Tag: Josh Earnest

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

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

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

Christianpost.com reports that

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

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

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

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

Politico.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Media Research Center,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 12, 2014, usatoday.com reported that

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

His Legal Writings were brilliant in scope and interpretation.

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

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

History will remember Justice Scalia as a Giant Among Men.

It will not be as kind toward Petulant President Pantywaist.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

Syrian Muslim “Refugees” Accepted, Syrian Christians Not…While Obama Decides If Their Mass Murder is “Genocide” Or Not

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics2 Comments

th (57)While Americans were enjoying the pomp and pageantry of Superbowl 50 last night, Christians, halfway around the world, continued to fight against a mass genocide, while the President of the United States of America, continues to turn a deaf ear to their pleas for help.

CNSNews.com reports that

The number of Syrian refugees being resettled in the United States continues to climb slowly, but of the 576 admitted since last November’s Paris terrorist attack, only two (0.3 percent) are Christians.The two Christians are an Orthodox man and a Greek Orthodox man, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.

Meanwhile, 560 Sunni Muslims (97.2 percent), three Shi’ite Muslims, and 10 others identified simply as “Moslem” have been admitted over the same period. One last Syrian male refugee is identified as “other religion.”

Of the Sunnis admitted, 289 (51.6 percent) are male, 271 (48.4 percent) are female. Two of the Shi’ites are male, one if female, and of the 10 “Moslems,” seven are male and three are female.

When the Syrian civil war began almost five years ago Christians accounted for approximately 10 percent of the Syrian population. The European Parliament estimates that more than 700,000 Christians have fled their homeland since then.

The Nov. 13 attack in the French capital, which cost 130 lives, stoked fresh fears that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL) terrorist group is using refugee admission programs as a way to access Western countries.

The small number of Christians among those admitted since the ISIS attack mirrors the proportion admitted into the U.S. since the beginning of fiscal year 2016, on Oct. 1 – seven Christians (0.8 percent) out of a total of 867 refugees. The seven are three Catholics (two males, one female), two Orthodox males, one Greek Orthodox male, and one described simply as “Christian.”

The rest of the 867 admitted so far in FY 2016 comprise 846 Sunnis (97.5 percent) – of whom 443 (52.4 percent) are males and 403 (47.6 percent) are females – as well as the three Shi’ites (0.3 percent), 10 “Moslems” (1.1 percent), and one (0.1 percent) described as having “no religion.”The Obama administration plans to admit 10,000 Syrian

refugees during FY 2016.Since the civil war in Syria began — with anti-government protests and a violent crackdown in March 2011 – the U.S. has admitted a total of 2,740 Syrian refugees. Of that number, 55 (2.0 percent) are Christians and 2,565 (93.6 percent) are Sunni Muslims.

The rest are 70 “Moslems,” 16 Shi’ites, eight Jehovah’s Witnesses, six Zoroastrians, two Baha’i, one Yazidi, seven “other religion,” seven “no religion” and three atheists.

Of the total 2,740 Syrian refugees admitted since March 2011, 743 (27.1 percent) are men aged between 14 and 50.

If you were the President of the United States of America, which would be more important to you: saving innocent lives or the definition of a word?

TheBlaze.com reports that

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that Obama administration attorneys are researching whether the violence the Islamic State is committing against Christians meets the legal definition of genocide.

A reporter, citing the atrocities and murders in Iraq and Syria, asked Earnest, “Why won’t the Obama administration call this genocide, Christian genocide?” 

Earnest responded that the term genocide has “legal ramifications.”

“There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario,” Earnest said. “What is clear and what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24 hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria, including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out about it.”

On Wednesday, Obama denounced attacks on people of faith while speaking at the Islamic Society of Baltimore and repeated the sentiment Thursday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Many have insisted the large-scale murder of Christians by the Islamic State is clearly genocide.

The reluctance by the Obama administration is most likely based on obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, said.

“If they don’t think there is enough evidence of genocide against Christians and Yazidis, I’m not sure what they’re waiting for,” Weber told TheBlaze. “This is based on a political fear. There is moral and legal weight behind calling it genocide. Under the treaty, parties must prevent and punish genocide. This is the reason for the Clinton administration’s reluctance to act in Rwanda.”

Citing the treaty, Weber said the Islamic State’s slaughter and torture of Christians meet the treaty’s criteria for genocide, which include any of the following:

● Killing members of the group

● Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

● Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

● Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

● Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

At the White House press briefing, the reporter followed, “The distinction of genocide provides people persecuted with the ability to come to the United States seeking refuge. When will this happen?”

Earnest said the terminology doesn’t change the administration’s serious response in combatting the Islamic State.

“This is an open question and one that continues to be considered by administration lawyers,” Earnest said. “I can tell you that the president was quite blunt in talking about the responsibility that all people of faith have in standing up for individuals who are targeted for their faith, particularly religious minorities and particularly the people who are marginalized because of their minority status based on the religion they practice.”

Earnest noted that the Islamic State has also targeted Yazidis and Shia Muslims.

“This administration has worked hard to try to protect religious minorities who are being victimized by ISIL. There is no doubt that Christians are among those who have been and are being targeted,” Earnest said. “As it relates to the specific use of this word — the decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one, it has significant consequences and it matters for a whole variety of reasons both legal and moral. But it doesn’t change our response. The fact is that this administration has been aggressive even though that term has not been applied in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence.”

As a recent Gallup Poll affirmed, Christianity, the Faith of our Fathers, remains the faith of the overwhelming majority of Americans, consisting of over 75% of our population.

In July of 2009, in a stadium located at the University of the Egypt in Cairo, President Barack Hussein Obama, in a speech to the “Muslim World”, apologized to tens of thousands of adherents  to Islam and spoke to them in glowing terms of their “rich cultural heritage” and their “contributions to the growth of United States of America”.

Yeah, our first president, Mohammed Washington, that’s the ticket.

Now, before I begin my analysis, I want you to understand that I am NOT saying that every Muslim in the world is taking part in a jihad against United States of America.

However, those were not Southern Baptists, who massacred the citizens of Paris, France or San Bernadino, California.

Additionally, the mass murderers known as ISIS, are not Evangelical Christians, no matter how hard desperate Liberals might try to compare us to Radical Muslims.

“Now are you going to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior or am I going to have to behead you?” said no Evangelical Christian American, ever.

No, boys and girls, ISIS is a bunch of Muslim Barbarians…period.

For President Barack Hussein Obama to attempt to prosecute the War Against ISIS by remote control, with apparently no military strategy in place at all, is one the silliest things I’ve ever seen in my life.

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

Obama’s bombing runs have done minimal damage, at best.

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

Obama had hoped that his “Coalition of the Unwilling”, the Middle Eastern Muslim Nations , who reluctantly agreed to support Obama against ISIS, would be willing to be his “boots on the ground” and would lay down their lives for him.

I am still trying to figure out how Obama could have possibly thought that those who think of us as the Great Satan, would lay down their lives for us.

Of course, Obama also thinks that if  Iran promises not to build a nuke, they won’t build it.

Here’s a Million Drachma Question for ya: Why are the other Middle Eastern Countries not taking them in?

What do they know that we and the Europeans don’t?

I can answer those questions in three little words: “hijrah” and “taqujiyya”.

“Hijrah” refers to the undertaking of a pilgrimage to spread Islam to the World, such as undertaken by Mohammed between Mecca and Medina in 62 A.D., which is referred to as “The Start of the Muslim Era”.

“Taquiyya” is the Muslim Practice of purposeful lying to us “Infidels” in order to further the cause of Islam.

This situation, that France is dealing with, and that we will be facing, with a possible Invasion Force, disguised as “Syrian Refugees”, can be traced back to Obama’s premature evacuation of Iraq.

It is no secret that Barack Hussein Obama is a vain and petulant man. It is also no secret that he was a Far Left Radical in his collegiate days and his early political career, only moving to the middle of the political spectrum while he was campaigning for the presidency.

That being said, my Daddy always told me that when you do something, don’t do it halfway. Give it your best effort or don’t do it at all, or else you will come up short. That is what is happening with this war against the Islamic radicals in Iraq.

Obama has never liked the Military Industrial Complex. After all, he is disciple of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Additionally, Obama spent his youth going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, where he was surrounded by children of wealthy Muslims, whose parents were part of the establishment in Jakarta.

Because of his political ideology and the time he spent among Jakarta’s Upper Crust, Obama is very naive, or at least, he seems to be, about those Muslims who aren’t as cultured as he and his friends were. In fact, he seems to be quite ignorant about the Muslim practice of taquiyya, in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels in order to achieve their mission.

Could Obama’s “Coalition of the Unwilling”, consisting of Middle Eastern Muslims, be practicing taquiyya? Could it be that arming the Syrian “Rebels” was a very stupid thing to do? Could these “Syrian Refugees” actually be a Radical Muslim Invasion Force? Could it be that it is time for Obama to quit this halfway waging of War and to go ahead and send in ground troops and take care of business ourselves?

The answer to all of the above questions is…YES.

So, to answer my earlier question…Why is United States President Barack Hussein Obama refusing to grant asylum to persecuted Christians and Yazidis?

As demonstrated in his trip to that Baltimore Mosque last week, which has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood,

Obama is loathe to admit the atrocities perpetrated in the name of Allah.

And yet, he blasts Christian Americans at every opportunity, concerning our reluctance to accept these unvetted “Muslim Refugees”.

The acceptance of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians would shed further light on those atrocities.

And, Obama simply will not allow that.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama’s Gun Control EO: “The Tears of a Clown”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Salesman-600-nrd1President Barack Hussein Obama presented his Executive Order concerning Gun Control, yesterday, in a National Address, spotlighted by an emotional performance which hasn’t been seen since “Ol’ Yeller” died.

Foxnews.com reports that

President Obama’s executive action to expand gun sale background checks has opened up a legal can of worms, specifically the president’s bid to broaden the definition of who’s a dealer — and therefore must get a license and conduct background checks. 

Under current federal law passed by Congress, only federally licensed dealers must conduct background checks on buyers. The law does not specify whether this applies to online sales and other areas — so those selling or trading guns on websites or in informal settings such as flea markets often don’t register.

As the centerpiece of Obama’s new gun push, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Monday night issued updated guidance that now deems anyone “in the business” of selling guns a dealer, regardless of where they sell. 

All of which puts a constitutional spotlight on Obama’s actions, raising questions of interpretation that may have to be settled by the courts.

“Mr. Obama will now require that anyone who sells a gun, that is even an ‘occasional’ seller, will be required to perform a background check. By defining what an ‘occasional seller’ is, the president is essentially interpreting the law, a job reserved for the courts,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, said in a FoxNews.com opinion piece. 

Until the courts weigh in, it falls on the sellers to figure out who technically is “in the business” of dealing. 

It’s a tough question — and one with serious implications. As Obama noted during remarks at the White House Tuesday, failure to follow these rules can result in criminal prosecution. 

While the new guidance says collectors and gun hobbyists are largely exempt, the exact definition of who must register and conduct background checks is vague. Some officials suggested that selling just one or two firearms could subject a seller to these rules. 

Philip Dacey, president of the Pennsylvania Gun Collectors Association, told FoxNews.com that while he thinks the new orders will not have a huge impact on collectors, the devil is in the details.

“I think [to require a license for] one or two guns would be ridiculous, and how will you enforce it? If there’s no paperwork trail, how would you know when people are selling one or two guns to their neighbor?” Dacey said.

Dacey also noted that getting a federal license could take over three months and entail a complex process involving fingerprints, photographs and a visit by ATF agents. 

The guidance says determining whether someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing requires looking at “the specific facts and circumstances of your activities.”

“As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed,” the guidance says.

However, the document also notes the courts have deemed people dealers in some cases even if they only sell a couple guns.

“Note that while quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors were also present,” the guidance says.

In a conference call with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and White House Press Secretary Josh  Earnest, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett sought to clarify, but risked making the confusion even greater.

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said, according to The Washington Free Beacon. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

On the question of the number of guns sold, Lynch said: “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun.” 

Adding to the questions, the background check provision rests in the murky realm of agency “guidelines,” which carry less weight than formally issued federal regulations and can easily be rescinded.

Republicans blasted the new guidance as a form of intimidation that would only target law-abiding citizens.

“[Obama] knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in a statement. “Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

After Obama’s soon-to-be-Golden Globe-Nominated Performance, Rush Limbaugh made the following observations on his Nationally-Syndicated Radio Program…

I’m just sitting here thinking, CNN’s interviewing a gun owner, and where do you think the gun owner’s store is?  Georgia. (imitating Southern accent) “Yes, they’re gonna go find gun shops in the South and they gonna talk to gun shop owners in the South.”  Now, you might be thinking, “Rush, CNN is in Georgia.  It would makes sense they’d find them there.”  They are also in New York.  But they sent somebody out to find a gun shop in Georgia.  It fulfills the image that they have of Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts, hunters and so forth, a bunch of hayseeds. 

You know, Obama, I mentioned this, he had a tear. He cried at the end of his show today in the White House.  And he said (imitating Obama), “I think, you know, I got nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year, and I really don’t — I don’t know why, uh, we have to impugn people’s motives.  I don’t know why we have to.”  Well, sir, I tell you, your motive is all that matters, because your motive tells us the why, obviously.  The motive is what’s crucial here.  The motive tells us how serious you are about this.  The motive and the objective are all we need to know. 

You know, they’ve tried this with alcohol, as you well know. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, they’ve tried to penalize, punish bartenders and bars for selling adult beverages to people who later had accidents or a DUI.  Don’t think that they’re not gonna go to doctors here.  You know, folks, who do you think might be, as far as the left is concerned, a prime target for somebody a family member could claim is mentally ill or a doctor could decide is unstable or not all there?  How about veterans returning from the theater of combat?  I mean, as far as many Americans are concerned, they’re all upset. 

How many movies have there been portraying returning veterans as incapable of adjusting to peacetime, posttraumatic stress disorder.  I would wager that many Americans think that your average returning soldier from Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere where there are hostilities comes back and cannot cope for some reason or other.  Insomnia, flashbacks, undiagnosed and diagnosed PTSD.  And, by definition, these returning vets need medical treatment, and so they go to doctors.  And now doctors are required to call the FBI, report to the FBI about any patients that might appear to be upset, mentally unstable, maladjusted, whatever term you want to use. 

And many of these veterans of course have firearms, do they not?  They have been trained in their usage.  The very people who are most familiar, trained and proficient with these weapons would be among the prime targets for having their guns taken away from them simply on the basis that they’re not mentally competent to possess them anymore.  And all it might take with Obama’s new regulations here is their doctor calling the FBI and saying, “Staff sergeant so-and-so Kowalsky just left my office, and I don’t know, FBI, I’m very, very concerned about the mental state of staff sergeant Kowalsky.” 

“Thank you, Doctor,” says the FBI, “we appreciate your call.  Leave it to us.  We’ll take it from here.”  Liberal members of your family who know that you have a gun and don’t particularly like it, might they now have avenues.  And you think the doctor might not cooperate.  Well, how many doctors can no longer afford malpractice insurance simply because of Obamacare?  And do you think the doctor is ever going to claim that any member of a minority group is unstable?  Can you imagine a doctor reporting, what’s her name, the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore, what’s her name?  Mosby, Marilyn Mosby goes to the doctor.  She’s obviously unstable. She goes to the doctor, do you think the doctor would report to the FBI that the DA was just here, and I don’t know, she doesn’t seem right. Or that Mahmoud Sahib Skyhook was just here, and Mahmoud didn’t seem to be all that right to me, you think that’s gonna happen? 

No, it isn’t, because the doctor is not gonna be accused of bigotry or religious prejudice or racial prejudice. So guess who’s gonna get reported on here?  At least the odds are.  And Obama’s crying.  “I have nothing to prove.  I’m in my last year.  I’m just doing what I think is right.”  Well, these leftists, folks, Obama’s quest to transform the country is not gonna end with him leaving office.  He’s not just gonna sit around idly in his post presidential days and watch people dismantle what he’s done.  He’s gonna try to preserve it.  We haven’t seen anything yet. 

I’m telling you, the next 12 months and then the aftermath when Obama’s out of office he’s still gonna have his media cadre on his side, whoever the incoming president is, Trump, Cruz, whoever it is, is gonna have Obama on their case and the media every day. And if there’s just the slightest shred of evidence that anything they’re doing is unraveling what Obama did, look out.  Don’t doubt me.  In fact, make a note of the prediction.  

The Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday concerning President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of seriousness. 

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

I thought, that when Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, that he was supposed to “heal the sick, raise the dead, make the oceans rise and fall, and restore our divided country”?

Instead, Obama’s tenure in office will leave in his wake an America more divided than ever before, thanks to his Domestic Policy, consisting of the Rhetoric of Class Warfare and Racial Animus, and his advocacy of the failed Marxist Economic Theory of Socialism, in a nation which runs on the engines of Capitalism.

Yesterday’s non sequitur of a response to the horrific massacre of American Citizens by Radical Islamic Terrorists in San Bernadino, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, was just another serving of cake to us unwashed masses by “King Louis Obama”…punctuated by his phony tear as the cherry on top of his cake of ineffectual leadership.

And, you know, the kicker? Per Gallup, only 2% of Americans even consider Gun Control to be an important National Issue!

Back in 2010, I wrote a series of articles titled “The Great Disconnect: The Whole Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”.

Just call me Nostradamus.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

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

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

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

The New Bolsheviks: Mob Rule at Mizzou…Yale, Next.

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

th (47)Yesterday, at the University of Missouri, a group of Political Activists seized control of that State-run Facility.

With the blessings of the President of the United States of America.

Breitbart.com reports that

The Obama administration is praising protesters who successfully forced University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe to announce his resignation.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest praised the group of protesters for rallying together and demanding change, pointing out that Obama’s first presidential campaign was embodied by the same spirit.

“I think this also illustrates something that the president talked a lot about in the context of – in his campaign, that a few people speaking up and speaking out can have a profound impact on the communities where we live and work,” he said during the daily press briefing today.

The group of students accused Wolfe of enabling “a culture of racism” on campus and ignoring student concerns about recent events. Wolfe resigned after members of the college football team joined the protests, saying they wouldn’t suit up for the next game.

“That’s the kind of dialogue and work and unity that the Mizzou community is going to need to make progress on this issue,” Earnest said, in reaction to the decision calling it “a testament to the courage of the people on campus.”

He said that President Obama himself was unlikely to make a public statement about the events on campus, but didn’t rule it out sometime in the future. Earnest reminded reporters that he grew up in Missouri and shared his own thoughts on the situation.

“I think any state institution is a product of the state and that state’s history and there’s a very painful history – and it’s not ancient history in the state of Missouri,” Earnest said.

The list of demands by the protesters included that Wolfe “acknowledge his white male privilege” and hire more black college faculty members.

Breitbart.com also reported that

The Concerned Student 1950 activists at the University of Missouri, connected to the Black Lives Matter movement, got their scalp, and it’s just the beginning.

These activists used pure intimidation tactics to terrorize the campus, cause the black members of the Mizzou football ream to strike, and force Wolfe into apologies and finally resignation.

In this video (please see the original article), one of the activists admits, “We’re trying to break the system down… it just so happens we’re starting with him.” Given the hydra of hysterical campus activism that Breitbart News has reported is springing up across the nation, it’s hard to know where it will end.

It’s important to see exactly how the coalition of activists won. They used tactics like intimidation in the cafeteria: (please see the original article)

They chanted and screamed: (please see the original article)

They disrupted the campus over and over again (please see the original article)

And Of Course… They Quoted Cop Killer Assata Shakur

They screamed the words of convicted cop-killer and hero to the Black Lives Matter movement, Assata Shakur. (please see the original article)

The woman screaming in that video is quoting a convicted terrorist, currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted List under her real name Joanne Chesimard. The lines come from revolutionary communist Assata Shakur’s “Letter To My People,” which Breitbart News has pointed out is quoted at every event by the Black Lives Matter founders. You’ll note the reference of Marx’s “nothing to lose but your chains” line:

It is our duty to fight for our freedom.
It is our duty to win.
We must love each other and support each other.
We have nothing to lose but our chains.

However, the big victory was shutting down the homecoming parade as stunned onlookers–including many small children–were forced the watch the megaphone-wielding activists scream at the crowd about slavery while blocking now ex-president Wolfe’s car. At the end, they all chant Assata’s “Letter To My People” again.

(please see the original article)

Consider what happened in Missouri: activists using intimidation tactics, quoting a communist terrorist, took down a university president. Nobody in the mainstream media has called them on any of this.

And the 2016 election is less than a year away.

So, where is the “Black Lives Matter Movement” getting all the money to spread out across the nation?

From the Puppetmaster, himself, George Soros, as The Washington Times reports…

With the backing of national civil rights organizations and Mr. Soros‘ funding, “Black Lives Matter” grew from a hashtag into a social media phenomenon, including a #BlackLivesMatter bus tour and march in September.

“More than 500 of us have traveled from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities to support the people of Ferguson and help turn a local moment into a national movement,” wrote Akiba Solomon, a journalist at Colorlines, describing the event.

Colorlines is an online news site that focuses on race issues and is published by Race Forward, a group that received $200,000 from Mr. Soros’s foundation in 2011. Colorlines has published tirelessly on the activities in Ferguson and heavily promoted the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and activities.

At the end of the #BlackLivesMatter march, organizers met with civil rights groups like the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment to strategize their operations moving forward, Ms. Solomon wrote. OBS and MORE are also funded by Mr. Soros.

Mr. Soros gave $5.4 million to Ferguson and Staten Island grass-roots efforts last year to help “further police reform, accountability and public transparency,” the Open Society Foundations said in a blog post in December. About half of those funds were earmarked to Ferguson, with the money primarily going to OBS and MORE, the foundation said.

OBS and MORE, along with the Dream Defenders, established the “Hands Up Coalition” — another so-called “grass-roots” organization in Missouri, whose name was based on now-known-to-be-false claims that Brown had his hands up before being shot. The Defenders were built to rally support and awareness for the Trayvon Martin case and were funded by the Tides Foundation, another recipient of Soros cash.

Hands Up Coalition has made it its mission to recruit and organize youth nationwide to start local events in their communities — trying to take Ferguson nationwide.

So, why do we have the President of the United States cheering on the takeover of a Public University by a group, whose sole purpose is Racial Animus and Racial Division?

By the time President Lyndon Baines Johnson came into office, after the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the majority of Americans totally believed that our government always had our best interest at heart.

President Johnson came into office and immediately started his push for the Great Society. These programs were designed to make Americans even more dependent on the Federal Government for their very survival.

As the Vietnam War grew more and more and unpopular, Americans’ trust in the government became more and more compromised.  Protests against the Federal Government became more and more common and it became cool to be a rebel or “hippie”.

Time passed, and while rebellious Americans calmed down, Americans’ dependence upon government programs became generational, as multiple family members from one generation to the next, relied on Uncle Sugar for their daily existence.

Meanwhile, the rebels of the 1960’s got older and began to work within the system, taking jobs within the private and public sectors.

Eventually, they moved into positions of power, becoming heads of corporations and local and national politicians.

It is not really necessary to tell you what the political ideology of these rebels was, is it?

As the last century ended and the new one began, these hippies and their offspring, solidly in place in the halls of power, began to pass more more legislation designed to keep generations of Americans enslaved to Uncle Sugar.

In this present situation, what we are seeing is the result of anti-establishment rhetoric, spewed forth by those who are now actually “the Establishment”, taking hold, and spreading Class Envy and Racial Animus in such a way as to inspire violent retaliation for perceived “grievances”, by a fictional “White Establishment”, which is actually no longer in power, and the Police, who are seen as the emissaries of “The Man”.

And, now, at good ol’ Mizzou, these Political Activists, supported by Black Lives Matter, and funded by a guy who ratted out his Jewish Neighbors to the Nazis in Germany have “overthrown” the President or “Czar” of their University.

And, as I put the finishing touches on this blog this morning, protests have erupted at prestigious Yale University, as well.

It’s reminiscent of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Look it up, y’all.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Set To Betray CIA…and Embolden Our Enemies

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

AFBrancoObamaElevator9142014The President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, will today commit, in the interest of appeasing our enemies, what could rightly be considered an act of treason.

Fox News reports that

The White House on Monday backed the release of a long-anticipated report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques, despite warnings from within the administration and from lawmakers that it could lead to a backlash against Americans around the world. 

Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration has been preparing “for months” for the report’s release, which is expected late Tuesday morning.

There are some indications … that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world,” Earnest acknowledged. “So, the administration has taken the prudent steps to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe.” 

Earnest said the administration still “strongly supports the release of this declassified summary of the report.” 

Nevertheless, Secretary of State John Kerry last week asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to “consider” the timing of the release. 

On Sunday, a top Republican lawmaker warned the release could cause “violence and deaths.” 

And U.S. officials separately confirmed to Fox News that an advisory has been sent urging U.S. personnel overseas to reassess security measures in anticipation of the release. The message directs all overseas posts, including those used by CIA personnel, to “review their security posture” for a “range of reactions that might occur.” 

A similar statement was being sent to military combatant commands to assess their readiness. Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said Monday the combatant commands have been urged to “take appropriate force protection measures within their areas of responsibility.” 

Asked whether the CIA report ought to be released, Warren said that is a “higher-level policy decision,” but added “there is certainly the possibility the release of this report could cause unrest.” 

In Washington, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said America’s allies are predicting “this will cause violence and deaths.” He said U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign governments have said privately that the release of the Senate intelligence panel report on CIA interrogations a decade ago will be used by extremists to incite violence that is likely to cost lives. 

“I think this is a terrible idea,” Rogers said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Foreign leaders have approached the government and said, ‘You do this, this will cause violence and deaths.’ Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths.” 

Rogers is regularly briefed on intelligence assessments. He questioned why the report needed to become public, given that the Justice Department investigated and filed no criminal charges. 

On September 24, 2014, Obama spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s Breathtaking Naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

He asked delegates from nations across the world to mull this “central question of our global age: Whether we will solve our problems together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.”

His answer? “It’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies.”

Simply believing something doesn’t make it so. The president’s desire for a world in which nations talk openly about their true feelings, perhaps share a good cry together, and sing kumbaya around the campfire, is the height of naivete.

So is this passage of his speech: ” … the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them, there is only us.”

But Islam and the holy Koran on which Muslim militant groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State base their actions do call for the extermination of all who do not follow Islam, do demand that followers kill anyone who leaves the religion, do subjugate women. For the record, the Koran contains more than 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.

Mr. Obama said in his speech that “all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions: Do unto thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.” But that is not a cornerstone of Islam. Militant Muslims have a very different belief: “Fight in the name of your religion with those who disagree with you.” And that edict comes straight from their holiest book.

However, Obama’s naivete is not the only factor behind the dangerously stupid move he is making today.

Obama has never liked the Military Industrial Complex. After all, he is disciple of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Additionally, Obama spent his youth going to a Muslim school in Indonesia, where he was surrounded by children of wealthy Muslims, whose parents were part of the establishment in Jakarta.

Because of his political ideology and the time he spent among Jakarta’s Upper Crust, Obama is very naive, or at least, he seems to be, about those Muslims who aren’t as cultured as he and his friends were. In fact, he seems to be quite ignorant about the Muslim practice of taquiyya, in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels in order to achieve their mission.

Could Obama’s “Coalition of the Unwilling”, consisting of Middle Eastern Muslims, who are still carrying out actions against their fellow travelers, in ISIS, be practicing taquiyya? Could it be that arming the Syrian rebels was a very stupid thing to do? Could it be that it is time for Obama to quit this halfway waging of War and to go ahead and send in ground troops and take care of business ourselves?

Could it be that his halfway efforts in combating ISIS are a result of him cherishing the Mohammedans above the American Citizens whom he is supposed to be protecting?

Is it possible, as evidenced by his release of this inflammatory information concerning the CIA’s treatment of Muslim Terrorists, that Obama would rather negotiate with barbarians from a position of apologetic servitude, than deal with them from a position of strength?

The answer to all of the above questions is…YES.

May God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ