Tag: safety

Obama, Cuba, and Iran: The Politics of Purposeful Obtuseness

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

peace-our-time-600-la1 (2)Yesterday, 90 miles off of the Southern tip of these United States, the Obama Administration, once again, acquiesced to a repressive regime who hates our guts.

Reuters.com reports that

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry declared a new era in relations as he celebrated restored diplomatic ties in Havana on Friday, but he also urged political change in Cuba, telling Cubans they should be free to choose their own leaders.The first U.S. secretary of state to visit the Caribbean island in 70 years, Kerry presided over a ceremony to raise the U.S. flag over the newly reopened American embassy.

“We remain convinced the people of Cuba would be best served by a genuine democracy, where people are free to choose their leaders,” he said in a country where the Communist Party is the only legal political party, the media is tightly controlled, and political dissent is repressed.

“We will continue to urge the Cuban government to fulfill its obligations under U.N. and Inter-American human rights covenants – obligations shared by the United States and every other country in the Americas,” Kerry said, his words accurately translated into Spanish and broadcast live on Cuban state television.

Uh huh.

To quote Petulant President Pantywaist, himself:

Words. Just words.

Yahoo News reports that

Cuba’s lead negotiator in talks with Washington told Reuters on Friday that the island’s internal affairs would never be on the table and Havana would never move “one millimeter” to placate enemies in the United States.”Decisions on internal matters are not negotiable and will never be put on the negotiating agenda in conversations with the United States,” Josefina Vidal, director of U.S. affairs for the Cuban Foreign Ministry, said in an exclusive interview.

“Cuba will never do absolutely anything, not move one millimeter, to try to respond,” she said after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in Havana that the U.S. Congress was unlikely to ever lift a punishing economic embargo on Cuba unless the Communist government improved its human rights record.

This is the second time this summer that Obama has entered into a deal, which is the equivalent of buying a used car from “Honest Al’s Used Car Lot”, that stops in the middle of the street, as soon as you make a left turn out of the lot.

Regarding that first “lemon” of a deal, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty reported that

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said the Islamic republic’s opposition to the “arrogant” United States “will not change” despite a landmark nuclear agreement reached earlier this week with world powers.

The comments, broadcast live on state television on July 18, were greeted by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” at a ceremony at Tehran’s Mosala Mosque on the occasion of the Eid al-Fitr festival, which marks the end of Ramadan.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Barack Obama defended the accord amid skepticism from congressmen reviewing the deal.

Khamenei, who has the final say in all state affairs in Iran, said U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Iran’s strategy and that Tehran will continue to support its allies in the region, including Lebanon’s Hizballah militant group and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Whether this [nuclear deal] is approved or disapproved, we won’t stop supporting our friends in the region,” he said. “The oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, the honest resistance fighters in Lebanon and Palestine will enjoy our constant support.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei added.

Khamenei maintained that Iran’s engagement with six world powers was solely to reach a nuclear deal that was in its national interest.

“We do not negotiate with the United States on various global, regional, or bilateral issues,” Khamenei said. “Sometimes — based on expedience — we have talked to them on exceptional matters, such as the nuclear issue, and it has not been only this one time.”

“U.S. policies in the region are 180 degrees in contrast to Iran’s policies,” he added.

Under the deal agreed in Vienna on July 14 after years of negotiations, sanctions against Tehran, which have hampered Iran’s economy, will be gradually removed in return for the Persian Gulf state accepting long-term curbs on its nuclear program. The talks involved Iran and the five veto-wielding Security Council members — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France — as well as Germany and the European Union.

Western countries accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim that Tehran denies.

Khamenei reiterated that position on July 18, mentioning a fatwa, or religious edict, he himself issued against any action seeking the bomb.

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” he said. “They know it’s not true.”

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

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

The following is an excerpt:

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

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

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

We all know what happened next:  World War II.

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

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

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

The only respect strength and resolve.

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

Hence, their continued rhetoric.

…and, the faint sound of uncontrollable laughter.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama’s Iran Deal: Propaganda Poll Prevaricates About Its Popularity

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

 

 

Knocking-600-LIIran has always been, since the ouster of the Shah, a rogue nation. They are a threat to every nation who stands in the way of their crazed Political Ideology, disguised as a “religion”.

If they achieve nuclear capability, the have promised “Death to America”.

Instead of standing in their way, United States President Barack Hussein Obama seems determined to help them accomplish their goal.

And, the ignorant Liberal Sycophants in the Main Stream Media are all too happy to help him…by any means necessary.

The Washington Post reports that

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.

Support outpaces opposition across nearly all demographic and political groups, with liberals (seven in 10) and Democrats (two-thirds) the most supportive. At least six in 10 independents and moderates also back the broad idea of a deal with Iran.

Republicans are about evenly divided on an Iran deal, with 47 percent in support and 43 percent opposed. The split contrasts with Republican lawmakers’ widespread backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech deriding the potential deal in early March before a joint session of lawmakers. Additionally, all but seven Republican senators signed a letter to Iran’s leadership warning that Congress or a future president could override any agreement made by the Obama administration.

Popular sentiment among Republicans is more in line with GOP lawmakers on the issue of whether Congress should be required to authorize any deal with Iran. A Pew Research Center survey released Monday found 62 percent of the public believes Congress, not President Obama, should have final authority over approving a nuclear agreement with Iran.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and other lawmakers are building bipartisan support for a bill that would require Obama to submit an Iran agreement for congressional approval blocking the removal of sanctions on the Islamic republic for 60 days. The bill would require a veto-proof majority to force Obama’s hand.

Enough fiction.

And now…back to Realityville.

The Pew Research Center reports that

The public is reacting skeptically to last month’s multilateral agreement aimed at freezing parts of Iran’s nuclear program. Overall, more disapprove than approve of the deal, and there continues to be broad skepticism about whether Iranian leaders are serious about addressing international concerns over the country’s nuclear program.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and USA TODAY, conducted Dec. 3-8 among 2,001 adults, finds that 43% disapprove of the agreement between the U.S. and Iran over its nuclear program, 32% approve of the deal, while 25% do not offer an opinion.

The public’s doubts about the intentions of Iran’s leaders are as high as they were last month before the nuclear agreement. By roughly two-to-one (62% to 29%), those who have heard at least a little about the agreement say Iran’s leaders are not serious about addressing concerns over the country’s nuclear program.

There are substantial partisan differences in opinions about the nuclear agreement. Nearly six-in-ten Republicans (58%) disapprove of the accord, while just 14% approve. By contrast, Democrats approve of the agreement by about two-to-one (50% approve, 27% disapprove). Among independents, more disapprove (47%) than approve (29%).

The ideological wings of the parties hold sharply divergent views of the deal. Conservative Republicans disapprove of the agreement by a 64%-13% margin, while liberal Democrats approve of it by 60%-19%. Among Republican and Republican leaners who agree with the Tea Party movement, nearly three-quarters (72%) disapprove of the agreement while only 13% approve of it.

I believe that the majority of the American Public is not as dumb as The Washington Post, the rest of the Main Stream Media, and all of Obama’s little minions, disguised as Liberal Political Pundits, both paid and unpaid.

And, as a Christian American Conservative, I got a kick out of the words of an American-born Jewish Religious Leader, speaking to God’s Chosen People, from the heart of the Holy Land.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, on Saturday night compared US President Barack Obama to Haman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Mordechai.

Speaking at the Jerusalem Great Synagogue, the American-born Riskin said that he could not understand what was going through Obama’s mind.

“The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews,” he said.

“I’m not making a political statement,” he clarified, “I’m making a Jewish statement.”

When a woman in the audience shouted out that he was being disrespectful to the US president, she was booed by the crowd. Riskin said he didn’t need any help from the audience.

“I am being disrespectful because the president of the United States was disrespectful to my prime minister, to my country, to my future and to the future of the world.”

Just as Mordechai was focused on saving the Jews of Persia from destruction, he said, so Netanyahu is focused on saving Israel and the world from destruction.

He said more than once throughout his address that he was proud of Netanyahu, and added that he did the right thing in speaking to Congress “even if it angered Obama.”

Riskin drew an analogy between the conquest of Babylonia by ancient Persia and the armed conflict between Iran and Iraq.

In relation to Iran, he said that the only difference between Iran and the Islamic State was who would be using power to control the world.Right on, Rabbi.

Right on, Rabbi.

Why are American Liberals, such as those at The Washington Post, so naively defending these barbarians?

Are they so contrary, as to not realize that Radical Islam punishes every single social issue that American Liberals so “righteously” defend in this nation?

The maddening thing is that every time you challenge Liberals on this fact, they try to equate radical Islam with American Christianity.

Frankly, the ignorance of these young Liberals blows my mind.

As the Pew Survey shows, the Conservative Majority of Americans, such as myself, actually see Radical Islam and the Nuclear Threat from the Mad Mullahs of Iran for what it is.

Why is that?

I believe that it is because of the old adage,

With age comes wisdom.

Older Americans can remember when the Shah of Iran was deposed and the Radical Mullahs took over the nation, holding Americans hostage, under the ineffectual American President Jimmy Carter, for 444 days.

The only reason that those hostages were not killed and were let go, was the inauguration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

The only thing that these barbarians fear is strength, as the leader of Jordan recently demonstrated.

Older Americans were raised differently than this current generation, for the most part. We were raised to understand Christianity’s place, as the stitching, in the fabric of our nation.

It is a legacy which our fathers and their fathers, bequeathed to us, along with the courage to stand up for our beliefs.

This latest generation, seems to be more interested in watching a woman who takes a bath in fruit loops, interviewing the President of the United States, than they are about what is actually happening in our nation.

This generation’s predilection for situational ethics, relative morality, and all-encompassing political correctness, is reminiscent of the cattle who are led up the ramp to the slaughter house.

They go through their lives, content in their ignorance, until the blade falls.

Unfortunately, this is the generation that we are leaving our country to.

It is time for them to wake up, grow up, and stand up…before it’s too late.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Obama’s DHS Going After “Right Wing Extremists”, while Home-Grown Jihadists Wait In the Weeds.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2I was always taught while growing up that, when something is equivalent, it means that two things have an equal weight of importance to them.

Yahoo.com reports that

It was business as usual at Minnesota’s Mall of America and Canada’s West Edmonton Mall on Sunday, with most people either oblivious to any threat to attack the shopping centers or confident that the risk was too small to worry about.

Shoppers, employees and recreational “mall walkers” were out in full force despite news of a videotape attributed to al Shabaab, a Somali-based Islamist militant group behind a deadly 2013 attack on a Kenyan shopping center, that appeared to threaten the North American malls.

Mall of America (MOA), outside the Twin Cities, and West Edmonton Mall in Alberta issued statements saying they were implementing extra security measures but there were no signs of beefed-up law enforcement at either mall.

At the MOA, one of the largest in the country, hundreds of people turned out for a walk to support the National Eating Disorders Association. The event started before shops opened their doors

Among the participants were Tatum Pugrah, 23, and her boyfriend Nick Disbrowe, also 23. The couple said they were not aware of any special threat but were not entirely surprised when told about the videotape.

“If anyone is going to target anything, it’s the Mall of America,” Disbrowe said.

Clem Jauquet, 57, said he knew about the threat but was not concerned enough to skip his usual early-morning walk around the mall. “I trust the government will protect us from bomb threats,” he said.

The MOA, with 520 stores, a theme park and 50 restaurants, is in an area with one of the largest concentrations of Somalis in the United States. Minnesota’s ethnic Somali population has mushroomed in the last two decades to more than 50,000.

U.S. authorities have been investigating the recruitment of ethnic Somali men into al Shabaab from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area since 2007.

An affiliate of al Qaeda, al Shabaab has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. It claimed responsibility for an attack at Nairobi’s Westgate Mall that killed 67 people and fueled global concerns about mall safety.

West Edmonton Mall bills itself as the No. 1 tourist attraction in the oil-rich Canadian province of Alberta. It has more than 800 stores, two hotels and about 100 dining venues.

Hala Haddad, an employee at the mall, said the possibility of an attack would not keep her away from her job.

“I just don’t think we should let other people influence our behavior going to shopping centers,” she said.

Of course not.

That same sort of logic (or, lack thereof) can be traced all the way back to the White House.

According to the Washington Times…

A new Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment circulated this month focuses on the threat of right-wing sovereign citizen extremist groups in the U.S. Some law enforcement groups say the threat is equal to, and occasionally greater than, the threat from Islamic extremist groups.

The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010, CNN reported Friday.

These types of extremists believe that they can ignore laws because those laws attack their individual rights, even in routine daily instances like a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order, CNN reported Friday.

In one instance in Louisiana in 2012 a father and son were accused of engaging in a shootout with police after an officer puled them over for a traffic violation. Two offices were killed and several others wounded in the shooting. The two men were sovereign citizen extremists who claimed the police had no authority over them.

The Homeland Security report predicts that most sovereign citizen violence in 2015 will occur during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect’s home, during enforcement stops and at government offices, CNN reported.

“Law enforcement officers will remain the primary target of (sovereign citizen) violence over the next year due to their role in physically enforcing laws and regulations,” the report states, according to CNN.

The new assessment comes as President Obama is holding a conference to focus on efforts to fight violent extremism. While the White House has come under fire for its refusal to use the term “Islamist extremism” during the talks, there has been very little discussion on the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say the (White House) conference didn’t address this at all,” an administration official said, adding that the president addresses the need to combat “violent ideologies” of all types, CNN reported.

While groups like the Islamic State and al Qaeda have dominated the global discussion on terrorism, a survey last year of state and local law enforcement officers listed sovereign citizen terrorists ahead of foreign Islamists and domestic militia groups as the top domestic terror threat, CNN reported.

The Homeland Security issued a similar report on the threat of right-wing terrorist groups in the past, garnering criticism for the Obama administration. A 2009 Homeland Security report on possible recruitment of military veterans by right-wing militia groups prompted an outcry from veterans groups.

That report was produced by staff members during the Bush administration but wasn’t published until then Homeland Security Janet Napolitano had taken office. Ms. Napolitano criticized her own agency for the report.

There’s that false equivalency, which the Administration and all their Leftist Minions in the MSM and on Facebook and Internet Chat Boards have been pushing as hard as they can.

They have attacked Christian American Conservatives, over the last month, trying to equate us to ISIS, to no avail.

So, Obama and his Administration have changed targets.

Now I’m not saying that wackadoodles like the Sovereign Citizens Movement, and other fringe organizations, are not a couple of fries short of a Happy Meal, a lot of them are.

However, in the grand scheme of things, these “Right Wing Extemists” do not threaten the security of our nation like Muslim Extremists do. It was not “Sovereign Citizens” who flew airplanes into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.

When Obama embarrassed himself in front of the entire nation, on the morning of the National Prayer Breakfast, when he told the 75% of us who are Christians, that we should all “get down off of our high horses” and accept the fact that we, as Christians,  are just as guilty of violent acts as Muslims, he ignited a political firestorm, which has since had gasoline poured on top of it, by Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remarks, questioning Obama’s Christianity and Patriotism.

For the Department of Homeland Security to be so intent on spending time in pursuit of “Right Wing Extremists”, while home-grown Radical Muslims are being trained and nurtured by their mentors to carry out jihad against us, shows that the Administration’s philosophy of false equivalency is pervasive throughout the Obama .

And, unlike the harmless Direct TV Commercial, featuring “Bad Choices” Rob Lowe, the Administration’s BAD CHOICES could end up being the death of us all.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Biochips: Safety or Subjugation?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Entertainment, Politics2 Comments

16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, (17)so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Revelation 13: 16-17

Are we on our way to having to wear a “mark” for identification?

The New York Daily News has the story.

Would you barcode your baby?

Microchip implants have become standard practice for our pets, but have been a tougher sell when it comes to the idea of putting them in people.

Science fiction author Elizabeth Moon last week rekindled the debate on whether it’s a good idea to “barcode” infants at birth in an interview on a BBC radio program.

“I would insist on every individual having a unique ID permanently attached — a barcode if you will — an implanted chip to provide an easy, fast inexpensive way to identify individuals,” she said on The Forum, a weekly show that features “a global thinking” discussing a “radical, inspiring or controversial idea” for 60 seconds .Moon believes the tools most commonly used for surveillance and identification — like video cameras and DNA testing — are slow, costly and often ineffective.

In her opinion, human barcoding would save a lot of time and money.

The proposal isn’t too far-fetched – it is already technically possible to “barcode” a human – but does it violate our rights to privacy?

Opponents argue that giving up anonymity would cultivate an “Orwellian” society where all citizens can be tracked.

“To have a record of everywhere you go and everything you do would be a frightening thing,” Stanley, senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Daily News.

He warned of a “check-point society” where everyone carries an internal passport and has to show their papers at every turn, he said.

“Once we let the government and businesses go down the road of nosing around in our lives…we’re going to quickly lose all our privacy,” said Stanley.

There are already, and increasingly, ways to electronically track people. Since 2006, new U.S. passports include radio frequency identification tags (RFID) that store all the information in the passport, plus a digital picture of the owner.

In 2002, an implantable ID chip called VeriChip was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The chip could be implanted in a person’s arm, and when scanned, could pull up a 16 digit ID number containing information about the user.

It was discontinued in 2010 amid concerns about privacy and safety.

Still scientists and engineers have not given up on the idea.

A handful of enterprising companies have stepped into the void left by VeriChip, and are developing ways to integrate technology and man.

Biotech company MicroCHIPS has developed an implantable chip to deliver medicine to people on schedule and without injection. And technology company BIOPTid has patented a noninvasive method of identification called the “human barcode.”

Advocates say electronic verification could help parents or caregivers keep track of children and the elderly. Chips could be used to easily access medical information, and would make going through security points more convenient, reports say.

But there are also concerns about security breaches by hackers. If computers and social networks are already vulnerable to hacking and identify theft, imagine if someone could get access to your personal ID chip?

Stanley cautioned against throwing the baby out with the bathwater each time someone invents a new gadget.

“We can have security, we can have convenience, and we can have privacy,” he said. “We can have our cake and eat it too.”

Back on 11/25/10, SiliconIndia.com made this point about biochip implantation in humans:

When it comes to the use of biochips on humans, it works a little bit differently. The chip is implanted in a way where it is able to bind with your DNA. Many government agencies have been working with biochips which can be used for identification purposes. When we think of this as an invasion of privacy, we should also look at the positive side of the technology. This would be a great use to find missing children, if this technology goes as far as an implant at birth, those who have been kidnapped or missing, can be easily found. This type of implantable chip is being researched by defense departments in India and abroad in hopes to be used for soldiers, to monitor their location and relay health information if the soldier gets wounded in battle. This would be a great way to get medical data relayed of what the doctors may be dealing with before the patient ever gets to the hospital. Not only that, a biochip will make it easier to find that wounded soldier.

But there are certain areas which always lack definite explanations. You can’t value human life and you can limit his identity. It questions our morality when it comes to cloning humans and similarly we find it weird when we get ‘tagged’ by some minute chip. Whatever lies in the future for biochips, its implantation in humans still pricks our conscience.

And why is that?  Simple.  It’s that still small voice inside of us, that Divine Spark that makes us all individuals.  The thought of being tagged like an animal goes against the grain of our human spirits.

It disturbs our souls.