New Poll Shows Trump Has Best Chance to Beat Clinton. Why? “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Deja-VuAs Donald J. Trump’s Campaign for the Republican Presidential Candidate Nomination continues, the reality of a Trump Victory is beginning to crystalize in the minds of both his Political Opponents, in both parties, and the American Voter.

The Washington Post, in an op ed disguised as a news article, reports that

NEW YORK — The volatility of the Republican presidential race threatens to undermine the ­party’s July convention, putting potential donors on edge, raising security concerns and prompting some GOP politicians, including those in competitive reelection battles, to skip the Cleveland gathering altogether.

A bungled and possibly contested convention could have lasting repercussions not only for the eventual nominee but also for the Republican brand. Party leaders fear that a week of contentious floor fights, inflammatory rhetoric and potentially violent protests could project a negative image to voters nationwide.

Compounding the challenges facing organizers are the expectations of Donald Trump, who asserted in an interview that he should have at least partial control over programming, stagecraft and other issues by virtue of his front-runner status — even if he does not have the delegates to secure the nomination beforehand.

Trump blasted the GOP’s last convention, in Tampa four years ago, as “the single most boring convention I’ve ever seen.” The billionaire real estate mogul and reality-television star said it was imperative that this year’s gathering have a “showbiz” quality — and he cast doubt on the ability of the Republican National Committee, which oversees the convention, to deliver.

“It’s very important to put some showbiz into a convention, otherwise people are going to fall asleep,” Trump said in a 45-minute interview here last week in his Trump Tower office. “We don’t have the people who know how to put showbiz into a convention.”

Speaking of dull…

…Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a Trump critic and unsuccessful 2016 presidential candidate, will not go. Sen. Mark Kirk, facing a tough reelection challenge in blue-state Illinois, announced last week that he would not attend, while Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Richard Burr (N.C.) told CNN that they probably will stay away.

In that same article, Trump blasts the Republican National Committee for placing this year’s convention in the hugely Democrat City of Cleveland.

In a related statement, the writer describes into detail, preparations being made by the Municipal Authoritities to equip the police with right gear, amid preparations for the Republican Convention.

There has been a lot of buzz among the Establishment Republicans and the Main Stream Media, that the expected violence, following a possible Trump Nomination, will be reminiscent of the 1968 Convention, during which riots occurred.

What they fail to mention, is that, unlike the 1968 Convention Riots over the Vietnam War, these riots will be bought and paid for, by sponsors such as billionaire Puppet Master George Soros and the Communist Party of the United States, who played a part in financing the protesters who camped out during the Occupy Wall Street Debacle, during which the unwashed wannabe hippies, left the safety of their mom’s basement, to set up tents and cities, in a protest against capitalism, during which they attacked female protesters and defecated on police cars.

Make no mistake, the Main Stream Media will report these protests as something noble. However, as seen during the Trump Republican Primary Campaign, they will be simply a means by which to disrupt Trump’s momentum and to deny him and his supporters their Constitutional Rights, in order to preserve the power of the Wisconsin professional politicians, especially on the left side of the Political Aisle, and to preserve the Washington Status Quo.

Why has so much money been spent, through the purchase of political ads and the paying off of professional protesters, by both sides of the political aisle, in their efforts to stop billionaire entrepreneur Donald J. Trump?

After all, if you believe the polls, as put out by Liberal Organizations, such as the Washington Post and NBC, Trump does not have a snowball’s chance in Hades of beating the presumptive Democrat Candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Well…as the late, great Paul Harvey used to say…

And now, Anericans….the rest of the story…

Last Friday, Foxnews.com reported that

A new FOX News poll shows Republican Donald Trump leading Ted Cruz by 18 points, while Democrat Hillary Clinton now only has a two-point lead over Bernie Sanders.

Voters polled believe Donald Trump has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton this fall, but they don’t think he’s the right person to negotiate with Russian President Vladamir Putin, Clinton fits that bill instead.

65% of Republicans think Trump has the knowledge to effectively serve as President, while only 12% of Democrats do.

So why do you suppose, that Trump was picked by the Americans participating in this poll, to have the best chance of beating Clinton?

The answer is simple.

It’s the economy, stupid.

In that same poll, those responding said that the economy is the single most important issue in the upcoming presidential election. Donald J Trump is a self-made billionaire. He knows how to create jobs. He understands Capitalism, the engine that runs America and her economy, don’t want a trumpet some self made billionaire. He knows how to create jobs.

Hilary, just like her former boss, Barack Hussein Obama, believes in “sharing the wealth”. She is just as big a socialist as Bernie Sanders.

Americans understand that fact.

When the only jobs that an economy is adding every month are government jobs, that country is moving in the wrong direction.

Too many Americans have been out of work for too long a period of time.

Americans are tired of the empty promises that they have heard since 2009, made by professional politicians on both sides of the political aisle.

That is why Donald J. Trump is presently enjoying a wide lead in the state of California, Pennsylvania, and his home state of New York.

The majority of Americans have had their fill of Professional Politicians, who promise the Moon, but deliver dust.

It is time to try something new.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama to Issue Gun Control Executive Orders Next Week…What “Checks and Balances”?

1722924_1319321378127988_8942781069457189654_nFreedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. – Ronald Reagan

The Washington Post reports that

HONOLULU — President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week despite growing concerns in the United States over terrorism that have dampened some Americans’ enthusiasm for tighter firearms restrictions.

The president will meet Monday with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to finalize a series of new gun control measures and will announce his package of proposals soon after, according to several individuals who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan is not yet public.

One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt would require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The change is aimed at occasional dealers, including some who sell online frequently or rent tables at gun shows but do not have a storefront.

Obama began examining how he could tighten the nation’s gun rules after October’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. Administration lawyers have spent months reviewing various proposals to make sure they can withstand legal challenges.

The idea of requiring informal gun dealers to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and of conducting background checks came up two years ago when White House officials drafted a proposal for dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually.

The idea was shelved because of legal concerns but gained new momentum after the Roseburg shooting. At that point, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she would pursue such a requirement by executive action if elected. Administration officials gave the proposal another look and determined it could be done in a way that was legally defensible.

The White House review has been conducted in relative secrecy, soliciting input from gun safety groups without specifying which policies the administration might ultimately adopt. In the past month, Obama has met with former representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was gravely injured in a 2011 mass shooting, and her husband, Mark Kelly, and with former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, which Bloomberg helped start.

In Obama’s weekly radio address, released a day earlier than usual, the president said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” he said. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.

“Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids to sit around and do nothing,” Obama continued. “I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”

In reviewing its options, the administration has shut out congressional Republicans, who joined with some Democrats in helping block legislation to expand background checks after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The administration has not communicated with us, and we have not been briefed,” Doug ­Andres, a spokesman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), said in an email. “We will consider options once we have information, but what seems apparent is none of these ideas would have prevented the recent atrocities. Our focus should be on the consistent causes of these acts — mental illnesses and terrorism — rather than infringing on law-abiding Americans’ constitutional rights.”

While most Republican presidential candidates did not provide immediate reaction to Obama’s announcement, they are expected to talk about it in the coming days. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is scheduled to attend a gun show in Orlando on Sunday, where he will discuss the high marks he has received from the National Rifle Association.

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), said that “President Obama is trying to distract Americans from his failure to address the true threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and instead going after the rights of law-abiding American citizens — it is complete lunacy. If Ted Cruz is elected president, the lawlessness will end on Day One, and Americans’ personal liberties will be restored and protected.”

Obama will make his case for additional gun restrictions in a number of forums in the coming month, according to aides, including during his Jan. 12 State of the Union address.

While beefing up background checks has strong support — a Quinnipiac University poll in December found that 89 percent of Americans supported checks for purchases at gun shows and for online sales — Obama’s actions also come as Americans have grown more fearful about the prospect of terrorist strikes and are expressing an openness to having ordinary citizens carry guns.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted last month in the wake of the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist shootings, for example, found that 53 percent of respondents opposed a ban on assault weapons ban, a record high. When asked which is the better reaction to terrorism, 47 percent said encouraging more people to carry guns legally, while 42 percent preferred enacting stricter gun control laws.

Why are Obama, his Administration, and their “fellow travelers” so intent over getting our guns?

If they cared so much about our nation’s children, their supposed reason for gun confiscation, they would not be pro-abortion, which has murdered 56 million children.

David Mamet, in an  article for The Daily Beast, published on January 27, 2013, wrote the following:

…where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

…The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Why, indeed? The Communist Leader, Vladimir Lenin ,answered that question very succinctly:

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

Now, I am not one prone to conspiracy theories, but I question the timing of the whole thing. I believe that all of this “solution” was already prepared, and Obama and his sycophants were just waiting for the appropriate trigger mechanism to begin their push for gun confiscation. Unfortunately, the Islamic Terrorist Attack in San Bernadino, California provided them the excuse that they were waiting for.

So now, even as I write this, there are Executive Orders, sitting on the president’s desk, waiting to be signed.

This should come as no surprise to anyone. He has stated, numerous times, that if Congress will not give him what he wants, he will go around them.

Yes, our Founding Fathers put in a System of Checks and Balances. However, that system relies on the willingness of politicians to enforce them.

Unfortunately, in 2016, we have a bunch of professional politicians, who are too afraid of being thrown off of the Gravy Train, to tell the Conductor he’s on the wrong track. When the new Speaker of the House just recently demonstrated his willingness to be a doppelganger of the previous Vichy Republican in that position, by getting the Omnibus Bill passed, he left no doubt as to the state of his intestinal fortitude.

Hurry up, November.

Until He Comes, 

KJ

Pope Francis’ Far Left Politics Causing Controversy and Intrigue Among Church Hierarchy

thHE8RRXS2It appears that a number of the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are less than pleased with Pope Francis’ performance of his duties as “Il Papa“.

Here is an excerpt from this morning’s story in the Washington Post:

A measure of the church’s long history of intrigue has spilled into the Francis papacy, particularly as the pope has ordered radical overhauls of murky Vatican finances. Under Francis, the top leadership of the Vatican Bank was ousted, as was the all-Italian board of its financial watchdog agency.

One method of pushback has been to give damaging leaks to the Italian news media. Vatican officials are now convinced that the biggest leak to date — of the papal encyclical on the environment in June — was driven by greed (it was sold to the media) rather than vengeance. But other disclosures have targeted key figures in the papal cleanup — including the conservative chosen to lead the pope’s financial reforms, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, who in March was the subject of a leak about his allegedly lavish personal tastes.

More often, dissent unfolds on ideological grounds. Criticism of a sitting pope is hardly unusual — liberal bishops on occasion challenged Benedict. But in an institution cloaked in traditional fealty to the pope, what shocks many is just how public the criticism of Francis has become.

In an open letter to his diocese, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., wrote: “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.” For his part, Burke, the cardinal from Wisconsin, has called the church under Francis “a ship without a rudder.”

Even Pell appeared to undermine him on theological grounds. Commenting on the pope’s call for dramatic action on climate change, Pell told the Financial Times in July, “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters.”

In conservative circles, the word “confusion” also has become a euphemism for censuring the papacy without mentioning the pope. In one instance, 500 Catholic priests in Britain drafted an open letter this year that cited “much confusion” in “Catholic moral teaching” following the bishops’ conference on the family last year in which Francis threw open the floodgates of debate, resulting in proposed language offering an embraceable, new stance for divorced or gay Catholics.

That language ultimately was watered down in a vote that showed the still-ample power of conservatives. It set up another showdown for next month, when senior church leaders will meet in a follow-up conference that observers predict will turn into another theological slugfest. The pope himself will have the final word on any changes next year.

Conservatives have launched a campaign against a possible policy change that would grant divorced and remarried Catholics the right to take Communion at Mass. Last year, five senior leaders including Burke and the conservative Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy, drafted what has become known as “the manifesto” against such a change. In July, a DVD distributed to hundreds of dioceses in Europe and Australia, and backed by conservative Catholic clergy members, made the same point. In it, Burke, who has made similar arguments at a string of Catholic conferences, issued dire warnings of a world in which traditional teachings are ignored.

But this is still the Catholic Church, where hierarchical respect is as much tradition as anything else. Rather than targeting the pope, conservative bishops and cardinals more often take aim at their liberal peers. They include the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has suggested that he has become a proxy for clergy members who are not brave enough to criticize the pope directly.

Yet conservatives counter that liberals are overstepping their bounds, putting their own spin on the pronouncements of a pope who has been more ambiguous than Kasper and his allies are willing to admit.

“I was born a papist, I have lived as a papist, and I will die a papist,” Caffarra said. “The pope has never said that divorced and remarried Catholics should be able to take Holy Communion, and yet, his words are being twisted to give them false meaning.”

Some of the pope’s allies insist that debate is precisely what Francis wants.

“I think that people are speaking their mind because they feel very strongly and passionately in their position, and I don’t think the Holy Father sees it as a personal attack on him,” said Chicago Archbishop Blase J. Cupich, considered a close ally of the pope. “The Holy Father has opened the possibility for these matters to be discussed openly; he has not predetermined where this is going.”

According to the website, churchauthority.org, the Pope has three main duties:

He is the Supreme Pastor.

That means that he represents Christ’s love and concern for every single individual. That is why the Pope’s priority lies in getting to know people, understanding how they live, listening to their interests and sharing their sufferings and their joys. On no account should the Pope allow his contact with ordinary people to be obstructed by a multitude of administrative duties.

He is the Unifier of the People of God.

Because of the international character of the Church, this will create many demands. The good of the world-wide Church and the autonomy of local Churches need to be balanced. That is why the Pope should guide and inspire the Central Synod of Bishops so that it can efficiently work out agreements and general Church policies.

He is the Prime Witness to Faith.

This includes both preaching [= announcing the message to non-Christians] and teaching [= explaining an element of Christ’s message in today’s context]. On very rare occasions the Pope is the main exponent of the infallible understanding of faith [=inerrancy] that is carried by the whole people of God. The Pope can only do so after listening to the People of God and discerning the faith they carry in their hearts.

Pope Francis is the first Pope who represents the Far Left Political Viewpoint.

Pope Francis seems more comfortable reaching out to Communist and Socialist countries, then he does to the Vatican’s Traditional Allies, those countries who enjoy strong economies, built upon freedom and a competitive marketplace.

I know that I may sound like an old cracker, but my generation was blessed with three very remarkable leaders: United States President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II.

These three stood for everything that was good about freedom.

All three knew the dangers and corruption of the implementation of Marxist Theory through the governments of man.

Here is what the wonderful and gracious Pope John Paul II said about an out-of-control Nanny-State (Socialist) Government:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.

And, while this present Pontiff is romancing the Palestinians, Pope John Paul II reached out to God’s Chosen People.

In 1994, John Paul II established full diplomatic ties between the Vatican and Israel. He said,

For the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel and who preserve in that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith, we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that are the prerogative of every nation . . .

Pope John Paul II also said…

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.

I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the Social Justice Movement, which is so popular among Liberal Churches, today. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once said:

Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice…

The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social (collective) salvation, but it does have social implications.

Pope Francis is presently doing the World’s Catholics a great disservice.

The current Pope’s embracing of certain aspects of Socialism, “Climate Change”, and the other erroneous, secular philosophies of the Far Left, dilutes his effectiveness as an Emmissary of God and the Head of the Catholic Church.

The world hungers for the Word of God.

Mankind needs to hear of God’s Love for them as individuals, not the machinations and limitations of man, as detailed in Marxist Theory.

 Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: “Zealot”

American FreedomAmerica is still a Christian Nation. We comprise 78% of our country’s population. One might not believe that, given the disparagement of Christians by “the smartest people in the room”, i.e., Liberals, including the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Recently, a new book titled “Zealot” hit the book stands, and its author, Dr. Reza Aslan, started making the rounds, promoting his book. The Liberal Media has been praising his  “ground-breaking work of Literature” and coming to his defense, when his scholarship and motives are questioned.  For example, here is an excerpt from the Washington Post…

Reza Aslan, “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions,” according to his online biography, has gotten a boost in sales and popularity from his “embarrassing” interview with a Fox News anchor about his new book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. But those familiar with the Harvard graduate and former Christian’s work say Zealot is re-hashed scholarship that ignores much of what the New Testament actually says about Jesus.

Aslan has written an account of how he “found” Jesus as a teen at an evangelical youth camp but years later returned to Islam after his studies led him to doubt the veracity of the Christian Scriptures, which he says are “replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions.”

“The more I probed the Bible to arm myself against the doubts of unbelievers, the more distance I discovered between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Jesus of history – between Jesus the Christ and Jesus of Nazareth,” Aslan wrote. “In college, where I began my formal study of the history of religions, that initial discomfort soon ballooned into full-blown doubts. …

“And so, like many people in my situation, I angrily discarded my faith as if it were a costly forgery I had been duped into buying.”

…Charged in his Fox New interview that his personal faith journey somehow overshadowed his academic objectivity, Aslan insisted: “Well, to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim.”

“It’s not as if I’m just some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions,” he added.

While his claims to being a “scholar of religions” and an “expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions” have been challenged, those familiar with the contents and claims of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth say Aslan has presented nothing new, although his meticulous research is evident.

Among some of the claims in Zealot, a biography in the top five of The New York Times Best Seller list and the leading book in a few Amazon categories, is that: Jesus was a revolutionary and a zealot who advocated the use of violence; as a devout Jew Jesus would have rejected the idea of an incarnate God; Jesus was crucified for sedition against the Roman Empire and not for the world’s sins.

The Fox interview that The Christian Post refers to, was conducted by Fox News’ Faith Editor, Lauren Greene, herself a Christian. Ms. Greene asked the Muslim “religious scholar” the questions that needed to be asked. Now, all of the Liberal Media is aghast that she actually dared to call Aslan out on his inaccurate book, which was, of course, slanted due to his own Mohammedanism.  Here are some excerpts…

Green: My question, yeah, I wanted to ask — actually there’s another chat coming, and I wanted to get this on before we end this interview. [A critic] just says so your book is written with clear bias and you’re trying to say it’s academic. That’s like having a Democrat writing a book about why Reagan wasn’t a good Republican. It just doesn’t work. What do you say to that?

Aslan: It would be like a Democrat with a PhD in Reagan who has been studying his life and history for two decades writing a book about Reagan. Again, I think that it’s unfair.

Green: Why would a Democrat want to promote democracy by writing about a Republican?

Aslan: Ma’am, may I just finish my sentence for a moment, please? I think that the fundamental problem here is that you’re assuming that I have some sort of faith-based bias in this work that I write. I write about Judaism, I write about Hinduism, I write about Christianity, I write about Islam. My job as a scholar of religions with a PhD in the subject is to write about religions and one of the religions and one of the religions I’ve written about is the one that was launched by Jesus.

Green: You’re not just writing about a religion from a point of view of an observer. I mean, the thing about it is that…

Aslan: Why would you say that?

Green: …you’re promoting yourself as a scholar and I’ve interviewed scholars who have written books on the resurrection, on the real Jesus and who are looking at the same information that you’re saying. To say that your information is somehow different from theirs is really not being honest here.

Ms. Greene was right to be suspicious. As Glenn Beck reported on his show last week…

He has, in 1995, he got a BA in religion, in religious studies, a BA. That’s not a PhD – Santa Clara University. In 1999, Masters in world religions from Harvard. Okay, good, not a PhD. In 2002, a Masters in fine arts in fiction, interesting – in the University of Iowa.

In 2009, a PhD in sociology. That is bizarre. So he’s studying us. He’s learning how to write fiction, and he learns how to speak the religious language. Wow, it’s a fascinating work here. But you know what I notice, there’s no history degree. There’s no history degree. He’s not a PhD in religions, and he’s not a historian. It’s possible that his Harvard theology degree included some history credits, but that’s not the same, not even on the same planet as an expert with a PhD in the history of religions.

…He’s not a PhD in the history of religions. He is not a historian. I tell you what, next time I’m on any channel, I’m going to insist that they put historian underneath my name. I spend a lot of time looking at history, a lot of time. Do you think they’d let me get away with historian? How about if I said I was a PhD in American history, and I don’t have that? Would anybody allow me to get away with it?

A cursory glance at his book reveals serious flaws in both fact and logic. But before I leave there, could you please put up where he’s teaching now, because he said I want you to know what I’m teaching here. This is what I do. I’m a professor of history specializing in the Gospels. No, actually he’s at UC Riverside, and he’s in the department of creative writing. Really? He also is…he’s at the University of Southern California in public diplomacy, which is an interesting place for him to be.

He’s also a contributor for The Daily Beast, but my favorite, my favorite is the last one. Can we put this up? He’s a sometimes professor, sometimes professor, and Tiffany, if you can please find that for me. He’s a sometimes professor, and what he’s doing is he’s teaching people something fantastic. He’s teaching people Middle Eastern revolution. That’s what he’s a professor of, revolution through – go ahead, here it is – revolution “on the art of protest in the Middle East, examining protest literature, film, art, and music. There it is, Drew University.

In other words, Professor Aslan is a Muslim Sociology Professor who decided to make money by writing an inaccurate book about Jesus Christ, while lying about his credentials, and not publicly acknowledging, (except when pressed about it and on page 2 of his book) that he is a Muslim, and therefore, does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

Every Liberal review that I have read, concerning the Fox Interview, has savaged Ms. Green, calling the interview and the way she handled it, “an embarrassment”.

Since when has it been an “embarrassment” for an American Christian to stand up for Jesus Christ?

Ms. Greene deserves accolades, not admonishment.

She exposed a phony “religious scholar” and burst the collective bubble of “the smartest people in the room”.

They are the ones who should be embarrassed for supporting a phony. But, they’re not.

They still support Obama, don’t they?

Until He Comes,

KJ

Skeetin’ and Cheatin’

obamaskeetshooting

For the past for plus years, the slobbering, sycophantic lapdog Main Stream Media has been desperately trying to compare the Great Prevaricator, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) to his supposed hero, the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.

Yesterday, when the White House released this picture to the left, they unintentionally left their “irony board” on.

It was Lincoln who said,

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

It’s almost as if he had this Administration in mind.

Please allow me to present this blatant propaganda piece by the Washington Post as proof:

On his 51st birthday last August, President Obama hit the links with a group of buddies and then flew by helicopter to Camp David. There, he changed into jeans and picked up a shotgun. And then, before it got too dark, he started a round of clay target shooting.

You’d be forgiven if you didn’t think this was headline-worthy news. But on Saturday morning, the White House released and promoted a photograph of Obama shooting skeet at the presidential retreat in Maryland.

White House aides were trying to end a growing distraction just as the president plans to make a fresh push to rally public support behind his ambitious agenda to tighten gun laws, traveling to Minnesota on Monday.

The photo, taken by White House photographer Pete Souza, depicts a sunglasses-wearing Obama firing what appears to be a Browning Citori 725, the shotgun wedged against his left shoulder, a pillow of white smoke emerging from the barrel.

The photo was published a week after Obama claimed in an interview with the New Republic that he routinely shoots skeet at Camp David. The surprising assertion — Obama’s golfing and basketball hobbies are far better known — instantly stirred the political zeitgeist.

Jay Carney, Obama’s press secretary, was asked for evidence in the White House briefing room. “The Daily Show’s” Jon Stewart poked fun at the president’s apparent hobby. Gun-rights activists dismissed it, and some were skeptical that Obama was a routine skeet shooter.

A Republican congresswoman even challenged the president to a shooting contest.

“I’m sure they released the photo because there were folks raising questions about his answer, and those questions are a silly distraction in the midst of a serious debate,” David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to Obama, said in an e-mail.

“I know him pretty well. He doesn’t embellish,” Axelrod added. “If he says he’s done some shooting up there on occasion, I’m sure he has. He’s not a hunter or marksman and doesn’t pretend to be.”

The White House did not say how often Obama has gone shooting.

In the interview with the New Republic, Obama was asked if he had ever shot a gun.

“Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” he said.

The evening of Obama’s 51st birthday, Reuters News posted the following article:

President Barack Obama celebrated his 51st birthday on Saturday with a round of golf, then helicoptered to the Camp David presidential retreat for a quiet evening off the campaign trail.

Obama, an avid golfer, played with colleagues and friends at the Andrews Air Force Base in hot, muggy weather conditions before taking Marine One to Maryland’s Catoctin Mountains in the afternoon.

The White House did not release details of the president’s evening plans or share the menu for the birthday meal he was expected to share with wife, Michelle.

Their daughters were at summer camp this week and it was not clear whether they would be present at the rustic getaway that the Obamas have visited less than past White House residents. The president often opts to golf at Andrews or play basketball in downtown Washington to unwind on the weekends.

Notice anything different between these two articles?

You’re right. In the Reuters article, written on his birthday, Obama’s manly pursuit of “doing skeet shooting” was not mentioned at all.

Almost as if never happened.

But, wait,. I thought that the Lightbringer was supposed to be the smartest person in any room in which he entered. 

I mean, after all, he is from Harvard.

Perhaps, that’s where he learned that rules do not apply to him.

On Harvard!

Harvard University said Friday it issued academic sanctions against approximately 60 students who were forced to withdraw from school for a period of time in a cheating scandal that involved the final exam in a class on Congress, drawing criticism from a high-profile alumnus.

The school implicated as many as 125 students in the scandal when officials first addressed the issue last year.

The inquiry started after a teaching assistant in a spring semester undergraduate-level government class detected problems in the take-home test, including that students may have shared answers.

In a campus-wide email Friday, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith said the school’s academic integrity board had resolved all the cases related to the cheating probe.

He said “somewhat more than half” of the cases involved students who had to withdraw from the college for a period of time.

Harvard said that the length of a student’s withdrawal period is usually from two to four terms.

Of the cases left, about half the students got disciplinary probation. The rest weren’t disciplined.

Some athletes became ensnared, including two basketball team co-captains whom the school scratched from its team roster in the wake of the cheating investigation.

Past reports in The Harvard Crimson also linked football, baseball and hockey players to the scandal.

Smith’s said in Friday’s email that the school wouldn’t discuss specific student cases. A school spokesman, citing student privacy, also wouldn’t say if any athletes had withdrawn or say which teams might have been affected.

The dean said a school committee is working on recommendations to strengthen a culture of academic honesty and promote ethics in scholarship.

“This is a time for communal reflection and action,” he wrote. “We are responsible for creating the community in which our students study and we all thrive as scholars.”

Staples founder Thomas Stemberg, a Harvard graduate whose son is a student, on Friday criticized the school’s handling of the probe.

“If you challenge the entire faculty at the Harvard Business School and the Harvard Law School to come up with a process that took more time, cost more money, embarrassed more innocent students, and vindicated guilty faculty … that could not have outdone the process that took place,” he said.

Stemberg, a supporter of Harvard’s basketball team, knows some of the students caught up in the scandal and his son knows others.

Evidently, the cheating doesn’t stop for some Hahvahd Graduates after they get out of school…

On Harvard! On Obama!

Evidently morality and ethics are just for us common folk.

Until He comes,

KJ