Obama “Fired Up”, to Hold Gun Control Pep Rally on CNN

Party-Pooper-600-nrdHis (Obama’s) first impulse always is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong. And to use executive powers he doesn’t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. – Republican Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush, Fox News Sunday, 1/3/2016

ABC News reports that

Hawaiian vacation over, President Barack Obama says he is energized for his final year in office and ready to tackle unfinished business, turning immediate attention to the issue of gun violence. Obama scheduled a meeting Monday with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss a three-month review of what steps he could take to help reduce gun violence. The president is expected to use executive action to strengthen background checks required for gun purchases.

Republicans strongly oppose any moves Obama may make, and legal fights seem likely over what critics would view as infringing on their Second Amendment rights. But Obama is committed to an aggressive agenda in 2016 even as public attention shifts to the presidential election.

Obama spent much of his winter vacation out of the public eye, playing golf with friends and dining out with his family. He returned to the White House about noon Sunday.

“I am fired up for the year that stretches out before us. That’s because of what we’ve accomplished together over the past seven,” Obama said his weekly radio and Internet address.

While in Hawaii, he also worked on his final State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12. The prime-time speech will give the president another chance to try to reassure the public about his national security stewardship after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Congressional Republicans have outlined a competing agenda for January, saying they will spend the first days of 2016 taking another crack at eliminating keys parts of the president’s health insurance law and ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The legislation is unlikely to become law, but it is popular with the GOP base in an election year.

The debate about what Obama may do on gun violence already has spilled over into the presidential campaign.

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has called for more aggressive executive actions on guns, and rival Bernie Sanders said he would support Obama’s expected move.

The Vermont senator told ABC’s “This Week” that he believes “there is a wide consensus” that “we should expand and strengthen the instant background check.” He added: “I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.”

Republican candidates largely oppose efforts to expand background checks or take other steps that curb access to guns.

“This president wants to act as if he is a king, as if he is a dictator,” unable to persuade Congress and forcing an “illegal executive action” on the country, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told “Fox News Sunday.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also on Fox, said Obama’s “first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and it’s wrong.”

In the radio address, Obama said tens of thousands of people have died from gun violence since background check legislation stalled three years ago.

“Each time, we’re told that commonsense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, so we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one?”

Federally licensed gun sellers are required by law to seek criminal background checks before completing a sale. But gun control advocacy groups say some of the people who sell firearms at gun shows are not federally licensed, increasing the chance of sales to customers prohibited by law from purchasing guns.

Obama plans to participate in a town hall Thursday night at George Mason University in Virginia on reducing gun violence. The president will take questions from the audience at the event moderated by CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Despite his deep differences with Republicans, Obama has cited two agenda items for 2016 that have bipartisan support: a free trade agreement with 11 other nations called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and changes in the criminal justice system that would reduce incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders. He often points out that the U.S. accounts for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its inmates.

An Executive Order, sometimes known as a proclamation, is a directive handed down directly from the President of the United States without input from the legislative or judicial branches. Executive orders can only be given to federal or state agencies, not to citizens, even though we wind up bearing the brunt of them.

Executive Orders go all the way back to our first president, George Washington. Presidents have used them to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or to limit regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to set up Japanese internment camps, in order to revoke Civil Rights.

Have you ever watched a mother, when their toddler bumps their head on a table, attempt to distract their child, by pretending to spank the table, while saying, “Bad Table”?

That, in a nutshell, is what President Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to do by writing Executive Orders, in an attempt to limit the Constitutional Right of American Citizens to own guns.

By creating new restrictions, instead of enforcing gun laws which are already in place, Obama is shifting the blame from the Radical Islamic Terrorists and those who operate outside of the law to America and her citizens.

Obama is attempting to control law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as the Muslim Terrorists who perpetrated the San Bernadino Massacre and the thugs who have turned Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago into their own personal “Killing Fields”.

Obama realizes that even though he “has a pen”, that does not mean that he has the national approval for his coming dictatorial action, which he claims that he has.

Therefore, he and his Administration have arranged for a “National Townhall Meeting”, to be held live on CNN, this Thursday night.

During this upcoming “Pep Rally”, I can guarantee you the following:

  1. The audience will be hand-picked by the Administration.
  2. Obama will use “human props”, like he did after the Sandy Hook Massacre and during the Obamacare Roll-out.
  3. Anderson Cooper will fawn over him, lobbing softball questions that Steve Urkel himself could hit out of the park.

Gun Control has not stopped the criminals from getting Guns in the UK. What makes Obama and his minions think that more regulations are going to accomplish what the UK has not?

Are they that full of themselves that they think that, since they are the “smartest people in the room”, that failed methods will actually work this time?

Are they just doing something to be doing something, in order to save face with their Far Left supporters?

Or, is it something more malevolent than just everyday politics?

Here’s a quote from an organization that backs Obama all the way with his Gun Confiscation efforts…

…the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

One of their unhinged spokesmen, Texas talk show host Alex Jones, launched a national petition drive to deport CNN commentator Piers Morgan for questioning the Second Amendment. Jones said the amendment “isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs,” and then went on to threaten insurrection “if you try to take our firearms.”

Actually, the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

The preceding quote actually comes from peoplesworld.org, the website of Communist Party USA.

As I have chronicled, over the last few years, this Gun Confiscation Movement comes right out of  the playbook of Marx and Lenin.

There is one thing that Obama did not take into account, however…

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

And, that is why he will fail.

Until He Comes,

KJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to The Wall Street Journal,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you kiddin’ me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump has promised to make America GREAT again.

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

But, I digress…

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

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

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

By the way, have you heard from Monica lately?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Paul Ryan and the Omnibus Bill: Second Verse, Same as the First?

paul-ryan-beard-547x350 (2)Late Tuesday night, Speaker of the House unveiled the new Omnibus Bill.

Reaction, shall we say, is “mixed”.

Politico.com reports that

The House Freedom Caucus hates the massive government-funding bill: Spending levels are billions of dollars higher than what conservatives wanted, and at least two top policy priorities — language addressing Syrian refugees and so-called sanctity of life — were cut.

But unlike past fiscal battles, when lawmakers took shots at GOP leaders and tried to tank bills, this time conservatives are largely holding their fire. Even as they vow to oppose the package, many are still praising Speaker Paul Ryan’s handling of the $1.1 trillion spending bill and $680 billion in tax breaks.

“In terms of the process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who instigated the revolt against Speaker John Boehner that led to Boehner’s resignation this fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”

Virginia Republican Dave Brat, a Freedom Caucus member who also sits on the budget panel, said Ryan has also gained support because he has been “credible on regular order” — Congress-speak for empowering committees and rank-and-file members — and has already teed up the budget process for the beginning of 2016, a starting point unheard of in recent years.

“The end product here is just cleaning the barn; it’s a disaster,” Brat said of the spending and tax deal. “We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps to the American people, we’ve lost fiscal discipline, and we’re throwing it all on the next generation.”

But in the same breath, Brat praised Ryan: “Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things … and then leadership can’t hijack the budget at the end of the year and throw the kitchen sink, which we just did.”

Praise from members of the conservative flank is a sign that they believe Ryan (R-Wis.) is trying to chart a new course in his nascent speakership. The conservatives feel more included in the process and said Ryan’s staff has been vocal about wanting their feedback. But the lawmakers are also planning to watch the speaker closely in 2016, when they say he’ll have more control over the appropriations process and Boehner can’t be blamed.

To be sure, members of the House Freedom Caucus have little positive to say about the omnibus that will fund the government through 2016. The House is expected to pass the government funding measure Friday with significant help from Democratic lawmakers.

“It’s pretty bad,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Freedom Caucus chairman. “How can you not put the refugee issue in there? It makes so much sense. We were clear that if that goes in and [we get] something pretty good on the pro-life [provisions they wanted], we thought we could get a number of us [to vote in favor]. But that’s not going to happen.”

Jordan led an effort Wednesday to amend the omnibus package to strip out a cybersecurity provision that many conservatives oppose and also include Syrian refugee language. Ryan has said the omnibus is not open for changes.

One Republican priority — lifting a four-decade-old ban on U.S. oil exports — has received some praise from conservatives as a potential job creator. But it wasn’t enough to win many of them over.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said the lifting of the oil export ban is a good thing, but “there are about $1.3 trillion” other reasons to vote against the omnibus.

“[It’s a] very big deal for my district, but I didn’t have a single call about it,” Huelskamp said. “The calls are coming in about Syria. Calls are coming in about life issues. Calls are coming about everything else. Somebody on K Street wanted that, but Main Street didn’t.”

Lawmakers like Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon oppose it because language to increase the vetting standards for Syrian and Iraqi nationals looking to come to the U.S. as refugees was dropped. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) objected to the cybersecurity language, which was added at the last minute. Other Freedom Caucus members pushed for a series of provisions opposing abortion rights that weren’t included.

But the blame for the final product, conservatives say, rests on Boehner and Senate Democrats. Ryan just inherited the mess, they argue.

Instead, they focus on other promises the Wisconsin Republican made when he took the job.

“Paul made some pretty sustainable commitments about things we’ll do next year: a major overhaul of our tax system, welfare reform, replacing Obamacare,” Salmon said. “These are major things. If we do those things and define clearly what we stand for, that’s the best we can hope for.”

Now, I realize that Paul Ryan, sporting his new “man-beard”, just took over as Speaker of the House, after Cryin’ John Boehner got the heck out of Dodge.

And, it is going to take a while for Ryan to straighten out the mess that the spineless Boehner left him.

Additionally, Ryan has made promises that the Conservative Members of the House of Representatives seem to be excited about.

The key word is “PROMISES”.

To paraphrase the current batch of Geico Commercials,

Politicians promise. That’s what they do.

By the way, did you catch in that article, that the Vichy Republicans still want to “replace” Obamacare?

That would be like CBS deciding to replace the rapidly-taking  Stephen Colbert with Alec Baldwin.

It would still be horrible.

At least one Congressman gets it, per Breitbart.com

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) slammed the immigration implications of the year-end spending bill Wednesday, saying the omnibus represents a “betrayal” of voters that fully funds President Obama’s immigration agenda while also increasing the number of low-skilled foreign guest workers allowed. 

“The more than 2,000 page year-end funding bill contains a dramatic change to federal immigration law that would increase by as much as four-fold the number of low-wage foreign workers provided to employers under the controversial H-2B visa program, beyond what is currently allowed,” Sessions said in a statement.

The foreign nationals who enter the U.S. on H-2B visas come for low-skilled nonagricultural jobs and work in hotels, construction, landscaping and the like, jobs, Sessions argued, that millions of Americans would like to have.

“At a time of record immigration – with a full 83 percent of the electorate wanting immigration frozen or reduced – the GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs.  The result?  Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans,” Sessions continued.

He further quoted the Economic Policy Institute’s conclusion that “wages were stagnant or declining for workers in all of the top 15 H-2B occupations between 2004 and 2014,” and that unemployment increased in all but 15 H-2B occupations between those same years. Further, he quoted EPI, “Flat and declining wages coupled with such high unemployment rates over such a long period of time suggest a loose labor market—an over-supply of workers rather than an under-supply.’”

The provision to vastly increase the number of H-2B visas was included in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill released in the early morning hours of Wednesday. The House is slated to vote on he bill Friday.

According to Sessions, the American people elected Republicans to the majority in Congress in 2014 as a rejection of the Obama administration’s immigration policies.

“That loyalty has been repaid with betrayal,” he said.

In addition to the increase in H-2B visa allowances, Sessions pointed to the lack of conditions placed on the President’s request for increased refugee admissions, meaning Obama could bring in as many refugees — who are immediately eligible for welfare once admitted— as he desires.

”This will ensure that at least 170,000 green card, refugee and asylum approvals are issued to migrants from Muslim countries over just the next 12 months,” Sessions said.

The Alabama lawmaker continued, recalling that in his capacity as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, he send a list of proposals for the omnibus to appropriators intended to “improve immigration enforcement and block presidential lawlessness.” While those proposals were not included, funding for Obama’s refugee effort was.

“The bill also funds sanctuary cities, allows the President to continue issuing visas to countries that refuse to repatriate violent criminal aliens, and funds the President’s ongoing lawless immigration actions – including his unimpeded 2012 executive amnesty for alien youth,” Sessions argued.

Sessions added, “As feared, the effect is to fund the President’s entire immigration agenda.”

He concluded by highlighting the recent frustration Republican voters have voiced, saying that “GOP voters are in open rebellion” because of this bill.

”They have come to believe that their party’s elites are not only uninterested in defending their interests but – as with this legislation, and fast-tracking the President’s international trade pact – openly hostile to them,” he said. ”This legislation represents a further disenfranchisement of the American voter.”

And, boys and girls, that is while “outsiders” are leading the pack of Republican Presidential Candidate Hopefuls.

Americans, such as myself, out here in “Flyover Country”, or as we call it, “America’s Heartland”, are tired of the Republicans, whom we voted into office in the last two Midterm Elections, giving them control of BOTH Houses of Congress, acting like Democrats, exhibiting fiscal irresponsibility, possessing a disdain for their constituents’ concern about Social Issues, and acting with impunity, forgetting who gave them their cushy jobs.

Their deaf arrogance provided the opportunity for a entrepreneur and showman, with no political experience whatsoever, to vault to the top of the Republican Primary.

Trump is playing both the Main Stream Media and the Republican Elite like he is Charlie Daniels and they are the fiddle.

And, in second place, is a Senator, who is actually championing the viewpoint of average Americans.

Ted Cruz is sharper than a Ginsu Knife and his momentum is peaking at just the right time.

As we move toward the Presidential Election of 2016, those Republicans who believe that they can maintain status quo, appear to be heading toward a traumatic shock which will rival the sight of Cailyn Jenner in a bikini.

Strap yourselves in, boys and girls. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

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

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

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“America has been betrayed,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now is the time to narrow the field.

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

Especially the one whom they were backing…Jeb Bush.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The need to stop backing the wrong “horse”.

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

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

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

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House Republicans aren’t the only ones concerned.

News.investors.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dangerous, indeed.

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

Breitbart.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God protect us.

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

Congressional Republicans, Through New Budget Deal, Give Obama a Blank Check Until He Leaves Office

untitled (10) Last Friday, Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Hopeful, Ted Cruz, wrote the following on Facebook:

This ‪#‎BudgetDeal‬ is a corrupt betrayal of the American people.

The entire time Republican leaders have been promising, ‘We’re going to do something on the budget. We’re going to rein in the president,’ they have been in the back room negotiating to fund every single thing Obama did.

Republican majorities have just given President Obama a diamond-encrusted, glow-in-the-dark AmEx card. And it has a special feature. The president gets to spend it now, and they don’t even send him the bill. They send the bill to your kids and my kids. It’s a pretty nifty card. You don’t have to pay for it. You get to spend it and it’s somebody else’s problem.

He wasn’t kidding.

Yesterday, The Washington Times reported that

When President Obama signs into law the new two-year budget deal Monday, his action will bring into sharper focus a part of his legacy that he doesn’t like to talk about: He is the $20 trillion man.

Mr. Obama’s spending agreement with Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of his presidency in 2017. Added to the current total national debt of more than $18.15 trillion, the red ink will likely be crowding the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

“Congress and the president have just agreed to undo one of the only successful fiscal restraint mechanisms in a generation,” said Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union. “The progress on reducing spending and the deficit has just become much more problematic.”

Some budget analysts scoff at the claim made by the administration and by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, that the budget agreement’s $112 billion in spending increases is fully funded by cuts elsewhere. Mr. Boehner left Congress last week.

“The Boehner-Obama spending agreement would allow for unlimited borrowing by the Treasury until March 2017,” said Paul Winfree, director of economic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. “This deal piles on billions of dollars to the national debt by increasing spending over the next three years and then not paying for it for a decade — with half of the offsets not occurring until 2025.”

The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that only about half of the increased spending in the budget deal is paid for. Rather than a spending increase of $80 billion over two years, the nonprofit group said, the actual spending hike is $154 billion when interest costs and budget gimmicks are factored into the equation.

“Of this $154 billion, about $78 billion is paid for honestly” through Medicare reforms, reductions in farm subsidies, asset sales and other measures, the group said. “The remaining $56 billion of the legislation — mostly the war spending increase and interest costs — is not paid for at all.”

Of course, Congress bears equal responsibility for the high level of debt. A prime reason that Mr. Boehner left office was conservatives’ displeasure with his accommodation of the president’s budget requests, aside from three years of “sequestration” spending caps that helped limit annual deficits.

“We will be raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion,” said Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who tried to filibuster the budget deal before the Senate approved it in the wee hours of Friday. “We will be giving President Obama a free pass to borrow as much money as he can borrow in the last year of his office. No limit, no dollar limit. Here you go, President Obama. Spend what you want.”

Ever-expanding debt

The president said Friday that the agreement “is paid for in a responsible, balanced way.”

“This agreement will strengthen the middle class by investing in education, job training, and basic research,” Mr. Obama said. “It will keep us safe by investing in our national security. It protects our seniors by avoiding harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security. It locks in two years of funding and should help break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises that have harmed our economy.”When Mr. Obama talks about fiscal matters, he usually takes credit for cutting the deficit by two-thirds. He also is correct that annual budget deficits have fallen from $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, in the depths of the recession, to $439 billion in fiscal 2015.

But the president rarely, if ever, mentions the accumulation of those annual deficits and what the rising national debt means for the country, for the presidents who will follow him and for the nation’s ability to pay for its priorities.

That’s because he does not care.

Scooter spends Americans’ money like a teenage girl with Daddy’s Credit Card at a 75-store Outlet Mall.

On September 8, 2010, CNS News reported that

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
 
The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3  billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama’s inauguration.
 
By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89–which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office–the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.
 
When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

And now, thanks to a bunch of Vichy Republicans, who were scared out of their minds at the prospect of putting a cork in Uncle Sugar’s Piggy Bank and shutting down the Federal Government, they have become willing accomplices to Barack Hussein Obama’s growth of the Federal Government through irresponsible out-of-control spending, which may eventually lead to a nation who cannot meet its financial priorities.

Anyway, the problem we have with Congress is an age-old addiction. President Ronald Reagan was quite familiar with it. He described Congress’ condition perfectly,

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

As all of us parents and grandparents know, babies are expensive and unruly…if you do not discipline them. 

As we head toward the 2016 Presidential Elections, it time for the Tea Party to reform. We need a complete Grass Roosts Effort  to remind the “dedicated (to themselves) public servants just exactly who pays for their salaries, perks, and pensions.

Being an American by Birth, and Southern by the Grace of God,my favorite play of all time is “Lil’ Abner”. One of my favorite scenes in the movie they made of it, which starred Petter Palmer as Abner, Stubby Kaye as Marryin’ Sam, and the great Billie Hayes as Mammy Yoakum, was when Senator Fogbound (what a great name) holds a meeting with the townsfolk of Dogpatch, to tell them that they had to evacuate, due to an upcoming “A-tomic” Bomb Test.

Sen. Fogbound: I know y’all have been wondering what I have been doing up there in Washington on your behalf.

Mammy Yoakum: We didn’t care…as long as you wuz up there…and we wuz down here!

That’s the way that Low Information Voters feel about Congress. However, we can not allow that ignorance any more.

It’s time to get involved. It’s time to once again, rise up, get organized, and ready to go to the polls in 2016.

It’s time to prepare to take our country back.

Until He Comes,

KJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this s@#t…

Foxnews.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Bryant, here’s an idea:

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

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

Spoiled Brats always need to be taught a lesson.

Until He Comes,

KJ

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

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

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

Politico.com reports that

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

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

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

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

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

“I just speak the truth,” Reid said.

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

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

Big whoop.

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

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

The Washington Post  reports that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Reasonable”.

There’s that word…again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until He Comes,

KJ

Deflection and Desperation: Liberals Attacking Trump for Refusing to Defend Obama

obamabowLast night, at the seldom-watched-anymore Annual Emmy Awards, out in Hollyweird, The self-important TV “stars” provided an example of just how concerned the Fashionable Left is, about the unpcoming Presidential Elections.

The Hollywood Reporter has the story…

It took about five minutes for Donald Trump to be mentioned during the 67th Primetime Emmy Awards on Sunday night.

Host Andy Samberg took a shot at the GOP presidential frontrunner during his opening monologue. 

“Donald Trump is running for president — to the delight of uncles everywhere,” Samberg joked.

“Sure, Donald Trump seems racist,” he added, ending his thought there.

The former host of The Apprentice was not in attendance at the Emmys.

Samberg also took a jab at one of the Democratic presidential candidates. 

“Is it just me, or does Bernie Sanders always look like his flight is delayed?” Samberg said. 

Trump was also zinged by Julia Louis Dreyfus during her acceptance speech after winning Best Actress in a Comedy Series.

“What a great honor it must be for you to honor me tonight. I’m so sorry. Donald Trump said that,” Dreyfus said. “It’s getting trickier and trickier to satirize this stuff.”

Comedians Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele also took a shot at the GOP while presenting Best Reality Competition Program.

The former Comedy Central Duo went back-and-forth about a reality “where people can’t seem to say two words without throwing each other under the bus” and a reality “where a panel of millionaires fight like sharks to be chosen by average middle-class Americans,” and a reality “where nobody is there for the right reasons.” Then Peele deadpanned to the camera: “But enough about the Republican national debate.”

Aren’t you just blinded by their brilliance, boys and girls?

The Glitterati are not the only Liberals trying to stop Donald J. Trump.

The latest attempted “trap” involved Trump refusing to correct an attendee to one of his appearances (who may well have been a “plant”), who shouted out that Obama was a Muslim.

Yesterday, on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the former Clinton Administration member, and current Hillary Fanboy, now masquerading as a “Broadcast Journalist”, went after Trump during a one-on-one interview.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, “THIS WEEK” HOST: Let’s get into this controversy over the last couple of days. I saw your tweets yesterday, you said you didn’t have a morally responsibility when that question came up about President Obama. But this is getting a lot of attention in part because you have raised questions like this in the past. So, for the record, was President Obama born in the United States?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, you know, I don’t get into, George, I’m talking about jobs, military, I don’t get into it. They asked the questions. Frankly, it’s no longer an interest to me. It’s something I don’t want to talk about. I want to talk about the vets and the military. I want to talk about jobs. I don’t get into that, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS The way to get behind it is answer yes or no —

TRUMP: That’s possible, but I don’t talk about it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though you raised questions and you investigated this in the past —

TRUMP: Well, people thought I should have defended the president in terms of the question that was asked the other night. My attitude is, would he have done that for me? He’s been very capable of defending himself, believe me. So, we’ll see what happens. But I think the tweets really covered it cell. I actually was very interested because I got in hot water for not saying anything. First time it’s ever happened to me. This is something where I didn’t even say anything.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I take that point. But you raised these questions so often in the past, why can’t you say definitively yes or not? You raised it many times. And he’s not a Muslim.

TRUMP: George, you have raised the question. I haven’t raised the question. I don’t talk about it. But I don’t talk other people’s faith. Not appropriate for me to talk about somebody else’s faith.

STEPHANOPOULOS The other big premise of that question, he said, Muslims are a problem many this country, do you agree?

TRUMP: In some cases, George, we can say no, and you can be politically correct and say everything’s wonderful. Certainly it’s a problem. And there’s a problem —

STEPHANOPOULOS What is the problem specifically?

TRUMP: At the same time, we have fabulous people living here, Muslims, and they have done fantastically well, but certainly it’s a problem. You look around the world, it’s a problem. If I said no, not at all, people would laugh at me. Now, it might be the right thing to say. I don’t care what the right thing to say is, but certainly what’s happening with some Muslims and, you know, terrorism and everything else, it seems pretty much confined there. It’s a problem. We can say no, but it is.

Soon after I started this blog, I wrote the following post, on April 30, 2010. I titled it, “Obama: Muslim, Marxist, or Moron?”.

I believe that the answer is “ALL OF THE ABOVE”.

“As a child, Barack Hussein Obama attended a private Madrassa, err, school in Indonesia while living there with his Mom and Step-father.  As a grown man, Barack Hussein Obama attended Trinity Church in chicago, led by Pastor Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years.  It is a Black Liberation Theology Church.  They view Christ as a revolutionary liberator like Che.  They do not believe in the Resurrection.  They are often referred to as being Muslim-lite. For more information about Black Liberation Theorlogy, please visit luoamerican.com.

But, is Obama a Muslim?  Here is a 10 minute video that has gone viral on youtube.com that may help you answer that question for yourself.

Regarding his political beliefs, he gave America a huge clue during the campaign when he spoke to a plumber named Joe during a campaign stop in Ohio:

And, during a Financial Reform Rally, on Wednesday April 28th, 2010, Scooter’s mask slipped off again:

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

As opposed to the original remarks, written on the teleprompter:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

Now you know why he takes his teleprompter wherever he goes.

Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects.
Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value.
Karl Marx, Comment on James Mill (1844)

Through his background, as carefully hidden as it is, and his words and actions since becoming Leader of the (for now) Free World, Obama has revealed himself.  Some questions still remain:  How much did the Democratic Party know about this man and when did they know it?  The same goes for the sycophantic Main Stream Media.  They were all complicit in bringing this miserable excuse for a President of the United States to power…”

Liberals are desperate.

Their choice of potential Presidential Candidates are all a bunch of old, white, Professional Politicians from the Northeast, who are about as charming and personable as a bag of rattlesnakes.

Meanwhile, their current president has put the pedal to the medal in his quest to “rapidly change” and irreparably turn “The Shining City Upon a Hill”, into a combination of a Middle Eastern Caliphate, a “Democratic Socialist” European Nation, and a Third World Barrio.

I hate it when I’m right.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

The Great Divide Between Republicans and Democrats: What’s the Reason for It? (A KJ Sunday Morning Op Ed)

WashingtonPrayingNow, more than ever before in the history of America, there is a great divide between our two major Political Parties.

The Washington Post reports that

To the Democratic candidates, the 2016 presidential campaign is about shrinking the gap between rich and poor; combating climate change; and expanding voting rights, gay rights and workplace equality for women.

To listen to the Republican candidates is to hear an entirely different campaign — one that centers on defeating Islamic State terrorists, deterring a nuclear Iran, restricting abortion, and debating whether to deport illegal immigrants and construct a wall to keep them out.

At a political moment of pitched voter anxiety, candidates in both parties talk in dark, sometimes apocalyptic tones — but about different issues, as if they’re addressing two different countries.

“Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from Venus,” Republican strategist Ari Fleischer said. “The gulf between the two parties has grown wider in the last decade, not smaller.”

For Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), vying for the Democratic nomination, it’s the corporate billionaire class that is destroying America by crushing the dreams and livelihoods of working people. For many Republicans, the rise of new threats abroad and cultural changes at home are destroying America by shaking its foundation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, seen campaigning Sept. 7 in Hampton, Ill., focuses chiefly on economic and family issues in her stump speeches. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
The contrast was brought into sharp relief this week. Republicans sparred in a three-hour debate Wednesday over issues of national security, abortion and immigration, but had little to say about middle-class economic growth. On the campaign trail, Democrats focused on liberal economic and social agendas, but barely touched on terrorist threats and the cultural issues that have become conservative rallying cries.

David Winston, a Republican pollster unaligned in the presidential race, said the economy is the top issue for all voters. “Whenever the candidates are not talking about jobs and the economy, they’re off on the wrong topic,” he said.

Some difference in emphasis is to be expected, considering that each party’s base voters are animated by different issues. At this stage in the race, the candidates are playing to those bases in an attempt to win the nomination. But the gulf in the 2016 campaign has grown particularly noticeable.

Well. I know y’all will be shocked, but, this Christian American Conservative has a different take on the schism between America’s two main Political Parties than the Secular Northeastern Liberals at The Washington Post do.

And, it all comes down to keepin’ The Main Thing, The Main Thing.

At the Democratic National Convention of 2012, held before the Presidential Election of that year, in an Emergency Floor Vote, the Democrat Bosses “rectified” a  “mistake of omission” (or so they claimed).

Businessinsider.com reported the the story:

Democrats added mentions of the word “God” and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital today in a testy vote that left angry delegates booing on the floor.

It took three votes to pass the resolution in what was an extremely tense and divided vote. The first two votes failed, but DNC chairman Antonio Villaraigosa declared that the resolution had passed by a two-thirds majority on the third vote.

[The teleprompter showed the results before the measure was declared “passed”!]

“I heard a lot from the other side,” said Kenneth McClintock, a superdelegate and Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. McClintock said Puerto Rico supported the resolution.

“I was surprised” that the vote was so testy, he added.

Republicans had blasted the Democrats’ original platform, which had taken out mentions of “God” and did not affirm Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

And many delegates thought that the platform change was a direct response to some of the backlash, prompting some to worry that it will be more fodder for Republicans in the final months of the campaign.

“Conservatives are always going to criticize Democrats for not supporting Israel or not being religious enough, or whatever it is that day,” said Brandon Cooper, a delegate from Texas.

On cue, the Romney campaign released a statement from spokeswoman Andrea Saul:

“Mitt Romney has consistently stated his belief that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Although today’s voice vote at the Democratic National Convention was unclear, the Democratic Party has acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Obama has repeatedly refused to say the same himself. Now is the time for President Obama to state in unequivocal terms whether or not he believes Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.”

nationalreview.com has reactions to that vote:

The video of a large number of Democrat delegates voting no — three times in a row — on identifying Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and adding God to the platform has already gone viral. But on the ground here in Charlotte, the platform vote seems not to have been to the delegates.

Kathy Sullivan, a New Hampshire delegate, wasn’t present for the vote. (Many of the delegates I spoke to weren’t, suggesting that there was little messaging done to the delegates on the issue beforehand.) But Sullivan, who says she supported changes, remarks that it’s the media, not the delegates, who are obsessing over the vote.

“I haven’t heard anybody talking about it other than the press,” she says, commenting that the delegates are instead speaking about “how great” Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton were. “No one at all has been talking about the platform. No one.”

Jared Barrett, a Tennessee delegate who was present for the vote, feels it may have been a mistake for Democrats to have made delegates vote at the same time on the two different changes.

“I started to think, maybe they should have separated the two, and voted on each one separately, rather than both together,” Barrett says. “I think people were in favor of putting God back in the platform,” he continues, saying that he felt “the opposition was coming from” those who didn’t agree with the Jerusalem decision.

At the time, he didn’t expect a lot of people would vote “no.” “I was surprised,” Barrett remarks. “I looked around, and I said wow, there’s a lot of no’s.”

Pennsylvania delegate Brian Sims, who wasn’t present for the vote, says he only knows what his decision was on one of the changes. “I don’t know how I would have voted on Jerusalem,” Sim says. “I know that I would have voted to put God back in the platform.”

Rhode Island delegate June Speakman arrived at the floor just as the vote was ending. She said she ultimately favored the changes because she felt it was appropriate to heed Obama’s wishes on the Democratic platform. Still, Speakman, who is agnostic, would have personally preferred God remain absent from the platform.

“In my opinion, my political party should not determine my position on God. That’s a private decision that I make and I don’t want anyone dictating it to me, my party, my government, anyone,” Speakman says.

“I would prefer that the official platform of my political party not contain references to God,” she adds, “because I consider those to be private decisions.”

As far as the controversy over whether there was in fact, enough voting yes — two-thirds are required — for the changes to the platform to be made, Barrett says from the floor, he had trouble hearing, but the vote “seemed like it was split, honestly.” But Barrett is fine with the outcome. “He heard what he heard,” Barrett says of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is chairman of the convention and declared that the “yes” votes had it. “So I agree with it.”

Danny Anchondo, a delegate from Texas, would have voted for the changes if he had been presebt, but said he wasn’t bothered by the fact that so many Democrat delegates had voted against it.

“That’s one of the things that the Democratic party stands for,” he says, “the freedom to choose how you’re going to vote one way or another, and that’s a good part about it.

Only when the Democratic Hierarchy received a thunderous blowback from Jew and Gentile alike, did they call for the rigged Floor Vote, in an effort to protect the financial support for and electoral viability of President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

At the time, I wrote that, “the Democratic Party should be ashamed and embarrassed by the Way that they have allowed the  small, out-of-touch heathens known as the Far Left to gain total control of what once was a proud American Political Party, is now, seemingly, just a bunch of opportunistic un-American blasphemers.

However…it doesn’t seem to bother them at all…and, that’s pathetic.”

Over 70 years ago, a great American saw a moral and cultural decline beginning in our “Shining City on a Hill”…and he knew exactly who was behind it.

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965:

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.” To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”. In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

One of our Founding Fathers predicted the potential chaos which our Sovereign Nation would find ourselves in, if we ignored the laws and precepts of the One who gifted us with this Sacred Land.

John Adams, the second President of these United States, delivered the following message to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on October 11, 1798:

Gentlemen,

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. In the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

We are given free will by our Creator…will to make choices and decisions on the direction of our lives. Being human, we often don’t make the right decisions and being human, those decisions have the potential to lead us down a dark path.

Whether is in reality or strictly in the close quarters of our own consciousness, the path we choose to follow is up to us. However, our parents, family, and friends can make a difference in our journey and I thank God that through His Grace I was given a Father who made sure that I received loving instruction in The Way in which I should go.

We still live in the greatest country on the face of the earth and we still have a responsibility to one another.

The Democratic Party, now under the control of the Far Left, have long since dismissed the reality of absolute morality, unchanging ethics, and the Sovereignty of the God of Abraham.

And, that is why the Silent Majority, comprised, to a great deal, of the over 70% of us average Americans, who proclaim Jesus Christ as our Personal Savior and beginning to rise up in protest of unconscionable, Democrat-led, relative morality and situational ethics. being pursued by the leaders of the Democratic Party, for Political Expediency’s sake.

The Light or the Darkness. The choice is up to each and every one of us.

Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 1 John 4:14 (ESV)

Until He Comes,

KJ