had no problem circumventing Congress to change the relationship with Cuba. This president has shown that he will push back on the constraints of law when he wants to get something done.

But there are not even such constraints when it comes to the Middle East’s Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Department of State chooses to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government. What difference does it make which army imperils the lives of innocent Christians?  Christians are still be slaughtered for being Christian, and their government is incapable of protecting them. Does some group have to come along—as Jewish groups did during the Holocaust—and sardonically guarantee that these are real human beings?

The Christians would barely have to be vetted for ties to terror organizations, which by their very nature do not take Christians. Meanwhile, there is the uncomfortable issue that among the Sunni refugees there are some in league with the Sunni terror militias. And beyond that there is the equally uncomfortable question of the acculturation of segments of the Muslim community.

That our Muslim neighbors are as worthy of being good Americans as anyone else is not an issue. That a highly active and prominent minority in the Muslim community seeks to transform America is an issue and one that cannot be overlooked, when taking in Muslim refugees.  Will they be vetted for seeking the transformation of America through jihad?

Whether the recent violence in Australia, the murder of two New York policemen, the Boston Marathon bombings, the growing list of victims of honor killings in Western societies, the forced closing of streets in Paris for Muslim prayers, the Muslim no-go and Sharia patrol areas of Britain, the rape of infidel women in Sweden, or the call by Council on Islamic American Relations that Islam is not in America to be another religion but to transform America, there is a Muslim problem. That it is not a problem precipitated by a majority of Muslims does not lessen its dangers.

No doubt the majority of the Muslim refugees will become good American citizens, but the real concern is that a significant minority will not. Yet, the Middle East Christians, even as a minority, do not pose remotely the same kind of threat.

With Christmas fresh in our minds, it is time for all people of good will to say to the Obama administration that telling Christians awaiting death that there is no room for them in the inn is not only unacceptable, it is also, to use President Obama’s own words, “not who we are.” This season, Christians  need to make their voice heard. They should not act as the Jews did, waiting for a president who had no intention of doing anything, to do something.

If you were watching Saturday morning cartoons in 1977 on ABC, you would have seen this Schoolhouse Rock musical cartoon titled The Great American Melting Pot.  It extolled the unique greatness of  our American heritage.
For a while now, that heritage has been under attack.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was passed because America had experienced an overwhelming flood of immigrants, which strained the resources of our nation.
This act allowed all of these immigrants to be assimilated into American Society and to actually become Americans, in thought, word, deed, and LOYALTY.
An Liberal President Jimmy Carter stopped Iranians from immigrating, because, just like the situation we faced today with Radical Islam, we were AT WAR.
As the article from thehill.com shows, Obama and his Administration are themselves being restrictive in whom they allow to immigrate to America.
The only reason that they are mad at Donald J. Trump is that he is attempting to thwart their plans to rapidly import thousands of Muslims, and potential Democrat Voters, into our country.
Like all Liberals, they remain oblivious of their own hypocrisy.
Until He Comes,
KJ