Tag: United Nations

Of Truffles, Terrorism, and TRIA

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

AFBranco12142014As I write today’s blog, an Islamic gunman is holding anywhere from 13-50 hostages captive in a Sydney, Australia Lindt Truffle Shop.

In a related story, recently, the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, appeared in front of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and spoke the following words…

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

Uh huh, Scooter.

Meanwhile, this past week, Obama and his Liberal Vanguard have hit the airwaves and the Internet, shouting until they are blue in the face that we should treat any Muslim Terrorists we may have captured “the way we would want to be treated”…no water boarding allowed, no matter the cost in American lives.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes…

Bloomberg Businessweek reports that

If you’ve already bought tickets for Super Bowl XLIX or are looking forward to watching it with your friends and family, you may be surprised to learn that there is a chance it might not be played. Congress first needs to make a decision on renewing a piece of legislation that you possibly never have heard of: TRIA—the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.

TRIA was signed into law in 2002 in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, establishing a risk-sharing partnership between the federal government and the insurance industry that made terrorism insurance widely available to U.S. businesses—among them, organizers of sporting events. Without federal support, most insurers had been unwilling to offer coverage. TRIA was renewed in 2005 and in 2007. It is set to expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress renews it. With two weeks until the deadline, the clock is ticking.

You may think: No way that the Super Bowl can be canceled! Think again. A few years ago FIFA, organizer of the World Cup, could not find insurers to cover the final game of the 2006 tournament at a cost it judged reasonable. FIFA was eventually able to structure a special financial instrument so the game could go on, but this took several months.

There is considerable money at stake for the organizers of Super Bowl and for NBC, which will televise the game. No insurance, no game.  It is thus not surprising that the NFL has joined with other professional sports leagues and 80 business groups nationwide to form the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism (CIAT) to urge Congress to fund reauthorization of the TRIA legislation.

A bit of background on why insurers changed their view of terrorism coverage after 9/11 provides the relevant context. Before 9/11, insurers included terrorism coverage in all commercial policies without charging for it because the risk was below their threshold level of concern. But after paying $44 billion in claims for 9/11—at that time the most costly disaster in the history of insurance—most insurers excluded terrorism from commercial policies.

The absence of terrorism coverage halted large construction projects around the country because financial institutions were concerned about the viability of their loans. Their fears resembled the concern that organizations such as FIFA and the NFL have with respect to their own liability.

TRIA addresses the insurance supply problem. Under the program, the federal government provides a financial back-up for insurers by covering a portion of insured losses above $27.5 billion, up to $100 billion, giving the insurance industry some certainty as to its maximum exposure. In return, insurers are required to offer terrorism coverage to all business clients, which can decide to purchase coverage or not. About 60 percent of large businesses carry terrorism insurance, indicating strong demand for it.

Unless TRIA is reauthorized during the next two weeks, insurers will have the right to cancel terrorism insurance policies after Jan. 1. They are likely to do so for fear of insolvency should a massive terrorist attack take place with no government backup. By law, only insurance companies offering workers’ compensation insurance must include terrorism peril in their policies, whether or not TRIA is renewed. 

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

The son of America’s Pastor, Reverend Billy Graham, spoke frankly and honestly about “The Religion of Peace “.

Last week, Reverend Franklin Graham told Christian Today that his own views on Islam remained the same as in 2001.

“I have not changed my opinion at all.” He said he looked at Islamic State, at the Taliban and Boko Haram and thought: “This is Islam. It has not been hijacked by radicals. This is the faith, this is the religion. It is what it is. It speaks for itself.”

He added: “I think it is very important that we do all that we can to try to share God’s love with Muslims because they have no hope outside of dying in Jihad. I want them to know, you do not have to die for God. God died for us. He sent His Son to die for us. We do not have to kill ourselves to please God. I want them to know that they can have eternal life.”

Islam itself had not changed at all in 1500 years, he added. “It is the same. It is a religion of war.”

He said he was “sad” that Muslims in the Washington cathedral had “turned their back on the Cross” to worship “another God”. Graham said: “The God of Islam is not the same God of the Judeo-Christian faith. “The God that we worship in Christianity is a God that has a Son. To Islam, that is blasphemy, to say that God has a son. Therefore, they do not worship the God that we worship.”

Rev. Graham, of course, is spot on.

Islam and Christianity present two very different Deities, who may share some similarities, but who have different identities and ultimately different standards. For the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of today’s Liberals to pretend they are the same is not only to be clueless of the faith of 76% of the citizens of this nation, but, to be ignorant of an integral part of our American Heritage, the legacy of Christian Faith, which our Founding Fathers bequeathed us.

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

However…

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

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

If unchecked, their naivete in the name of Political Correctness will be the death of us all.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Muslim Terrorists Attack Canadian Parliament. Can It Happen Here…Again?

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, PoliticsLeave a comment

Canadien parliament 1Yesterday, Canada became a member of a club, consisting of a  growing list of nations around the world, who have been the victims of Muslim Terrorism.

The Globe and Mail reports that

The attack on Parliament Hill’s Centre Block and the National War Memorial has left one Canadian soldier and one male suspect dead.

During an address to the nation, Prime Minster Stephen Harper said the incident in Ottawa was a ‘terrorist’ act. Mr. Harper also indicated that it remains unclear whether the man shot dead on Parliament Hill Wednesday acted alone.

Together we will remain vigilant against those at home or abroad who wish to harm us.”

The Prime Minister concluded by stating that there will be no safe haven for terrorists and expressed confidence that Canadians will pull together in the wake of this week’s events.  

Ottawa Police and RCMP officers are still searching Parliament Hill.

Federal sources have identified the suspected shooter as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a man in his early 30s who was known to Canadian authorities.

Sources told The Globe and Mail that he was recently designated a “high-risk traveller” by the Canadian government and that his passport had been seized – the same circumstances surrounding the case of Martin Rouleau-Couture, the Quebecker who was shot Monday after running down two Canadian Forces soldiers with his car.

Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau has a record in Quebec in the early 2000s for petty crimes such as possession of drugs, credit-card forgery and robbery. He was also charged with robbery in 2011 in Vancouver.

The soldier who was killed was identified as Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, according to his aunt. Cpl. Cirillo, who was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, a regiment of Reserve Forces based in Hamilton, was training to join the Canada Border Services Agency, his aunt told The Globe and Mail.

Sources are saying that both of these Islamic Converts wanted to join the out-of-control Terrorist Organization, ISIS.

The Edmonton Sun profiled the the first Muslim Convert, who ran down a solier this past Monday.

A Quebec man’s double life as a newly converted jihadist is under scrutiny now that he and his soldier target are dead, as family and law enforcement try to find out why he followed ISIS kill commands.

Police gunned down Martin “Ahmad” Couture-Rouleau late Monday morning after he ran down two soldiers, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, 53.

A portrait is emerging of a man who converted to Islam just last year amid personal issues that included a custody dispute with the mother of his three-year-old child.

His dad, Gilles Rouleau, called police this past summer, concerned his son wanted to join ISIS. The ultra-violent terrorist group has taken over wide areas of Syria and Iraq amid beheadings and reports of rape and child conscription.

From his home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., across town from the scene of the attack, Gilles Rouleau said he “never, never, never” thought his son could kill someone despite his own concerns about his radicalization.

“I knew that he had converted … I didn’t agree with it,” the dad told QMI Agency’s sister channel LCN from inside the front door of his house.

On the morning of the attack, he greeted his son as he always did.

“It was like any other morning,” said the father. “He said hi, he left just like that.”

Police say the attacker lay in wait for more than two hours in the parking lot near a Canadian Forces recruitment centre until the two soldiers, one wearing his uniform, emerged.

He ran them down and took off before flipping his car and being shot dead by local police.

Gilles Rouleau said he wishes he had done more to stop the carnage.

“If I thought there was a danger, I would have saved him.”

Why is it that Liberals are so dadgum naive about Islam? For example, let’s look for a moment at Barack Hussein Obama, President of these United States…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

An additional irony of the CIC’s speech is, the fact that, under the command of President Barack Hussein Obama, the United States of America has now bombed 7 Islamic countries: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Syria.

Awkward.

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, American or Canadian, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even Christianity, the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

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

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

However…

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

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

Like the Canadian Military and members of their Parliament, for example…

Can what happened in Ottawa, Canada, happen in Washington, DC?

Well, aother idiot tried to bust into the White House, yesterday.

So, I would say, the answer is YES.

God protect us.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to UN: “The United States Will Never Be At War With Islam.” Somebody Needs To Tell ISIS.

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

AFBrancoObamaISIS9242014

Yesterday, United States President Barack Hussein Obama went before an assembly of representatives from the entire world and proved that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

More on that in a moment. Let’s look’s at some of Obama’s past, to find out why he said what he said…when he said it.

From ages six to 10, after his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham,  married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro, Barack Obama, Jr., attended a private school for well-off families in Jakarta.

Obama once said in a New York Times article posted March 3, 2007:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office. He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

On June 4, 2009, United States President Barack Hussein Obama gave a speech to the Muslim World titled, “A New Beginning”. In this speech, he said,

There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — (applause) — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

On September 25, 2012, United States President Barack Hussein Obama, appeared before the United Nations General Assembly, to address the circumstances of the massacre. Here are the words he spoke, before representatives of the entire world:

…At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shia pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies. That’s the vision we will support.

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. 

This past year, it has been revealed that, when he gave this speech, in front of representatives of countries from all over the world, Obama already knew that the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were committed by Muslim Terrorists…members of al Qaeda.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The Leader of the Free World LIED!

Yesterday, Obama once again spoke before the UN General Assembly. Joseph Curl, in an Op Ed for the Washington Times, titled “Obama’s breathtaking naivete at the United Nations” wrote,

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the president, that ideology “will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day.” Again, the callowness is astounding. While he urged the world, “especially Muslim communities,” to reject the ideology that underlies al Qaeda and the Islamic State, nothing will change the fact that cold-blooded killers are determined to destroy the West, wipe all infidels from the face of the earth and build a new caliphate based on strict adherence to Shariah law (which leans heavily toward beheadings, lashings, stonings).

The president let loose some passing platitudes — “right makes might,” “the only language understood by killers like this is the language of force” — but in the end Mr. Obama still labors under the delusion that the Islamic State group and its ilk have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He still rejects “any suggestion of a clash of civilizations” — despite al Qaeda’s and Islamic State’s express declaration of war against western civilization (and anyone who is not Muslim).

An additional irony of the CIC’s speech is, the fact that, under the command of President Barack Hussein Obama, the United States of America has now bombed 7 Islamic countries: Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Syria.

Awkward.

Obama, like every other Modern Liberal, truly believes that there is no difference between Islam and any other religion, even the religion which the overwhelming majority of the citizens of America, the country which he is supposed to be the advocate for, practices.

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

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

However…

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

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

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

So is the case with ISIS/ISIL, on a much, much larger scale, which threatens not only the Middle East, but our entire nation, as well.

For President Barack Hussein Obama to deny that, is disingenuous at best, and just plain out-and-out lying at worst.

Until He Comes,

KJ
 

The Ferguson Riots, The United Nations, and Our Nation’s Sovereignty

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

Michael Brown Riots 8132014As we have all been hearing about for the last several days, a young man named Michael Brown, was killed during a struggle with police officers in Ferguson, Missouri.

The facts of the case are still being investigated, however, according to local police, the young man was killed while trying to grab a police officer’s gun.

This incident has the eyes of the nation fixed upon it, as the media has been pushing it to a great extent because of the rioting which broke out as a result of the incident, and because now, President Obama has contacted the parents of Michael Brown to express sympathy…a sympathy which he did not express in the case of Major General Harold Greene, a Career Military Man, who gave his life in service to our country in Afghanistan, just a few weeks ago.

Priorities, Priorities.

Of course, all of those who make their living off of the division of the races made their appearance on the scene. The Justice Brothers, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, have, of course, put their two cents worth in, with Sharpton actually making an appearance on the ground there in Ferguson, meeting with the parents and addressing the black community. He actually did try to calm the situation down by telling the rioters to stop what they were doing as they were not showing respect to the memory of Michael Brown.

On top of all this, civil rights activists appeared in front of United Nations, wanting them to intervene in the situation, saying that it is a matter of civil rights. Even if it is, then it’s up to the United States Justice Department to investigate it, not a bunch of third world thugs, who decapitate anyone who is different from them and beat, mutilate, and kill their wives and daughters.

Ever since Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009, the sovereignty of the Shining City Upon a Hill has been in peril.

Barack Hussein Obama, beginning with his World Apology Tour, has proclaimed to the world that America is just another nation, as subservient to the whims of the United Nations, as any third world nation.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Are liberals like Barack Obama and the Civil Rights Activists who went to the United Nations so anti-American that they are intentionally trying to give away this nation’s sovereignty?

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a Sovereign Nation. What does that mean?

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

To summarize, we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

As a result of the rioting by both Ferguson Residents and “visitors” who headed to the town , when they heard that there was going to be looting, gun sales have quadrupled in the St Louis area.

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Obama and all of his Liberal Allies, including those “Civil Rights Activists”, need to understand that these countries that comprise the United Nations, whom they are trying to hand over our sovereignty to, have their own best interests at heart. Not ours.

And, keep the United Nations out of OUR business.

Until He Comes,

KJ

New E-Mails Trace BenghaziGate “Video Strategy” Back to White House

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

BenghaziWhiteHouseFrom whitehouse.gov, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government”

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…

Remember what happened on September 9, 2009, during President Barack Hussein Obama’s very first State of the Union Speech?

On September 10, 2009, CNN.com reported the following:

A Republican House member shouted, “You lie” during President Obama’s health care speech to Congress on Wednesday, and members of both parties condemned the heckling.

After the speech, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson issued a statement apologizing for his outburst.

“This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill,” the statement said. “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.”

Wilson also called the White House to apologize and spoke with Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who accepted the apology on the president’s behalf, according to a senior administration official.

“We can disagree without being disagreeable,” Emanuel said to Wilson, according to the official. “That was the point of the president’s speech.”

The outburst came when Obama denied that proposed health care legislation would provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants. Immediately, Wilson shouted, “You lie!”

The outburst caused Obama to stop and look toward the heckler. “That’s not true,” the president responded.

Rep. Wilson had no idea.

On September 25, 2012, United States President, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke before the United Nations General Assembly, blaming an un-watched youtube.com video, for the massacre of 4 brave Americans, on the night of September 11, 2012, at the Benghazi , Libya, U.S. Embassy Compound,

…In every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others. And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.

For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.

We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don’t we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Let’s spring forward a little bit to the 2012 Vice-Presidential Debate, where the folllowing statements were made by the one, the only Jar Jar Biden:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.

Biden lied, too.

Fast forward to the present, where as Conservative Pundit, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, succinctly put it, we finally have “the smoking gun” concerning this massacre, as foxnews.com reports…

Newly released emails on the Benghazi terror attack suggest a senior White House aide played a central role in preparing former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice for her controversial Sunday show appearances — where she wrongly blamed protests over an Internet video.

More than 100 pages of documents were released to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Among them was a Sept. 14, 2012, email from Ben Rhodes, an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

The Rhodes email, with the subject line: “RE: PREP Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET,” was sent to a dozen members of the administration’s inner circle, including key members of the White House communications team such as Press Secretary Jay Carney.

In the email, Rhodes specifically draws attention to the anti-Islam Internet video, without distinguishing whether the Benghazi attack was different from protests elsewhere.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents read like a PR strategy, not an effort to provide the best available intelligence to the American people.

“The goal of the White House was to do one thing primarily, which was to make the president look good. Blame it on the video and not [the] president’s policies,” he said.

So, in other words, United States President Barack Hussein Obama and his Administration not only lied to America, they lied to the entire world.

Americans have always been suspicious of not only Obama’s honesty in this situation, but also, as to where his loyalties fell, regarding that horrible night, and its aftermath.

Obama did nothing to allay those suspicions during the before-quoted speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he proclaimed that

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Since that night in Benghazi, the Radical Muslim-fueled violence know as “Arab Spring” has proceeded “right on schedule”.

Among the most memorable moments in President Obama’s dhimmitude happened recently, when he made speeches in support of and sent advanced weaponry to the “Syrian Rebels”, whose majority are card-carrying members of the Muslim Terrorist Group, al Qaeda, perpetrators of the largest Terrorist Attack ever on American Soil, on 9/11/01, and the attack on the Benghazi Compound.

Fortunately, Americans refused to support Obama’s mission to aid these Terrorists.

Our memories of those two faithful days, 11 years apart, and average Americans’ wish for justice for those 3,000 Americans killed on that horrific day of September 11, 2001, and those 4 Americans, savagely murdered by the “followers of the prophet”,11 years to the day later, take precedence over any trumped-up concern over any fictitious slander of the name of the Allah.

Senator Ted Cruz is calling for bi-partisan hearings to get to the bottom of this.

Personally, I would rather see Impeachment Hearings after we take back the Senate this November.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

 

Cheney: “I Think Our Friends No Longer Count On Us, No Longer Trust Us and Our Adversaries Don’t Fear Us.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamabowWhile Obama’s second term circles down the porcelain receptacle, let us take a moment to review his Foreign Policy.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney is still shooting straight from the hip. In an interview yesterday…

He expressed skepticism that the Obama administration would be able to force Iran to comply with demands that it show its nuclear program is peaceful. Asked if military action against Iran was “inevitable,” Cheney said he had “trouble seeing how we’re going to achieve our objective short of that.”

Cheney faulted the Obama White House’s handling of Middle East politics, saying the U.S. presence in the region had been “significantly diminished” in recent years. “I think our friends no longer count on us, no longer trust us and our adversaries don’t fear us,” he said.

As opposed to the before-mentioned wuss,..

On June 17, 1982, President Ronald Wilson Reagan spoke before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Disarmament…

…The record of history is clear: Citizens of the United States resort to force reluctantly and only when they must. Our foreign policy, as President Eisenhower once said, “is not difficult to state. We are for peace first, last, and always for very simple reasons.” We know that only in a peaceful atmosphere, a peace with justice, one in which we can be confident, can America prosper as we have known prosperity in the past, he said.

He said to those who challenge the truth of those words, let me point out, at the end of World War II, we were the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military supremacy was unquestioned. We had harnessed the atom and had the ability to unleash its destructive force anywhere in the world. In short, we could have achieved world domination, but that was contrary to the character of our people. Instead, we wrote a new chapter in the history of mankind.

We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravaged economies of the world, both East and West, including those nations who had been our enemies. We took the initiative in creating such international institutions as this United Nations, where leaders of good will could come together to build bridges for peace and prosperity.

America has no territorial ambitions. We occupy no countries, and we have built no walls to lock our people in. Our commitment to self-determination, freedom, and peace is the very soul of America. That commitment is as strong today as it ever was.

The United States has fought four wars in my lifetime. In each, we struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We were never the aggressors. America’s strength and, yes, her military power have been a force for peace, not conquest; for democracy, not despotism; for freedom, not tyranny. Watching, as I have, succeeding generations of American youth bleed their lives onto far-flung battlefields to protect our ideals and secure the rule of law, I have known how important it is to deter conflict. But since coming to the Presidency, the enormity of the responsibility of this office has made my commitment even deeper. I believe that responsibility is shared by all of us here today.

On our recent trip to Europe, my wife, Nancy, told me of a bronze statue, 22 feet high, that she saw on a cliff on the coast of France. The beach at the base of the cliff is called Saint Laurent, but countless American family Bibles have written it in on the flyleaf and know it as Omaha Beach. The pastoral quiet of that French countryside is in marked contrast to the bloody violence that took place there on a June day 38 years ago when the Allies stormed the Continent. At the end of just one day of battle, 10,500 Americans were wounded, missing, or killed in what became known as the Normandy landing.

The statue atop that cliff is called “The Spirit of American Youth Rising From the Waves.” Its image of sacrifice is almost too powerful to describe.

The pain of war is still vivid in our national memory. It sends me to this special session of the United Nations eager to comply with the plea of Pope Paul VI when he spoke in this chamber nearly 17 years ago. “If you want to be brothers,” His Holiness said, “let the arms fall from your hands.” Well, we Americans yearn to let them go. But we need more than mere words, more than empty promises before we can proceed.

We look around the world and see rampant conflict and aggression. There are many sources of this conflict — expansionist ambitions, local rivalries, the striving to obtain justice and security. We must all work to resolve such discords by peaceful means and to prevent them from escalation.

In the nuclear era, the major powers bear a special responsibility to ease these sources of conflict and to refrain from aggression. And that’s why we’re so deeply concerned by Soviet conduct. Since World War II, the record of tyranny has included Soviet violation of the Yalta agreements leading to domination of Eastern Europe, symbolized by the Berlin Wall — a grim, gray monument to repression that I visited just a week ago. It includes the takeovers of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan; and the ruthless repression of the proud people of Poland. Soviet-sponsored guerrillas and terrorists are at work in Central and South America, in Africa, the Middle East, in the Caribbean, and in Europe, violating human rights and unnerving the world with violence. Communist atrocities in Southeast Asia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere continue to shock the free world as refugees escape to tell of their horror.

…Eleanor Roosevelt, one of our first ambassadors to this body, reminded us that the high-sounding words of tyrants stand in bleak contradiction to their deeds. “Their promises,” she said, “are in deep contrast to their performances.”

My country learned a bitter lesson in this century: The scourge of tyranny cannot be stopped with words alone. So, we have embarked on an effort to renew our strength that had fallen dangerously low. We refuse to become weaker while potential adversaries remain committed to their imperialist adventures.

My people have sent me here today to speak for them as citizens of the world, which they truly are, for we Americans are drawn from every nationality represented in this chamber today. We understand that men and women of every race and creed can and must work together for peace. We stand ready to take the next steps down the road of cooperation through verifiable arms reduction.

Agreements on arms control and disarmament can be useful in reinforcing peace; but they’re not magic. We should not confuse the signing of agreements with the solving of problems. Simply collecting agreements will not bring peace. Agreements genuinely reinforce peace only when they are kept. Otherwise we’re building a paper castle that will be blown away by the winds of war.

Now, compare that to President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech before the General Assembly of the UN, on September 25,, 2012, after the massacre of 4 brave Americans by Muslim Terrorists at the U.S, Embassy Compound in Benghazi on 9/11/12…

…In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask themselves how much they’re willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so. (Applause.)

…The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.  But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.  (Applause.)

Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims.  It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi:  “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”  (Applause.)  Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them.  That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.

Of course, the story Obama told about a stupid Youtube Video causing the Benghazi Massacre was nothing but a lie, told to cover up the incompetent Foreign Policy of Obama and his Administration.

Twice now, Barack Hussein Obama has taken an oath to protect us from “enemies foreign and domestic”.

As we have painfully found out, all of Obama’s promises have expiration dates…usually the moment he makes them.

I miss having an actual American President.

Until He Comes,

KJ

America On the Brink of War: Will Syria Be Obama’s Vietnam?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2I’m getting the feeling of Deja Vu…all over again.

News Outlets are trumpeting the warning that, within the next few days, Obama and his Administration are about the plunge the United States into the middle of a Civil War, happening within the Middle Eastern Country of Syria.

According to abcnews.go.com,

The White House says there is “very little doubt” that the Assad regime is responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Syria that is said to have taken place earlier this week.

“Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts,” a senior administration official tells ABC News, “There is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident. We are continuing to assess the facts so the President can make an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.”

White House officials also point out the attack was on rebel-held territory and apparently done using rockets that the rebels do not possess.

After reports that Syria’s regime will allow UN inspectors to access the site of the attack, the senior administration official suggested the move may be too late, after “the regime’s persistent shelling” has “significantly corrupted” evidence in the area.

“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN–five days ago. At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible,” the official said.

The president has ordered his national security team to draw up possible strike options on Syria, but there is a divide in the White House on how forcefully to respond, although another official told ABC News if there is a strike, it must be “timely” — done soon enough to prevent another chemical attack.

However, the White House does not want to act alone. U.S. officials are back channeling through the United Nations to see if Russia could be convinced to agree to a resolution.

If there is no UN authorization, the United States would lead any possible strike, but, a senior official told ABC News “we do not want to do anything on our own.” U.S. allies must commit both “resources” and “political will” the official said.

Didn’t Vietnam start out as a “U.N. Action”?

Obama is determined to put us right in the middle of another country’s Civil War.  And the problem with this one is…there are no “Good Guys”.

BBC.co.uk reported the following on April 10th…

The leader of the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group fighting in Syria, has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Abu Mohammed al-Jawlani said the group’s behaviour in Syria would not change as a result.

Al-Nusra claims to have carried out many suicide bombings and guerrilla attacks against state targets.

On Tuesday, al-Qaeda in Iraq announced a merger with al-Nusra, but Mr Jawlani said he had not been consulted on this.

Al-Nusra has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the US.

Debates among Western leaders over whether to arm Syria’s rebels have often raised the concern of weapons ending up in the hands of groups such as al-Nusra.

“The sons of al-Nusra Front pledge allegiance to Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri,” Mr Jawlani said in a recording released on Wednesday.

But Mr Jawlani said al-Nusra had not been consulted on the merger with al-Qaeda in Iraq and insisted his group would not change its stance in Syria.

The al-Nusra statement assured Syrians that the “good behaviour” they had experienced from the front on the ground would continue unchanged, the BBC’s Jim Muir reports from neighbouring Lebanon.

Mr Jawlani said that the oath of allegiance to Zawahiri “will not change anything in its policies”, our correspondent adds.

But, hey, no worries. We have the mighty, mighty, Secretary of State John F. “I served in Vietnam” Kerry on our side. Lord knows, Sec. Heinz…err…I mean Kerry, will take a hard stand with both sides of the conflict in Syria and straighten things out.

And, if you believe that, I have a scholarship available for you at the Meghan McCain School of Political Punditry.

You see, David Horowitz’s discoverthenewworks.org  reports that Sec. Kerry and Syrian President Assad go way back…

Since the early 2000s, Kerry has been the federal government’s highest-ranking apologist for Syrian President Bashar Assad. Indeed it was Kerry who made numerous efforts to undermine the Bush administration’s attempt to isolate the Syrian dictator after its courtship of him ended in failure in 2003; after Bush repeatedly accused Syria of supporting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere; and after the United States withdrew its ambassador to Syria following the 2005 assassination of Lebanon’s former premier Rafiq Hariri in a car bombing most likely orchestrated by the Assad regime.

In January 2009, just days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, Kerry was sent to Syria as part of a policy review by an Obama administration looking to establish new relationships with countries the Bush administration had considered hostile. (This was the first of five trips Kerry would make to Syria between 2009 and 2011.)

During the January 2009 trip, Kerry listened to Bashar Assad advise him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions,” and that future relations between the U.S. and Syria should be based on a “proper understanding” by Washington of Middle East issues and interests. In return, Kerry used the occasion to bash the former administration. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” he said.

A year later, Kerry, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sat down once again with Assad. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” he said in April 2010. “Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest … in having a very frank exchange on any differences [and] agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” And once again, he called on Syria to stop supplying weapons to Hezbollah.

And now, Kerry’s boss, President Barack Hussein Obama, is ready to go to war with the very Middle Eastern president whom Kerry and his fellow Dems lauded during the Bush Administration.

I guess Obama and Kerry like their new, more radical, Muslim Brotherhood Buddies even more.

Why is the United States of America going to war on the side of radical Muslims, who want to kill all of us “Infidels”?

Is it naiveté, ignorance, or something more malevolent?

Or, is this foreign policy action meant to serve as a distraction from domestic presidential malfeasance?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama Sells Out American Sovereignty to the U.N. by Signing Arms Treaty

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

gun rightsIf you were Barack Hussein Obama, and your attempt at Gun Confiscation had failed miserably, with both Congressional and widespread public opposition to your efforts, what do you do?

…after you threw a temper tantrum on national television…

Simple: You sign over your nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations.

United States of America Secretary of State John Kerry announced yesterday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, in spite of bipartisan resistance in Congress. Congress is concerned that the treaty could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.

Kerry, in a written statement, which he released as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, proclaimed that the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty…

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.

Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

On April 2nd of this year, in the modern-day Tower of Babylon, known as the United Nations, a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade was passed by the delegates. oblivious to worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that this agreement could be the precursor to a national firearms registry.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that participating countries will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

With the unwavering support of Obama and his Administration, the General Assembly vote totaled 155 to 3, with 22 abstentions. Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against it.

The problem with the treaty is that is positively porous, due to all of the loopholes contained in it. The list of controlled weaponry in it includes “small arms and light weapons”. Of course, the U.N. claims that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

There are several times, during my musings, that I have described our blessed country as a sovereign nation. What does that mean?

It means that we are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws , The Constitution of the United States.

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

Our Founders  added “A Bill of Rights” to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The second Amendment, found in that Bill of Rights, states…

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

By selling out our sovereignty to the United Nations, President Barack Hussein Obama is definitely infringing on our rights as American Citizens as specified in the Second Amendment, and ignoring the Oath which he has taken, twice, to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

All because he did not get his way.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Atheists Complain About “Extensive Discrimination” to the UN. Christian Martyrs Unavailable for Comment.

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

unlogoAn International Group representing atheists, humanists, and freethinkers told the United Nations yesterday that they face widespread discrimination around the world. In fact, according to them, when they express their views, they are treated as criminals in some countries, and even subject to to capital punishment.

The group presented a document to the UN’s human Rights Council that claims atheism has been banned by law in a number of countries where people were forced to officially adopt a faith.

According to Reuters News Service on Yahoo.com…

“Extensive discrimination by governments against atheists, humanists and the non-religious occurs worldwide,” declared the grouping, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) which has some 120 member bodies in 45 countries.

In Afghanistan, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan “atheists can face the death penalty on the grounds of their belief” although this was in violation of U.N. human rights accords, the IHEU said.

Further, in several others legal measures “effectively criminalize atheism (and) the expression and manifestation of atheist beliefs” or lead to systematic discrimination against freethinkers, the document declared.

It was submitted to the rights council as it opened its annual Spring session against a background of new efforts in the U.N. by Muslim countries to obtain a world ban on denigration of religion, especially what they call “Islamophobia”.

Three of the states with legislation providing for death for blasphemy against Islam, a charge which can be applied to atheists who publicly reveal their ideas, are on the council – Pakistan, Mauritania and Maldives.

Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told the council on Monday there was a “rising trend” of Islamophobia, adding: “We condemn all sorts of incitement to hatred and religious discrimination against Muslims and people of other faiths.”

And earlier this month a top official of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said the body would be focusing on getting agreement on criminalizing denigration of religion in coming talks with Western countries.

In November last year, the head of the 21-country Arab League told the U.N. Security Council in New York his organisation wanted a binding international framework to ensure “that religious faith and its symbols are respected”.

The IHEU, and other non-governmental rights groupings, argue that many Muslim governments use this terminology and the concept of “religious blasphemy” within their own countries to cow both atheists and followers of other religions.

A number of these governments “prosecute people who express their religious doubt or dissent, regardless of whether those dissenters identify as atheist”, the IHEU document submitted to the rights council said.

Islamic countries – including Bangladesh, Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey – had also stepped up prosecution of “blasphemous” expression of criticism of religion in social media like Facebook and Twitter.

OIC countries have 15 seats on the council, all from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and make up just less than one third of the rights body.

Notice that Christian countries are not mentioned by this group?

Per CatholicNews.org…

…there are currently 2.18 billion Christians in more than 200 countries around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 6.9 billion global population in 2010.

The study, conducted by the US-based Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, found Christians to be so geographically widespread that no single continent or region can indisputably claim to be the centre of global Christianity.

The study, Global Christianity: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population, cites that 100 years ago, two-thirds of the world’s Christians lived in Europe but today only about a quarter of all Christians live there.

More than one-third of Christians live in the Americas; about a quarter live in sub-Saharan Africa and 13 percent live in Asia and the Pacific.

The data indicates that during the past 100 years, the number of Christians around the world has more than tripled from historical estimates of approximately 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion today.

But the world’s overall population has also risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the world’s population in 2010 (32 percent) as they did a century ago (35 percent).

The study also reveals that although Europe and the Americas are still home to a majority (63 percent) of the world’s Christians, that share is much lower than it was in 1910 when it was 93 percent. In the past 100 years, the number of Christians grew significantly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.

In fact…

In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) reported that globally every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day.

In 2011, the American Spectator declared concerning research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research:

“The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding.”

An Observation….

Christians are being martyred for their faith every day.

According to deseretnews.com, in an article posted 9/2/11,,

On average, a Christian is martyred every five minutes — killed because of their faith.

Zenit.org and CatholicCulture.org reported on a presentation by Massimo Introvigne of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that he gave in this summer at the “International Conference on Inter-religious dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims.”

Introvigne told the conference gathered near Budapest the number of Christians killed every year for their faith is about 105,000. And these are only those who were put to death because they were Christians. It does not include those killed as victims of war.

“If these numbers are not cried out to the world, if this slaughter is not stopped, if it is not acknowledged that the persecution of Christians is the first worldwide emergency in the matter of violence and religious discrimination, the dialogue between religions will only produce beautiful conferences but no concrete results,” Introvigne said according to Zenit.org.

Introvigne wrote an article for the Center for Studies on New Religions website that explained more behind the numbers. The statistics came from the late David B. Barrett and the Center for Study of Global Christianity.

Barrett and Todd M. Johnson said from AD 30 to 2000, 70 million Christians died as martyrs. The majority of those martyrs were not in ancient times. There were 45 million Christian martyrs in the 20th century. Introvigne emphasized these figures “exclude those killed for national, ethnic or political reasons who just happened to be Christian but were not killed because of their being Christian.”

Barrett and Johnson’s figures attribute 31.6 million of those 70 million Christian martyrs to atheist persecutors. Muslims killed another 9.1 million Christians.

When is the United Nations going to do something about the persecution of Christians throughout the world? 

History shows that believers faced death at the hands of both Muslims and atheists.

Unfortunately for the “free thinkers” living in Muslim-dominated countries, Islam does not teach forgiveness and compassion. Their faith teaches conversion and obedience…and death to the infidels.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Americans to Be Disarmed by the U.N.?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics14 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama may be about to make the United States of America subservient to the United Nations.

The following is taken directly from un.org:

Many areas of world trade are covered by regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. At present, there is no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures and a few global instruments on arms transfers exist, but the absence of a global framework regulating the international trade in all conventional arms has obscured transparency, comparability and accountability.

Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take decisions on arms transfers across international borders. That is why governments are expected to show responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. This means that before approving international transfers (e.g., exports) of weapons, governments should assess the risk that such transfers would exacerbate conflict or be used to commit grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Concerned by the misuse of weaponry around the world, civil society organizations have successfully mobilized governments and parliamentarians to call for the global regulation of the conventional arms trade. Countries have discussed the matter within the UN since 2006 and are set to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.

The Washington Times reports that

The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”

Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets – which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components – or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market – could be said to be part of “international” trade.

Per mrctv.com, a former adviser to President Clinton has weighed in:

Dick Morris, political author and commentator, warns of a threat to the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.

Morris cautions that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “On July 27… are going to sign a treaty in New York City which will obligate the United States to participate in a global regime of gun control.”

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a proposal by the United Nations to address the lack of global standards for the international arms trade. Morris concedes that “the theoretical objective of the ATT is to regulate the arms trade,” but bills this claim as “ridiculous because most of the arms trade is done by the governments and this [treaty] does nothing to regulate government arms trafficking.”

Morris claims “the real purpose of this [treaty] is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world…It really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulation of flows across borders.”

Furthermore, Morris asserts that “if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parody with the second amendment…because the supremacy clause of the constitution says treaties are the law of the land.”

Morris concludes that “for those of us who value the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, this is absolutely pivotal.”

The United States gave their official statement at the third day of the Arms Trade Treaty Conference yesterday, per heritage.org:

…And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.

The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.

Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.

Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.

First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.

In short, the U.S. statement was pure lowest common denominator, which is not surprising: In the context of the ATT, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China in fact agree on very little. The U.S. strategy, thus, continues to be fairly simple: to run interference for the autocracies and to try to secure an ATT that the U.S., Russia, and China can sign on to (which will be an ATT that is very general) in the hope that this will satisfy the broader demand for a treaty.

And that leads to the real conflict in the U.S. position: An ATT that is based on sovereignty cannot at the same time be one that is based on “common international standards” if those standards are in practice defined by the ever-evolving sentiments of the “international community” and tightened regularly by the review conferences that will be found necessary by the unsatisfied majority at this conference.

The problem is…we have a President of the United States of America who believes more in the rights of the “international community” than he does in the sovereignty of his own country.