Tag: Ted Cruz

Trump Takes South Carolina. Jeb! Quits. Why is Trump Winning? Let Me Tell You Why…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics14 Comments

thU1LM6XXMDo you believe in “momentum”?

The Associated Press reports that

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) — Donald Trump tightened his grip on the mantle of Republican presidential front-runner on Saturday as South Carolina voters seething about Washington and career politicians propelled the billionaire businessman to a comfortable primary win.

One of Trump’s favorite targets, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, finally threw in the towel, suspending his campaign after a dismal finish. “Thank you for the opportunity to run for the greatest office on the face of the earth,” an emotional Bush told his supporters.

Trump looked ahead to Nevada and then the 10 primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday as he tries to increase his delegate advantage.

In a family-affair victory speech, Trump ticked off his policy promises, vowing to terminate President Barack Obama’s health care law and get Mexico to pay for a wall at the border.

“We’re going to start winning for our country because our country doesn’t win anymore,” said Trump, with his wife, Melania, and daughter Ivanka at his side.

Two freshmen senators — Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida — were battling for second place, which would give them bragging rights but might not get them any delegates in the march to the nomination.

Rubio declared, “This has become a three-person race.”

Cruz evoked his win in the leadoff Iowa caucuses as he urged conservatives to rally around his campaign, saying, “We are the only candidate who has beaten and can beat Donald Trump.”

The two-three finish of Cruz and Rubio undercut the value of some coveted South Carolina endorsements. Rubio had the backing of Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Trey Gowdy; Cruz got the support of former Gov. Mark Sanford, now a House member.

Exit polls showed 4 in 10 voters angry about how Washington is working, and more than half saying they felt betrayed by politicians in the Republican Party.

Trump’s victory capped a week in which he called rivals liars, blamed House Speaker Paul Ryan for the GOP’s loss in the 2012 presidential race, and even tangled with Pope Francis.

He was backed by nearly 4 in 10 of those who are angry at the federal government, and a third of those who feel betrayed. He did best with men, older voters, those without a college degree and veterans.

About three-quarters of Republican primary voters support a temporary ban on Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States. Nearly 4 in 10 of those voters backed Trump, while a third who oppose such a ban preferred Rubio.

Trump won a majority of the delegates in the South Carolina primary — at least 38 of the 50 — and has a chance to win them all.

Trump leads the overall race for delegates with 55. Ted Cruz has 11 delegates, Marco Rubio has 10, John Kasich has five, Jeb Bush has 4 and Ben Carson has three.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president.

While the real estate magnate scored a decisive win in New Hampshire, his second-place finish in Iowa to Cruz illustrated gaps in his less-than-robust ground operation, and questions remain about the extent to which he can translate leads in preference polls and large rally crowds into votes.

Trump’s win Saturday could answer some of those questions, adding momentum going into the collection of Southern states that will vote March 1.

The exit polling of voters was conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks by Edison Research.

The final results, courtesy of politico.com, show the following…

Republican – 100% Reporting – Delegates Allocated: 44/50
Winner D. Trump 32.5% 239,851 44
M. Rubio 22.5% 165,881
T. Cruz 22.3% 164,790
J. Bush 7.8% 57,863
J. Kasich 7.6% 56,206
B. Carson 7.2% 53,326

FoxNews.com reported previously, that

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told viewers Friday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will be the victor by a wide margin in Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary.

“I think the odds are that Trump is going to win, probably big. That’s expected,” Krauthammer said. “[But] I think the real key is going to be what the distance is between the one who comes in third, and the bottom three.”

Those are the results that might help determine the eventual Republican nominee, Krauthammer said.

“In other words, if you get Trump, [Sen. Ted] Cruz, [Sen. Marco] Rubio, in that order, and then the bottom three are in single digits it… would be a seminal event.”

“If the race is a three way race, then it really is a toss-up, who of the top three will get it,” Krauthammer said. “If it remains a six man race [or] a five man race that means that Trump will romp all the way to the nomination, because he will dominate if the so-called establishment vote is split,” he said.

Well, Dr. K, I would say that Trump won by a pretty wide margin, wouldn’t you?

Why do I believe that Donald J. Trump is still the frontrunner among all the Republican Presidential Candidates?

This brash, unabashedly American, business entrepreneur and quintessential showman has dominated the media for the past several years.

The popularity of his reality program on NBC and the catch phrase that came leaping out from it, “You’re fired!”, spread across America like wildfire.

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

It is not just his flamboyance that has caught the eye of Americans.

The fact is, after almost two terms of an Administration taking the great country in the world on a scenic tour of the Highway to Hell, Donald Trump is the only Republican Candidate shouting, “Hit the brakes, you idiots!”

Trump’s straightforwardness has struck a chord in the hearts of average Americans, tired of the wussification of America, being so relentlessly pushed by both modern political parties.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment:

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality, they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

From what I’m seeing out of a lot of the Republicans right now, they’re not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Except for Donald Trump.

They are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

As the polls show, and will continue to show, Trump is striking a resonant chord in the hearts of Average Americans, living here in the part of America, which the snobbish Political Elites refer to as “Flyover Country”, but which we refer to as “America’s Heartland”, or, quite simply, “HOME”.

Our palpable anger is one which has been building since January of 2009, when a Lightweight, who has as much in common with average Americans as a Martian would, was inaugurated as President of the United States of America.

That anger, a result of his anti-American actions and resulting policies, which have affected Americans’ daily lives, has been exacerbated by the Republican Elite, who, in their desire to “reach across the aisle” and “go along to get along”, have distanced themselves from the Conservative Voting Base, who elected them to Congress in the first place.

Meanwhile, average Americans, like you and me, remain mired up to our necks in an abysmal swamp of bills and taxes, living paycheck-to-paycheck, afraid to make a move, for fearing of drowning in an ocean of debt.

Seemingly forgotten, in all of the forgotten promises, made by Barack Hussein Obama, are the 94 million Americans, who are no longer, largely through no fault of their own, participating in our Workforce.

You want to talk about anger and frustration?

Try looking for work, when you are over 55 years of age.

It makes you want to give up…daily.

But, I digress…

Anger has played an important part in the forging of this great country, which will be lucky to survive Obama’s final year in office.

It was anger that formed our country….an anger over being held captive to “Taxation Without Representation”…an anger which, as a prime example of history repeating itself, Americans are experiencing, even as I type this blog.

It is this anger, which has propelled Donald J. Trump to his lead in the Republican Primary Race…and those who prefer the Washingtonian Status Quo know it.

If the Republican establishment does not accept the fact that Americans are angry, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push the Jello of “Liberal Moderation” up a hill.

Hence, the failed campaign of Jeb! Bush.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Now, where did I hear about that sort of thing before?

Oh, yeah.

That’s the way the Founding Fathers envisioned our system of government, led by citizens, who served their term s as public servants…AND THEN WENT HOME.

But, I digress…

You know what intrigues me the most about “The Donald”?

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.” – Jack Burton, Truck Driver (Kurt Russell) “Big Trouble in Little China”

…and that, boys and girls, despite all of Trump’s faults, remains a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Head of ICE: “Rubio Absolutely Knowingly Mislead the American People”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics7 Comments

cartoonmarcorubiogangof8Listen, I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open. – Jeffrey Pelt, “The Hunt for Red October”

The President of ICE, Christopher Crane, recently gave an Exclusive Interview to Breitbart News

…in which he detailed his behind-the-scenes interactions with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), as Crane sought to protect the nation’s ICE officers and national security.  Crane was integral to stopping Sen. Rubio’s amnesty plan from passing the House—which, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently explained, “was a near-run thing.”

…In his responses, Crane addresses an incident—first detailed by Breitbart News— in which Marco Rubio stood idly by as Crane was ejected from a Gang of Eight press conference for trying to ask a question on behalf of law enforcement.

Crane, an active duty ICE officer, has served as an officer for approximately 13 years and has been elected by his peers as the president of their union, as thus their voice on the national stage. Prior to joining ICE, Crane was a United States Marine.

Here is an excerpt from that interview…

BREITBART NEWS: It is well known that the Gang of Eight reached out to big business groups and amnesty groups in the process of writing the bill. When Sen. Rubio started writing his bill, did he reach out to you and other ICE officers for your ideas and input?

CRANE: Sen. Rubio never reached out to us. He surrounded himself with big business and amnesty groups, most of which were more interested in cheap labor and their own political agendas, and had no real concern for the welfare of immigrants, public safety, or the security of our nation. This while he ignored boots on the ground law enforcement officers who work within our broken immigration system every day and know better than any what’s needed to fix it. Common sense dictates that law enforcement be at the table when creating a bill like this. I think Sen. Rubio knew that, but actively chose to exclude us because of his own personal agenda.

BNN: Did Sen. Rubio meet with you voluntarily or did he have to be pressured into doing so at the last minute? Do you remember how you were ultimately able to secure the meeting? Did it take a long time?

CHRIS CRANE: It was definitely last minute as we met in the evening and they introduced the bill a few hours later that same night. It doesn’t get much more last minute than that. Was he pressured? I definitely think so. Not just by the public, but by some in the media as well. I think appearances on the Greta Van Susteren and Gov. Mike Huckabee shows are what tipped the balance and got us in. I think Gov. Huckabee was especially important in making the meeting happen, he was genuinely concerned that law enforcement was being excluded from the process and reached out to Sen. Rubio on our behalf. Many thanks to him for his attempts to help us.

BNN: What happened in the meeting? Did Sen. Rubio make any promises to you? Did he keep them?

CRANE: To start, even though I had requested to bring someone with me, Sen. Rubio denied the request and demanded that I come alone, which I still believe was highly peculiar and inappropriate.

He, of course, had what appeared to be his entire staff in his office with me. Most of his staff stood behind me as there was no place for them to sit. I raised a series of strong concerns with the bill, and as I raised each issue, Sen. Rubio would look to his staff and ask if that was what the bill said. Each time his staff agreed with my interpretation, and Sen. Rubio would shake his head in disbelief and indicate the bill had to be changed.

Sen. Rubio talked very specifically and very directly to me and his staff saying that the changes I suggested had to be made and specifically said that other Gang of Eight members wouldn’t be happy, but “Oh well.” Obviously the changes I suggested were all serious enforcement related issues, such as establishing a biometric entry-exit system, and cracking down on sex offenders, gang members, violent criminals and other criminal aliens.

When I walked out of his office that night I definitely thought the bill would undergo significant changes, but of course absolutely no changes were made.

BNN: Almost immediately after you met with Sen. Rubio, he introduced bill. Did it include any of the changes you asked for?

CRANE: Not one of the changes we suggested was made to the bill before Sen. Rubio introduced it.

All of his strong statements during our meeting about making the changes we suggested were apparently all just a dodge to get rid of me. It quickly became obvious why he didn’t permit me to take anyone with me to the meeting— he didn’t want any witnesses.

BNN: What happened during the press conference when you tried to ask Sen. Rubio and Chuck Schumer to take a question?

CRANE: I was polite, professional and respectful at all times. I didn’t interrupt anyone or cause a scene. The press was there, but Sen. Rubio and the rest of the Gang of Eight had also filled the large room with amnesty supporters and open borders people to cheer and applaud the Gang of Eight every time they said something. It was a real dog and pony show, sort of a circus.

Because it wasn’t your traditional closed press conference, it didn’t seem at all out of place to me, as an American citizen, to politely ask these elected officials a question about the legislation they were there to discuss. After all, I thought that Congress was the People’s House.

When the floor was opened to reporters to ask questions, I too politely raised my hand and asked, “Will you take a question from law enforcement?”

The amnesty folks immediately started making hateful comments like: you’re not welcome here, you need to leave, you have no right to speak here. A commotion took place on the stage with the Gang of Eight Senators. Sen. Rubio did look directly at me, and it appeared that he told Sen. Flake who I was.

Yet, despite having looked directly at me, Sen. Rubio did absolutely nothing to allow me to ask a question on behalf of the nation’s ICE officers, sheriffs and front line law enforcement.

I was able to ask the same question approximately two more times, before a Senate staffer accompanied by Capitol Hill police approached— demanding that they escort me out.

As I was escorted out by police, some within the amnesty groups applauded, laughed at me, and made hateful remarks. Once police escorted me outside of the main room, police informed me that I was not free to go and that I was to be taken somewhere for questioning.

As a law enforcement officer I knew that their actions met the legal standard for an arrest. At that point I demanded to know the charges against me and why I was being arrested. Television cameras, reporters and microphones came swooping in, and as they did the Senate staffer scurried away like a cockroach, leaving the Capitol Hill police on their own. I was allowed to leave the area, but I think it was only because the police were afraid to handcuff me with reporters filming them.

Senator Rubio and the Gang of Eight stood there and watched it all happen. Anyone of them could have jumped to the mic and yelled for the Senate staffer and the police to stop what they were doing to me, but none did. Sen. Rubio just stood their silently and watched it happen. I am told that Sen. Rubio later stated that I should not have been removed, but he never reached out to me to say that or apologize. To my knowledge he and the Gang of Eight never called for an investigation.

If it had been Mark Zuckerberg in the crowd asking questions the Gang of Eight Senators would have been tripping over themselves to kiss his backside, but as a normal citizen without the means to filter money into their campaigns they had me forced out by police

BNN: What did you mean when you said in Congressional testimony: “Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as what I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight”? CRANE: As ICE officers, we wrote a letter to Congress expressing strong concerns with the Gang of Eight bill. The letter was endorsed by approximately 150 Sheriffs, to include Sheriff Sam Page of the National Sheriffs Association Border Security and Immigration Committee, as well the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers and other law enforcement groups. Law enforcement officers were screaming for help from the Gang of Eight to make changes to the bill that would better provide for public safety and national security, but the Gang of Eight ignored all of them. The Gang of Eight not only ignored law enforcement, but actively fought to keep our input out. Only wealthy special interests like the Chamber of Commerce were permitted to be a part of the process. It was dirty D.C. politics at its worst.

BNN: Sen. Rubio touted his bill as “The Toughest Border Security & Enforcement Measures In U.S. History,” do you believe this was an honest representation of the bill?

CRANE: I think that’s absolutely false – there was no real promise or guarantee of stronger border security. The bill actually relinquished Congress’ authority to establish border security measures to the head of DHS. The head of DHS then had something like so six months to unilaterally develop a border security plan after the Gang of Eight bill passed.

So not only was there no real plan, but Sen. Rubio apparently thought that giving a presidentially appointed bureaucrat god-like powers over America’s immigration system was the answer to border security, this as other Republicans are fighting corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats in agencies like the IRS and Secret Service, not to mention the unlawful policies on immigration enforcement enacted by the current President. Rather than being touted as the toughest border security and enforcement plan in history, it could more accurately be touted as the worst.

BNN: Sen. Rubio pledged his bill would provide enforcement first, do you believe this was an honest representation the bill?

CRANE: No, I don’t believe it was an honest representation. Protection from deportation, a type of de facto amnesty, came almost immediately as the first step in a much broader amnesty like process provided in the bill. There was no real promise of border security in the bill, and the bill provided nothing for interior enforcement, but instead made legalization of criminal aliens and gang members a priority. People need to understand that this bill was written by pro-amnesty and open borders groups that have no concern for America’s borders or the safety of its communities. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the bill was such a lopsided mess.

BNN: Sen. Rubio’s bill legalized sex offenders, drunk drivers, and others with criminal records. From an ICE officer’s perspective, how do you feel about his decision to legalize illegal immigrants with criminal convictions?

CRANE: Under the Obama Administration, ICE released estimates stating that approximately 2 million criminal aliens resided in the U.S. That’s 10 times the size the U.S. Marine Corps, at least when I was in. And I think ICE’s estimates are low.

People need to wake up. We can’t continue to keep taking millions of the world’s criminals without expecting serious repercussions to public safety and expense and burden to our legal system. Local and state jurisdictions are already overwhelmed by the criminal alien problem in our country. To turn this around and get things back under control, the U.S. must take the opposite approach. We must send criminals back to their countries. Especially sex offenders. I can’t understand why any lawmaker or special interest group would support legalizing sex offenders, but it shows how out of control the bill really was.

BNN: In your letter, you specifically protested that the bill would legalize gang members. As an ICE officer, how do you feel that this provision was left in the bill?

CRANE: It disgusts me. Violent street gangs were literally able to lobby Sen. Rubio and the Gang of Eight more effectively than law enforcement, they had more influence on the bill than we did. Gangs were able to get provisions in the law to protect themselves. It’s absolutely insane. What on earth are our lawmakers thinking? I think it’s this type of utterly stupid lawmaking that has caused most Americans to lose faith in Congress.

BNN: Sen. Rubio was on television and radio constantly promoting his bill, which was backed by powerful special interests. What did you learn about Sen. Rubio’s character during that time?

CRANE: In my opinion, Sen. Rubio absolutely knowingly mislead the American people regarding the bill. He was not telling the American public the truth about what that bill contained.

I realize that was a lengthy excerpt. However, I felt that it was important to keep as much of Crane’s remarks intact, as possible.

Marco Rubio , judging by his Campaign Appearances and Stump Speeches, appears to be in the throes of a “mea culpa” as regards his sucking up to the Establishment (Vichy) Republicans…and the Democrats…during his tenure as a card-carrying member of “The Gang of Eight”.

My question to you: DO YOU BELIEVE HIM?

History records that, “The Gang of Eight Bill” came up for a final Senate vote on June 27, 2013. Rubio, as a key author of the legislation, voted for its passage. Cruz voted against it.

Back in January, before the Iowa Caucus, The Washington Examiner filed the following report,

Following his rapid-fire assault on Sen. Ted Cruz’s record during Thursday evening’s debate, Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign in Iowa kept up his line of attack by calling out Cruz as a follower of the political winds.Rep. Kristi Noem, a South Dakota Republican and Rubio supporter, told reporters after the debate that Cruz is nothing more than a political opportunist who supports “whatever’s popular that day,” continuing Rubio’s line of attack that the Texas senator engages in “political calculation” and not “consistent conservatism.”

“From what I heard come from Donald Trump, from what I’ve seen of actions coming from Ted Cruz, they’re not the right people for the job,” Noem told reporters after a Rubio watch party. “Ted Cruz says whatever’s popular that day. He votes one way, and then a month later will vote another way. He’ll take a position, write an op-ed on something as critical as our economic future and trade with foreign countries, and he’ll change his mind because the political winds are blowing a different direction.”

“I don’t want another president like that. I don’t want a president like the one that we have that knows how to talk, but doesn’t walk the walk,” Noem continued. I want one that will actually follow through on what he says he will do.”

Irony is embarrassed.

There are no angels in the 2016 Presidential Primaries, on either side.

For each and every candidate, including Donald J. Trump, unlike the Syrian Refugees, who Obama is attempting to force on us, there is an abundance of information out there, which shows their past thoughts, words, and deeds (or, lack thereof).

In Rubio’s Case, just as in the case of the current “Political” Pope’s insult of Donald J. Trump, as regards to calling Ted Cruz as “opportunist”, Marcio forgot that

People in Glass Houses should not throw stones.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Obama Attacks Trump During Presidential Press Conference. Throws Stone From Glass House.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2Yesterday, President Barack Hussein Obama held a Press Conference….and further demeaned the Office, which he presently holds.

CNN.com posted the following article…

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama has a message for Donald Trump — being president is tougher than being on a reality show and the American people are too “sensible” to elect him.

“I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president,” Obama said at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian leaders. “And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American people. Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show.”

He went on: “It’s not promotion, it’s not marketing. It’s hard. And a lot of people count on us getting it right.”

Obama offered surprisingly frank assessments of the campaign to replace him, taking shots at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. He also hinted hint that he was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton’s position on the difficulty of enacting political change, as she faces a tough challenge from a candidate in Bernie Sanders, who has fired up Democratic primary voters who are demanding sweeping reform.

But it was the potential of a Trump administration that Obama seemed most eager to critique. 

The presidency isn’t “a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day. And sometimes, it requires you making hard decisions even when people don’t like it,” Obama said, adding that whoever succeeds him needs to be able to reflect the importance of their office and give foreign leaders confidence he or she knows their names and something about their nations’ histories. Obama also appeared to raise the question of whether Trump was prepared to be commander-in-chief.

“Whoever’s standing where I’m standing right now has the nuclear codes with them, and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight, and (has) to make sure that the banking system doesn’t collapse, and is often responsible for not just the United States of America, but 20 other countries that are having big problems, or are falling apart and are gonna be looking for us to something.”

He added: “The American people are pretty sensible, and I think they’ll make a sensible choice in the end.”

Trump responded to Obama during an event in Beaufort, South Carolina.

“He has done such a lousy job as president,” Trump said, before adding that he didn’t mind being targeted by Obama, saying he took it as a “great compliment.”

Trump wasn’t the only Republican who took a shot from the President.

When he bemoaned Republican warnings that his nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court would not even get a hearing, Obama rebuked people who claim to be “strict interpreters” of the Constitution — except regarding his right to propose a nominee.

That seemed to be a clear jab at Cruz, who has helped lead calls to prevent the president installing a nominee who could tilt the ideological balance of the court to the left.

Rubio also came under fire when the president mocked “a candidate who sponsored a bill, that I supported, to finally solve the immigration problem, and he’s running away from it as fast as he can.”

The President stepped more carefully when he was asked about the Democratic race. He opened by making it look like he was delivering a veiled endorsement of Clinton, who is facing a stronger than expected challenge from Sanders.

“You know, I know Hillary better than I know Bernie, because she’s served in my administration, and she was an outstanding secretary of state. And I suspect that, on certain issues, she agrees with me more than Bernie does,” Obama said.

But then added: “On the other hand, there may be a couple issues where Bernie agrees with me more. I don’t know, I haven’t studied their positions that closely.”

Obama who, like Sanders, once wowed young Democrats with soaring calls for change in the 2008 election, also appeared to give credence to Clinton’s election argument that pushing through fundamental reforms is harder than it looks.

“Ultimately, I will probably have an opinion on it, based on both — (having) been a candidate of hope and change and a President who’s got some nicks and cuts and bruises from — you know, getting stuff done over the last seven years.”

Obama was clear on one thing — he’s happy not to be in the race himself.

“The thing I can say unequivocally,” he said, “I am not unhappy that I am not on the ballot.”

Considering that you are about a popular with Americans as Michael Moore is with All-you-can-eat Buffets, I’ll bet you’re not, Mr. President.

That’s a nice Glass House you’ve got there, Skippy.

Let’s take a moment and look at your less-than-stellar track record before your “Sponsors” cleaned you up and foisted you upon the American People. shall we?

The following FACTS are contained in my post, “The Great Disconnect: The Whole, Ugly Truth About Barack Hussein Obama”…

From 1985 – 1988, Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago.  What does a Community Organizer do?  I’m glad you asked.

Per Byron York in an article found at nationalreview.com:

Community organizing is most identified with the left-wing Chicago activist Saul Alinsky (1909-72), who pretty much defined the profession. In his classic book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote that a successful organizer should be “an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions.” Once such hostilities were “whipped up to a fighting pitch,” Alinsky continued, the organizer steered his group toward confrontation, in the form of picketing, demonstrating, and general hell-raising.

If you ask Obama’s fellow Community Organizers what his significant accomplishments were, they’ll say two things: the expansion of a city summer-job program for South Side teenagers and the removal of asbestos from one of the area’s oldest housing projects.  Those  were his biggest victories.

So, after 3 years of Community Organizing, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School at the age of 27.  The question is:  How did he get the money for this?  In my article Why Haven’t I Heard of Khalid Al-Monsour? ,  I attempted to answer that question:

President Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 – 1991.  The average tuition during that time was $25,000 per year.  It would have cost $75,000 to attend there for 3 years.  As president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, according to Harvard spokesman Mike Armini in a interview with Newsmax.

If numbers cited by the Obama Presidential Campaign for Scooter”s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.  Hmmmmm.

Along with the funding issue, very little is known about Obama’s time at Harvard Law School,and his sycophants in the Liberal hierarchy, Main Stream Media,  and even Harvard Law School Administrators have done a remarkable job in running interference against anyone trying to find out about it.

From Jodi Kantor’s article at nytimes.com:

He arrived there as an unknown, Afro-wearing community organizer who had spent years searching for his identity; by the time he left, he had his first national news media exposure, a book contract and a shot of confidence from running the most powerful legal journal in the country.

In 1995  “Bomber” Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn hosted a fund-raiser for Obama prior to Obama’s run for Alice Palmer’s seat in the state Senate  and Ayers donated $200 to Obama’s upcoming state Senate campaign.

In 1996 at age 34, he ran for the state Senate in dubious campaign that is barely known of, outside of Chicago.   Alice Palmer, the incumbent, had decided to run for Congress and supported Obama as her successor.   But after Palmer’s congressional campaign ran into trouble, she changed her mind and decided to run for re-election to the Illinois Senate after all. Obama refused to step aside and the melee ensued.  One of Scooter’s volunteers challenged whether Palmer’s nominating petitions were even legal.  Obama’s campaign pulled the same chicanery concerning the petitions of other candidates.  Palmer dropped out, and the other candidates were disqualified.   So,  Obama won unopposed in the Democratic primary—guaranteeing his victory in the general election.  This was truly an example of Chicago-style politics at it’s finest…or dirtiest.

He “served” as a United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 – 2008.

Obama sponsored 121 bills as a senator, of which 115 never made it out of committee and 3 were successfully enacted.   He co-sponsored 506 bills during the same time period.

Barack Obama missed 314 (24%) of 1,300 roll call votes.  He did not have the option of voting “Present” as he did 130 times in the Illinois State Senate.

One and one half years after taking his seat in the U.S. Senate, Obama declared himself a candidate for the Democratic nomination as their representative in the 2008 Presidential Election.

And now, after 7 years of a failed presidency, Obama has the temerity to attacked a self-made billionaire, further degrading the Office of the President in the process.

Trump responded to Obama’s comments Tuesday from Beaufort, SC, saying,

This man has done such a bad job. He has set us back so far, and for him to say that is a great compliment, if you want to know the truth. A network called and wanted a response. I said, ‘You’re lucky I didn’t run last time when Romney ran, because you would have been a one-term president.’

The man may have a point.

According to the latest Reuters Poll, he still has a commanding lead over the other Republican Candidates, including Senator Ted Cruz…

  • Donald Trump 40.8%
  • Ted Cruz 16.9%
  • Ben Carson 11.5%
  • Marco Rubio 9.8%
  • Jeb Bush 8.0%
  • John Kasich 7.1%
  • Wouldn’t vote 5.4%
  • Jim Gilmore 0.6%
  • Carly Fiorina –%
  • Chris Christie –%

With November rapidly approaching, the Democrat Party, including the President himself, are beginning to show signs of desperation and panic.

Look at their two top candidates, can you blame them?

You have a crazy old Socialist, who looks like Doc Emmett Brown from “Back to the Future”, who hasn’t held a real job in over 40 years and a Former First Lady/Carpetbagger New York Senator/Failed Secretary of State, with obvious Health Issues and no personality whatsoever, who is so dadburn mean that grass never grows again where she spits.

It’s really no surprise that the President of the United States attacked the Leading Presidential Candidate of the Opposition Party, yesterday.

Liberals will tell you whom they fear.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Republican Establishment Stacks SC Debate Audience in an Effort to Derail Trump and Cruz

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

gop-debate-north-charleston-680x365A 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. – Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975

Yesterday, on Facebook Political Pages and Political Websites, a lot of Americans were talking about Republican Presidential Hopeful Donald J. Trump and the less-than-supportive reaction that he received during the Republican Primary Candidate on Saturday Night, which was held in South Carolina, the state which will hold the next Primary Elections.

It turns out that there was a logical reason for that, and it wasn’t just his mercurial personality.

Breitbart.com reports that

GREENVILLE, South Carolina — The chairman of the local Republican Party here confirmed to local television that 2016 frontrunner billionaire Donald Trump’s concerns—and those of his closest competitor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) —with the Republican National Committee (RNC) allocation of debate audience tickets are well-placed.

Chad Groover, the chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party here, told WYFF—the local NBC News station—that party donors get tickets to the debate.

“You’ll have a good mix of people who are donors, people who are donors and workers, and people who are just workers,” Groover said, noting that he got “a couple of dozen” of tickets to hand out to the party’s faithful donors.

“I didn’t have hundreds of tickets. I had a couple of dozen tickets,” Groover said.

That means a significant proportion of his stack of approximately 24 tickets went to monied interests backing the GOP—not to actual voters in the upcoming election.

Sources close to the process who work for the RNC, but are not authorized to speak on the record, confirmed to Breitbart News throughout the evening on Saturday that that is standard operating procedure for the RNC and the party as a whole for all debates: Donors get tickets while voters have to watch on TV at home.

As such, the same appears to have been true party-wide. One well-placed source who works for one of the GOP presidential campaigns and was in attendance at the debate on Saturday evening here—but was not authorized to speak on record about the matter—told Breitbart News that Sen. Lindseey Graham (R-SC) and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley were personally given scores of tickets to distribute. Both despise Trump and have said so publicly–Haley even using the platform of the official GOP response to the State of the Union to do so–and it would be no surprise if they did aim to stack the audience with anti-Trump sentiment.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said another source in the audience, someone who has attended several of the GOP debates. That source said the anti-Trump and anti-Cruz audience members—who were thoroughly cheering for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his mentor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush when they made passionate cases for amnesty for illegal aliens, something entirely non-representative of South Carolina’s electorate—were behaving unlike any audience he’d ever seen in his lifetime of attending GOP presidential debates.

The Republican National Committee’s Sean Spicer confirmed to Breitbart News pre-debate that the RNC proper distributed 367 tickets while the state party and locally elected officials received 550 tickets. Meanwhile the debate partners—CBS News, the Peace Center, and Google—received another 100 tickets. That means more than 1000 tickets—1,017 by Spicer’s admission—went not to voters in the upcoming election and not to campaigns for equal distribution to their supporters but to special interest distribution of those connected to the party, mostly high dollar donors. Only 600 tickets were distributed equally among the six remaining GOP campaigns, which to be fair to the RNC is the highest number of tickets distributed as such so far this election cycle.

But Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, is calling for the RNC to drop all donor tickets and stop handing them out to special and monied interests entirely. Lewandowski says at all the rest of the debates from here on out, Spicer and the RNC must equally allocate all tickets among the various campaigns so they can distribute them equally and fairly to their supporters—and cut out all the donors and special interests who get tickets.

“I think the RNC does a terrible job in allocating the tickets, to be honest with you, There’s an opportunity—there’s 2,000 seats out there, there’s six candidates on stage, they should just divide them evenly so everyone has them, but instead they just give them to the donor class, they give them to the lobbyists and to all the special interests,” Lewandowski said in the spin room. “It’s not fair, it’s not equitable. So I think what they should do moving forward is take the total number of seats available, allocate them across the board and let the candidates bring their people in, because that’s who should be here, not the donors.”

Spicer has refused repeatedly over the course of several emails on Saturday and Sunday morning to answer whether the RNC will comply with Lewandowski’s request to drop all RNC and state and local party ticket allocation and just allow the campaigns to equally distribute all debate tickets fairly to their supporters in the future.

Trump’s and Cruz’s concerns are even being confirmed by many across the political spectrum. In fact, even the left-of-center Huffington Post confirms that the RNC’s ticket allocation system seems to have been “behind” the excessive and unwarranted booing of Trump and Cruz—and cheering of the donor class supported Rubio and Bush.

“The audience at Saturday’s CBS News Republican presidential debate was more boisterous than unusual — booing, clapping and generally making its feelings known during several exchanges between candidates on stage in Greenville, South Carolina,” the Huffington Post’s Igor Bobic wrote. “At various points, attendees seemed to favor former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and to be very much against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and real estate mogul Donald Trump — the two candidates currently leading the race. The way the Republican National Committee distributed the tickets may have been behind the heightened reactions.”

Vox, another left-of-center outlet, ran a headline that made it even clearer: “The Republican establishment packed the debate audience with Donald Trump haters.” In the piece, author German Lopez noted that the audience’s pro-Rubio and pro-Bush cheering was “very peculiar” as was the booing of Trump and Cruz.

“Something very peculiar happened at the Republican debate on Saturday night: When Donald Trump talked, the audience booed. Yet when Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and even John Kasich talked, they got loud cheers and applause,” Lopez wrote. “This happened again and again. It even led a spike in Google searches for ‘Why are people booing?’”

Vox even admits that Trump’s claim on stage that the odd—and unrepresentative of the party’s voting base—audience was made up of “Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists” was really not “that far-fetched.”

“Prior to the debate, the Republican Party decided not to use a lottery system to decide who should be in the audience,” Lopez wrote. “Instead, most tickets went to elected Republican officials, donors, and other workers for the party picked by local, state, and national party officials. The result, it seems, is the room was packed with Republican voters who overwhelmingly dislike Trump.”

That seems to be why Lewandowski is calling for a new system for fairness, one that cuts the RNC completely out of the process. It remains to be seen if other campaigns will get on board with this, but earlier in the cycle–due to the RNC’s ineffectiveness in dealing with biased moderators–the entire field of campaign managers met privately to cut the RNC out of the process of negotiating with the networks. It is only logical that the next step is that the campaigns work to ensure fairness in debate audience selection, something the RNC clearly failed at providing.

Well, gosh. Why would the Establishment Republicans want to stack the audience like that?

Could they be desperate?

Did the ignorant, disrespectful CBS Television Series “Angel From Hell” featuring Jane Lynch, a Conservative-hating Atheist, get cancelled…quickly?

You betcha.

Speaking of CBS…

According to CBS News…

The CBS News Battleground Tracker poll shows that Donald Trump keeps a large lead in South Carolina, bolstered by support from conservatives and also from evangelical voters, who make up a large share of the electorate here.

Ted Cruz is in second place, but well behind Trump. Cruz has the support of those who consider themselves very conservative, but trails Trump among all conservatives as well as moderates.

John Kasich has gotten a little bounce out of his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, but he may be limited here by the fact that evangelical voters are not as strongly in support of him as non-evangelicals.

For Trump voters, who have been relatively steadfast in their support over the last few months, the percentage who say they’ve firmly decided on Trump has increased. Trump’s lead among evangelicals is up from January, and he has widened his lead among conservatives, too.

In a contest marked by divisions among so-called “insiders” and “outsiders,” South Carolina Republicans show a strong preference for campaigns running as the latter, and this poll helps illustrate why. By four to one, South Carolina Republicans describe the “establishment” as a bad thing, and few describe it as a group that knows how to get things done.

On the metric of being “prepared” to be president, Trump and Cruz do well, and Jeb Bush and John Kasich do relatively well, but Marco Rubio trails in this regard, suggesting that last week’s debate in New Hampshire may have had an impact.

Hillary Clinton keeps her large lead in South Carolina, which has narrowed only slightly from last month, and she is bolstered by strong support from the African American voters who comprise most of the Democratic electorate here.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment.

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality,they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

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”.

They are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans are tired of the empty promises and spineless behavior of Professional Politicians, including Squishy Moderates, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment continues this war against Trump and Cruz, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push the jello of “Liberal Moderation” up a hill.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Iowa Caucus Analysis: Winners, Losers, and Unbelievable Spin

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

ss-120102-iowa-01.660;660;7;70;0Alright. As Maureen McGovern sang, “There’s Got to Be a Morning After”.

Now that the dust has settled, what can we learn from the results of the First Event of the Primary Season, the Iowa Caucus, or, as it is called, the “Hawkeye Caucai”?

Edward J. Rollins is a former assistant to President Ronald Reagan, who managed Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. He is presently a senior presidential fellow at Hofstra University and a member of the Political Consultants Hall of Fame. He is Senior Advisor for Teneo Strategy.

Rollins, a Fox News Contributor, has submitted the following op ed, analyzing the results of yesterday’s Iowa Caucus on the Republican Side of the Aisle…

It is always interesting to watch democracy in action and Iowa is ground zero.

Many political pundits and media analysts complain about the attention Iowa receives from candidates and the media because it goes first. But it also is a state filled with people who are willing to pay attention, to go to small events and forums (more than 1,500 have been held) and to show up at a caucus on a cold, often snowy night to participate in a ritual few states duplicate.

Millions of dollars are spent on TV commercials (over 60,000) and organization that Monday night produced a record turnout.

Iowa doesn’t always produce the eventual winners but it does eliminate the losers. With 17 Republican candidates starting this process, there are really only three or four real candidates now with voter support and sufficient monies to go on to the remaining contests.

With a record voter turnout in Iowa, the winner, Ted Cruz goes on with his extraordinary organization and conservative supporters with a big upset.

Marco Rubio, the best debater, came on strong and gained real momentum. He came very close to coming in second. Certainly he has to be viewed as a very serious candidate and the best bet to become the establishment candidate.

Trump is Trump and his special appeal to new voters and the angry anti-Washington element will go on, too, but with unpredictable results. He also paid a price for missing the last debate and fighting Fox News.

Ben Carson held his 10 percent base, but his candidacy is short lived and beyond Iowa has minimal support.

The biggest losers are Bush, Christie and Huckabee. Bush spent the most money and dropped like a rock.

Christie’s bluster, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sell. He has no money and no future in this race.

And Huckabee, who won this race eight years, and thought he could be a serious challenger against Romney in 2012, was a bottom dweller getting less than 2 percent of the vote. He raised no money and has no appeal and barely has enough money left to buy a bus ticket back to Arkansas. He quickly waved the flag of surrender and wisely quit the race.

One more may make the cut after Iowa, but this is the field now and it will be fascinating to watch.

Monday night’s win is a giant victory for Cruz and his team. He won in spite of a greater turnout than in years past and benefited from the dramatic increase in new voters. And now on to New Hampshire!

So, the Grand Old Party’s cup runneth over, They are seemingly blessed with 3 strong contenders for this Presidential Candidate Nomination.

The problem, as history has shown, is the fact that the Iowa Caucus is not exactly a bellweather by which to determine what will happen in November.

The other problem for the Republican Establishment, is the fact that they absolutely cannot stand the candidates that came in first and second.

Rubio, in the past, has proven to be a useful ally.

Things promise to be interesting in the months leading up to the convention.

Meanwhile, over at Propaganda Central for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Machine, otherwise known as the New York Times, Nate Cohn tried to declare the Queen of Mean, the winner of a VIRTUAL TIE.

Bernie Sanders is right: The Iowa Democratic caucuses were a “virtual tie,” especially after you consider that the results aren’t even actual vote tallies, but state delegate equivalents subject to all kinds of messy rounding rules and potential geographic biases.

The official tally, for now, is Hillary Clinton at 49.9 percent, and Mr. Sanders at 49.6 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting early Tuesday morning.

But in the end, a virtual tie in Iowa is an acceptable, if not ideal, result for Mrs. Clinton and an ominous one for Mr. Sanders. He failed to win a state tailor made to his strengths.

He fares best among white voters. The electorate was 91 percent white, per the entrance polls. He does well with less affluent voters. The caucus electorate was far less affluent than the national primary electorate in 2008. He’s heavily dependent on turnout from young voters, and he had months to build a robust field operation. As the primaries quickly unfold, he won’t have that luxury.

Iowa is not just a white state, but also a relatively liberal one — one of only a few of states where Barack Obama won white voters in the 2008 primary and in both general elections. It is also a caucus state, which tends to attract committed activists.

In the end, Mr. Sanders made good on all of those strengths. He excelled in college towns. He won an astonishing 84 percent of those aged 17 to 29 — even better than Mr. Obama in the 2008 caucus. He won voters making less than $50,000 a year, again outperforming Mr. Obama by a wide margin. He won “very liberal” voters comfortably, 58 to 39 percent.

But these strengths were neatly canceled by Mrs. Clinton’s strengths. She won older voters, more affluent voters, along with “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” Democrats.

This raises a straightforward challenge for Mr. Sanders. He has nearly no chance to do as well among nonwhite voters as Mr. Obama did in 2008. To win, Mr. Sanders will need to secure white voters by at least a modest margin and probably a large one. In the end, Mr. Sanders failed to score a clear win in a state where Mr. Obama easily defeated Mrs. Clinton among white voters.

Mr. Sanders’s strength wasn’t so great as to suggest that he’s positioned to improve upon national polls once the campaign heats up. National polls show him roughly tied with Mrs. Clinton among white voters, and it was the case here as well. It suggests that additional gains for Mr. Sanders in national polls will require him to do better than he did in Iowa, not that the close race in Iowa augurs a close one nationally.

Mr. Sanders will have another opportunity to gain momentum after the New Hampshire primary. He might not get as much credit for a victory there as he would have in Iowa, since New Hampshire borders his home state of Vermont. But it could nonetheless give him another opportunity to overcome his weaknesses among nonwhite voters.

As a general rule, though, momentum is overrated in primary politics. In 2008, for instance, momentum never really changed the contours of the race. Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa allowed him to make huge gains among black voters, but not much more — the sort of exception that would seem to prove the rule. Mr. Obama couldn’t even put Mrs. Clinton away after winning a string of states in early February.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment There’s an even longer list of candidates with fairly limited appeal, particularly Republicans like Rick Santorum, Pat Buchanan or Mike Huckabee, who failed to turn early-state victories into broader coalitions.

The polls this year offer additional reasons to doubt it. Mrs. Clinton holds more than 50 percent of the vote in national surveys; her share of the vote never declined in 2008. The polls say that her supporters are more likely to be firmly decided than Mr. Sanders’s voters.

Back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire by Mr. Sanders might have been enough to overcome that history. The no-decision in Iowa ensures we won’t find out.

Wow.

I haven’t seen a job of spinning like that since Rumpelstiltskin spun straw into gold. (look him up, kids.)

Mr. Cohn, as we say down here in Dixie,

That dog don’t hunt.

  1. While Sanders’ strength does rely with white voters ( which is funny, because you Democrats are supposed to cherish DIVERSITY, but, I digress…), his base of power lies in the New England States, home of his Millennial Minions and a bunch of those college towns, which you referred to.  And the last time I checked, New Hampshire is located in New England.
  2. Mrs. Clinton’s Voter Base have begun to distance themselves, en masse, from her. She carries more baggage than the image of the late Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) and his buddy (Willem Dafoe), rolling through the airport, in the Biographical movie, “Auto Focus” …And, she’s just as sleazy.
  3. Momentum “never really changed the contours of the race in 2008”, because it was all on Obama’s side, from the get-go. When you have the ground troops of SEIU and their partner-in-crime, ACORN, going door-to-door for you around the nation, it provides you with an insurmountable lead in “the community”. Hillary does not have access to those ground troops.
  4. BIG QUESTION: What happens if Obama and the Democrat Elites decide that they don’t like what they are seeing, so Obama orders the DOJ to indict Hillary and Crazy Uncle Joe enters the Primaries to “save the day”?

Clinton, no matter what those “smarter than the rest of the country” in the Northeast Corridor may choose to believe, is neither trustworthy nor likable as the polls have shown, time and again. Her Political Accomplishments are all negative, bordering on the nonexistent.

Bill’s coattails can cover up only so much political stain (Ask Monica).

Somebody had better hide all of the sharp instruments at the New York Times. This could get ugly.

Get your popcorn ready.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

Beck Endorses Cruz, Says That He Prefers Socialist Bernie Over Capitalist Donald

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

beck-iowaWell, Professional Showman and Radio Talk Show Host Glenn Beck is at the top of the News Cycle, again.

Why? Because CONTROVERSY MEANS RATINGS.

Thehill.com has reported that

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment.

He said Cruz is the only candidate in the field who can defeat GOP front-runner Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses.

“I like [Sen.] Marco Rubio – I’ve had real problems with his policies, especially on the NSA – but I like him, he’s a decent man,” Beck said. “Ben Carson – really good, decent, honorable, God-fearing man. I just don’t think he’s ready – I wish he was, but I don’t think he’s ready.

“[Sen.] Rand Paul, strong on the Constitution and a good guy,” he continued. “But I will tell you this – those guys aren’t going to win Iowa. They might win down the road, they’re not going to win Iowa.

“And if Donald Trump wins, it’s going to be a snowball to hell.”

The conservative media magnate took several shots at Trump, comparing him to a progressive in the likeness of President Obama.

“The other guy has said he hasn’t done anything in his life that actually makes him feel like he should ask forgiveness from God,” he said of Trump. “The hubris of that is astonishing, as if for the last eight years we have watched a narcissist in the Oval Office and it has meant nothing to us.”

Beck said Trump owed America an apology for supporting the Wall Street bailout during the financial crisis.

“It’s up to him to ask God’s forgiveness, but I would like to suggest to you that the man owes America an apology, and he should ask conservatives for America for forgiveness for supporting billions of dollars of bailouts, for pulling for the nationalization of our banks,” he said.

He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’ 

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

“What we really need in America is enough of these politicians who are telling us what we want to hear, hiding behind fancy language, and actually have a debate between a constitutionalist like Ted Cruz and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

Cruz praised Beck as a “fearless and reliable conservative.”

“Glenn has been a relentless fighter for liberty, for limited government, and for restoring the country we all love so much,” he said in a statement released by his campaign after the endorsement.

“His powerful voice and passion played a critical role in my Senate victory and I am now proud to have him in our corner in 2016.”

I can remember when Glenn Beck first came on in the Memphis Area.

I thought, “Hey. This guy’s pretty refreshing and entertaining. He makes some pretty intelligent points.”

As time went by, Beck became more powerful in the world of Conservative Talk Radio.

He became a part of the Grassroots Movement, known as “The TEA Party”.

He held massive rallies to “Restore Honor” and to reinforce “Traditional American Values”, such as Faith and Family.

And then, something happened.

Like Captain Ahab, who changed from a respected “Man of the Sea” to an obsessed lunatic, willing to sacrifice ship and crew to kill the massive White Whale, Moby Dick, Beck has become obsessed in bringing down the Front-running Potential Republican Presidential Candidate, Donald J. Trump.

Allow me to set something straight, before I go any further,  I do not begrudge him, or any of my friends, for supporting Ted Cruz. I like him, as well.

He is a good candidate and a fine Christian American.

However, the reality is, Trump is way out in front of him in the Primary Race because Americans have had their fill of Professional Politicians.

Heck, I will be fine with either one of these men taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH A D@#N SIGHT BETTER MEN THAN THE MUSLIM-LOVING SOCIALIST DHIMMI, WHO SLEEPS IN UNTIL 10 O’CLCK EVERY MORNING, AND WHO CURRENTLY USES OUR HOUSE FOR HIS “CRIB”.

Beck is as big a Showman as Trump is. Hence, his statement of stated “affinity” for the Far Left Whackjob Socialist, Democrat Primary Candidate Bernie Sanders.

We are already suffering under one Far Left Socialist Whackjob, we sure as heck don’t need to follow up this present Presidential Nightmare with another.

French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled to the America in 1831 to study our prisons and returned to France with a wealth of broader observations that he compiled together in “Democracy in America” (1835), one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its spot-on observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville’s work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to ourselves.

He once observed that

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

In other words, the failed political ideology of socialism takes away the exhilaration and fulfillment of individual achievement and replaces it with self-sacrifice in servitude to the State, for the good of the Central  Nanny-State Government, which, in turn, promises to “share the wealth”, but, as was the case in the old Soviet Union, and more recently, Venezuela, never does.

…And, Professional Politician Bernie Sanders, like the members of the old Soviet Union’s Politboro before him,  has a net worth that is more than most of us will never see in our lifetimes.

The great Sir Winston Churchill once said that

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

I would rather be blessed than miserable.

Wouldn’t you?

Thehill.com, in the preceding article got something wrong about Glenn Beck. He has never been a “Conservative”

He is a Libertarian.

Per libertarianism.org:

Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business.

Libertarian ideas are becoming increasingly influential. Philosopher Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia helped to revitalize political theory and to focus attention on the proper limits of state power. Classical liberal economists and social scientists have pioneered the understanding of processes of social coordination and change, many of them earning Nobel Prizes in the process. And the broad global trend toward economic deregulation, freer trade, limits on taxes, toleration of minorities, and greater personal freedom shows the influence of libertarian ideas and libertarian thinkers and activists.

For example, Dr. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and he and his son, Republican Candidate, Dr. Rand Paul, are frequent guests on Beck’s program.

Ronald Reagan defined Conservatism as being a three-legged stool, consisting of Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and National Defense.

Today’s Libertarians misidentify themselves as Conservatives.  They discard two out of the three legs of the stool, identifying themselves as “Fiscal Conservatives”.

If you’re having a discussion with someone and they call themselves a “Fiscal Conservative”. Nine times out of ten, you’re talking to a Libertarian.

While Trump is not a Classic Reagan Conservative, either, Ted Cruz has his faults as well.

I, for one, would love to see them running on the same ticket.

As this Campaign Season rolls on, just remember:

There was only ONE PERFECT MAN.

And, he gave his life for us on Calvary.

Until He Comes,

KJ 

 

 

Political Pundits Panicking…Republican Elites Equivocating: Trump is Still in the Lead

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

Trump-n-CruzThe smoke-filled backrooms adjoining the Halls of Political Power in our nation’s capital have become scenes resembling the Psych Ward in the Jack Nicholson Class, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.

Howard Kurtz, Media Analyst for the Fox News Channel, recently posted the following observations.

The Republican establishment, which has always distrusted and discounted Donald Trump, is getting increasingly nervous.

So nervous, in fact, that some of its media voices are starting to denounce their party’s front-runner in the strongest possible terms.

As in, refusing to vote for the man if he’s the nominee. As in, loudly proclaiming that he will destroy the GOP.

Viewed from one perspective, this has the smell of panic. Viewed from another, it’s a case of party stalwarts speaking out based on principle.

For decades now, there has been primary-season sniping between the establishment wing and the insurgent/hard-line/Tea Party wing. Commentators rough up their least favorite candidate, even declare them unqualified for the White House.

But if that person prevails—think Mitt Romney in 2012—the sharpest Republican critics find a way to walk it back. Well, he wasn’t my first choice, but he would be better than Barack Obama. He’s evolved on immigration/tax cuts/ObamaCare. He would pull this country out of its left-wing tailspin.

These days, the rhetoric is getting so hot that there will be no scrambling back on board. Bill Kristol has been openly musing about a third party if Trump wins the nomination.

Does the conservative media elite hope to throw some tacks under the Trump steamroller with such sharp rhetoric? Or are its members just speaking out to clear their consciences?

If it’s the former, I think it might actually help Trump to have the Beltway types arrayed against him. These are the folks he is running against, and he’s never positioned himself as a doctrinaire conservative.

Michael Gerson, a Bush White House official who writes for the Washington Post, uses sweeping language:

“Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.”

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

Gerson calls Trump a “demagogue” who “has followed some of America’s worst instincts wherever they have led, and fed ethnic and religious prejudice in the process. All presidential nominees, to some extent, shape their parties into their own image. Trump would deface the GOP beyond recognition.”

In case you missed the point, Gerson says: “Trump is disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion.”

Doug Heye has been communications chief of the RNC, a top deputy to Eric Cantor and a Bush administration official. He makes a personal declaration in the Independent Journal:

“Because of Trump’s perversion of conservatism, along with the devastating impact he would have if nominated, I cannot support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”

Heye says Trump would be “dangerous to the United States and the world at a time when the world is at risk.” His nomination, says Heye, “would be catastrophic for Republican hopes to win the White House and maintain control of the Senate and would damage the party and the conservative cause for years to come. His having the legitimacy that comes with the nomination of a major political party would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober.”

This is the New York Times’ latest version of the same story, calling it a “people’s coup”:

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at privatelunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

But a very different tack from Peggy Noonan, who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who turns the question back on the establishment:

“I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously. They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues. The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

“But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disruptor. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.”

There really isn’t much of an establishment left. It consists of some megabuck donors, elected officials, seasoned operatives and media pundits. They don’t have the power to stop Trump, and they know it.

The best they can hope for is to influence the debate. Their problem is that most of them don’t like Ted Cruz, either.

Indeed.

Just as the backlash against President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democr5at Party has reached deafening levels here in America’s Heartland, snobbishly referred to by the Political Elite as “Flyover Country”, so has the refusal of the leaders of both Political Parties to admit their culpability in creating the problems our nation is facing, which can be traced back to their failed domestic and foreign policies and failed leadership.

Why do I believe that Donald J. Trump is still the frontrunner among all the Republican Presidential Candidates?

This brash, unabashedly American, business entrepreneur and quintessential showman has dominated the media for the past several years.

The popularity of his reality program on NBC and the catch phrase that came leaping out from it, “You’re fired!”, spread across America like wildfire.

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

It is not just his flamboyance that has caught the eye of Americans.

The fact is, after almost two terms of an Administration taking the great country in the world on a scenic tour of the Highway to Hell, Donald Trump is the only Republican Candidate shouting, “Hit the brakes, you idiots!”

Trump’s straightforwardness has struck a chord in the hearts of average Americans, tired of the wussification of America, being so relentlessly pushed by both modern political parties.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment:

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality, they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

From what I’m seeing out of a lot of the Republicans right now, they’re not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The “Republican Elite”, as Kurtz refers to them, are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

If Jeb Bush and the rest of the Vichy Republicans actually believe that they will win over the Mexican vote, or the rest of the Hispanic Vote, if by then those who are now illegal are allowed to vote, in 2016, then I have two bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis to sell them.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans want Conservatives whose blood runs red, not Liberal squishes, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment does not come to that realization very soon, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push a candidate, who represents the Jello of “Liberal Moderation”, up a hill.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

That’s the way the Founding Fathers envisioned our system of government, led by citizens, who served their terms as public servants…AND THEN WENT HOME.

But, I digress…

You know what tickles me the most about “The Donald”?

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.” – Jack Burton, Truck Driver (Kurt Russell) “Big Trouble in Little China”

…and that, boys and girls, is a refreshing change.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

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

On By kingsjesterIn Politics1 Comment

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

 

The War Against Christianity: Sublimating Christianity For The “Will Of The State”

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

American Christianity 2What is Fascism? Per merriam-webster.com, it is a

political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Remember this definition as you read the following…

Christianpost.com reports that

Three California churches have filed a complaint against the state over a recently implemented health insurance provision mandating the coverage of elective abortions.

Foothill Church of Glendora, Calvary Chapel in Chino, and Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch filed the complaint last Friday in U.S. District Court. The suit, filed against the director of the California Department of Managed Health Care, seeks injunctive relief from the abortion mandate.

“Plaintiffs believe, as a matter of religious conviction, that it would be sinful and immoral for them intentionally to pay for, participate in, facilitate, or otherwise support abortion, which they believe destroys innocent human life,” reads the complaint.

(Photo: Reuters/Robert Galbraith)California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown speaks at a news conference following his debate with his Republican opponent Meg Whitman at Dominican University in San Rafael, California, October 12, 2010.
“Because federal law requires plaintiffs to offer health insurance to their employees, the mandate illegally and unconstitutionally coerces plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties.”

In August 2014, the DMHC sent an official letter to Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente stating that insurance companies in California could not restrict abortion coverage.In their letter, DMHC stated that “it erroneously approved or did not object to such discriminatory language in some evidence of coverage filings.”

“The purpose of this letter is to remind plans that the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox Keene Act) requires the provision of basic healthcare services,” read the DMHC letter.

“… [T]he California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally.”

DMHC’s declaration that abortion coverage cannot be limited came in response to two Catholic academic institutions, Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University, seeking a reprieve for their insurance coverage regarding abortion.

In response to the announcement, the Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom sent the DMHC a letter of protest to the change.

“DMHC cannot deny approval to or otherwise penalize a health insurance plan for failing to provide coverage of some or all abortions and remain in compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” read the letter.

“In its failed lawsuit against the amendment, California admitted that all of its departments are subject to the amendment due to some of those departments receiving over $40 billion in federal funds for programs in the areas of education, health, and employment.”

The ADF is representing the three churches in their complaint. ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley said in a statement last week that congregations “should not be forced to pay for the killing of innocent human life.”

“The government has no right to demand that church health insurance plans contain coverage for abortion – something that violates these churches’ most sincerely held religious beliefs. California is violating the Constitution by strong-arming churches into having this coverage in their plans,” Stanley said.

There continues to be a lot of debate on Facebook Political Pages concerning whether Christians must sublimate our faith to the “Will of the State”.

The Kim Davis Case in Kentucky, in which two lesbians from Ohio, came into the County Clerk Office of Kim Davis, a known Evangelical Christian, elected by Christians, and demanded that she issue a Marriage License to them. Even though, there was another county clerk office a scant 15 minutes away from that location. Ms. Davis refused to issue one, on the grounds that it violates the tenets of her faith and God’s Holy Word. Cameras and lawyers swiftly following, as the “Gay Mafia” did its thing, attempting to bully Ms. Davis into sublimating her faith for the “Will of the State” and the appeasement of the god of popular culture.

Eventually, it was settled that the license would be issued, but, Ms. David would not and could not be forced to personally issue a Marriage License to a homosexual couple.

Others in the office would do it, instead.

On January 1, 2014, in a post titled, “The Hobby Lobby Decision: The First Amendment Holds. Religious Freedom Stands.”, I reported the following…

The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

The Supreme Court, in a in a 5-4 ruling, found that “closely held” businesses do not have to provide contraception to their employees, if the ownership of said company opposes birth control on the grounds that it conflicts with the Religious Beliefs.

In other words, if you want to behave like Sandra Fluke, and if I am a business owner of a “closely held” business, I cannot be forced by the Obama Administration to provide your “protection”, either before or after that “special moment”.

Rush Limbaugh, per usual made an excellent point on his nationally-syndicated radio program, yesterday:

…the thinking everywhere on the left, is either Obama’s gonna pay for it from his stash like they think exists in Detroit, or the insurance company will be forced to pay for it. But they won’t pay for it, they’ll just bill it back to Hobby Lobby. (interruption) No, the principle stands, that’s the point. When all this is said and done, the Supreme Court still ruled that the federal government cannot make a “closely held” corporation violate its own personal religious beliefs. I’m gonna have to double-check this, but I really do think that in that sense we’ve not had a ruling this direct in that regard before, whatever the issue was. I think I saw that somewhere this morning in the mounds of show prep that I was going through.

Look, it means here that Obama cannot unilaterally dictate how religion is to be practiced via laws or regulations or executive orders. It means that the First Amendment is not a casual plaything for cavalier statists whether in the executive branch or whether in Congress. There also was another ruling on the union’s and whether or not parents and nannies taking care of their own loved ones at home can be forced to pay union dues, and that was rejected, too. The headline says: “Sweeping Loss for Unions.” Oh, horrible, the Supreme Court just dealt a devastating blow to public unions. But this one really is kind of narrow. But the principle still stands.

What is really important, yet really small in this case, is that even after the Hobby Lobby decision, women can still go to Target or Walmart and buy a month’s worth of conception for nine dollars. What’s kind of being overlooked here in all this — and we did look at it in great detail on the previous occasion on this program — is that somehow we’ve gotten to the point where women should not have to pay for their own birth control. Somebody else is gonna pay for it, no matter how much they want, no matter how often they want it, no matter for what reason, somebody else is going to pay for it. That’s the root of all this. The employer should pay it, the insurance company will pay it, but in no way in 2014 America are women going to being pay for it, even though you can go to Target or Walmart and get a month’s supply for nine bucks.

So the ruling does not apply to, say, an Exxon or a General Motors. That’s not a “closely held” corporation. But the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to fund the contraception mandate. Their liberty was defended here, no matter how narrow the left wants to say the ruling was, no matter what the practical application is, when it’s all over the First Amendment was enforced, or maybe reinforced today.

What applies to a closely held organization, most certainly applies to a Faith-sponsored Organization.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, which came to be know as the “Evil Empire Speech”. Here is an excerpt:

Well, I’m pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities–the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

 Now, I don’t have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a–a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they’re freeing us from superstitions of the past, they’ve taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority. [Applause]

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I’m involved, I’ve been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated, deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they’ve done so. Girls termed “sexually active”–and that has replaced the word “promiscuous”–are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate worth/birth (quickly corrects himself) eh or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. [Applause] One of the nation’s leading newspapers has created the term “squeal rule” in editorializing against us for doing this, and we’re being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I’ve watched TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex. [Applause]

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn’t it the parents’ right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives? [Slight crescendo of voice and emphasis–Long Applause]

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We’re going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers. [Applause]

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. [Applause] When our founding fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

Truth is still truth.

Regardless of the recent law-making by the United States Supreme Court (whose job is to interpret the laws, not make them) Americans’ First Amendment Rights still stand.

If you try to talk to a Liberal about this New Fascism, they will deny that there is any Fascism going on at all. In fact, they will tell you that this is “the will of the people” and they will site Democratically-stacked push polls in order to back their opinion up.

When you ask Liberals if , for example, “homosexual marriage” is the “will of the people”, why did voters in the overwhelming majority of states, including California, vote against it? And, if there is “no Fascism”, what do you call the fact that 2% of the population is having activist judges overturn the actual will of the people in order to get their way, in their attempt to redefine a word that has meant the same thing since time immemorial?

In response, you will usually see their eyes glaze over, like a deer in the headlights, or experience a dramatic pause in posting, if you are on the Internet.

Liberals can not legitimately defend the suppression of the First Amendment Rights of Christian Americans.

During Hitler’s rise to power, the German Press demonized European Jews, betraying them as evil and money grubbing…painting them as being different from normal German citizens. It was this classification of the European Jews as the enemy that almost led to the extinction of them in that horrible attempted genocide, known as the Holocaust.

Now, in the early 21st century, the Far Left, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration (but, I repeat myself) are using propaganda to isolate and demonize average Americans, who through hard work, have risen to a high station in life or through their strong Christian faith and love of their country refuse to follow a popular culture- worshiping Administration, when it issues Executive Orders or has its Democratic Congress pass legislation which clearly contradicts the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian Belief System upon which America was built.

Considering what is happening in the world around us, thanks in a large part to Obama’s failed Foreign Policy, if America keeps on the path we seem to be headed on, we will find out why America is not mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. – Romans 1 : 22

Until He Comes,

KJ

Christian American Kim Davis is Jailed. What’s Next? A Date With Lions in the Nearest Coliseum?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics4 Comments

th1DXO5NI310Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.…- Ephesians 6:10-12

Yesterday, something happened that,  at one time,  I never thought I would see in the United States of America.

A Christian was arrested for standing on principle and the Word of God.

The New York Times reported that

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

Ms. Davis had argued that the Supreme Court order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples infringed upon her religious beliefs and liberties. But after a hearing, Judge Bunning said that “her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” and ordered Ms. Davis to jail.

Mike Huckabee, currently campaigning for the Republican Party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, who happens to be an ordained Minister, made a very cogent point on Facebook, yesterday…

I spoke with Kim Davis this morning to offer my prayers and support. I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty. She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.

Kim is asking the perfect question: “Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?” That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man – and certainly no unelected lawyer – has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American’s most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution – religious liberty.

I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution.

Another Republican running for that party’s Presidential Candidate Nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, put it this way…

Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.

On the Facebook Political Pages which I frequent, this has been a very hot topic for discussion.

Liberals and Moderates, but I repeat myself, all believe that Mrs. Davis must step down or resign.

My question is, why are her rights less important than the rights of this gay couple who, purposefully, with cameras following them, pressed this issue, knowing full well that Mrs Davis is a Christian Woman?

Are Christian Americans’ rights, as over 70% of the population, now less worthy than homosexual rights, who only comprise 2% of our population?

As Senator Cruz pointed out, aren’t the Liberals calling for her incarceration and resignation, being very selective in the laws which they wish to persecute and prosecute somebody over?

And, why are these gay couples not also challenging American Muslims?

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated that religion would have to “change” in order to allow the American Genocide known as Abortion.

Today’s American Liberals, from Barack Hussein Obama on down to the Internet Troll, sitting at his computer in his Mom’s Basement, munching Cheetos, want Christians, like myself, to “change” our view on homosexuality, in order to proclaim Adam and Steve as husband and…err…husband.

What they do not understand, nor wish to, is the fact that man did not label it as deviant behavior and a “sin”.

GOD DID.

His Word, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, with the Holy Bible, states that fact, over and over again.

Christianity is not something that can be boxed in, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon on Sundays, as the President and the rest of the Gay Mafia seem to want it to be.

Nor can it be changed and modified to fit a culture which is currently embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

God’s Word, as is its Author, is eternal and unchanging.

And, no Supreme Court full of Activist Judges can do anything about it.

It’s above their pay grade.

Until He Comes,

KJ