Joan Rivers has been a mainstay on the red carpet, usually as an interviewer. She's funny, extreme, and has had more plastic surgery than just about anyone in the industry. . . and has found ways to joke about it.
I wish I had a twin, so I could know what I'd look like without plastic surgery. -- Joan Rivers
Rivers made big news recently when she accused Michelle Obama of being "Michael," a transgendered First Lady. . . which would make Barack Obama the first truly gay President.
Everyone laughed, a few folks rubbed their chins and murmured, "Hmmmmm, she may have a point there," and everyone else ignored it and went back to their video games or hand-held device.
And then suddenly, Joan Rivers was not on stage...
At the Americans For Prosperity-sponsored "Defending The American Dream Summit" Senator Ted Cruz tore into Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the Democrats as a tribe - aka "preaching red meat to the choir". Something always to be encouraged in any and all settings and circumstances, even if it does encourage the pipedream that Senator Cruz is presidential timbre.
I'm sorry, my Tea Party friends, but I can't let Senator Cruz's delightful rant go unexamined.
“If you support the 4th and 5th Amendment rights to privacy, vote Harry Reid out,” Cruz declared.
Strictly speaking, Harry (G)Reid isn't up for re-election again until 2016, so he can't be voted out on November 4th. Yes, I know what Ted meant - as Senate Majority Chisler - but still.
That was a nitpick; but this one isn't:
Then holding up his phone, presumably as a reference to the NSA listening in, Cruz joked, “And President Obama, you’re next.”
No, he's not. Barack Obama will be POTUS either for the next 872 days or the rest of his life, but he will never face another election every again, and so cannot be voted out of anything. I love "red meat" as much as the next right-wingnut, but I require my red meat to actually make relevant sense. I love thick, juicy steaks too, but if one is served to me drizzled in butterscotch topping, smothered in whipped cream with a cherry on top, and so raw that, had the butcher left on the legs, it could walk behind me on a leash, I'd send the damn thing back. This tells me that "red meat" is not Senator Cruz's rhetorical strong point - or, put another way, he'll never be anybody's running mate.
"...if you’re tired of the most corrupt Department of Justice in history obstructing justice, and believe it is time to impeach [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder..."...Notably, Cruz’s comment about impeaching Holder received a standing ovation.
I'd have joined that standing O as well, knowing full well that it will never happen, and even if it did, the Regime would just ignore it and keep Eric "The Red" right where he is. And besides, he claims he's retiring at the end of the year anyway, so what would be the point?
And that, of course, is the problem with "red meat". It sounds so good, but it rarely has much, if any, connection with political reality. There's nothing Senator Cruz can do to change that.
The United Kingdom Independence Party call themselves democratic libertarians. The leftists call them right-wing extremists. They emerged from an anti-federalist movement, and the were forged from the popular frustration with the failed policies of big government socialism championed by most British politicians.
In Great Britain, it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way. . . way over to the other side.
The primary objective of the UKIP political party is for Britain to withdraw from the European Union, and to push for a more conservative political landscape by inserting more traditional libertarian values into the system.
UKIP supports reducing taxes, using a voucher system to enable people to see health professionals outside the government controlled healthcare system, supports the monarchy, opposed the disestablishment of the Church of England in 2012, has been non-committed on the immigration issue but tends toward tougher immigration enforcement, opposes governmental definitions of marriage to protect faith-based groups and churches into being forced to perform same-sex weddings, support the concept that the idea of man-made global warming is a hoax, and propose an increase in Britain's defense spending - a list that pretty much lines up with the Tea Party in America, aside from the monarchy and established church, two concepts that have never been a part of the United States, and would be in opposition of the American Constitution here in the States, anyhow.
Sounds good to American conservatives, doesn't it? Heck, it even shows that in the right conditions (parliamentary conditions are more conducive to such a happening than in a constitutional republic) a third party can rise up and grab the reins.
The pendulum swinging to the right in the United Kingdom is the natural result of failed leftist policies, and the natural cyclical nature of politics. The Founding Fathers that created the American Republic were very aware of such cycles, and were determined to slow the pendulum down so that it remained closer to the centrist position of the United States Constitution, rather than enjoy such wild swings of extreme measures.
The popularity of the UKIP has caught Britain by storm. The whole landscape of British politics is in the process of changing. In upcoming elections UKIP is in position to take over the House of Commons, unseating Prime Minister Cameron, and doing so with a massive landslide.
The election in October, if it follows the trend of recent polls, will humiliate the Tories, and justify the defection by Conservative MP Douglas Carswell to UKIP. Voters are ready for change, polling that the current Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, is ‘too keen’ on staying in the EU; refuses to ‘shake up the Westminster clique’; has lost control of the UK’s borders; should cut both spending and tax; and should bring in new laws to make it easier for voters to sack MPs in between general elections.
This really IS a political earthquake, writes Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive of poll firm Survation. Mr Carswell has been accused of betraying his party, but that is not how the vast majority of his constituents see him.
The election, if it is a landslide, could mark a continuing change in Britain, as well. If Mr Carswell lost or won narrowly, other like-minded Conservatives toying with going over to UKIP would probably conclude it was far too risky. But if he wins with a record-breaking swing, as polls suggest he could, they may decide it is more risky to fight the next election as a Tory candidate than as a UKIP one.
And that would change the landscape of British politics decisively.
There is a danger with UKIP, as well. They do not necessarily embrace the political dynamics of a republic as American Conservatives do. They are pushing more for direct democracy, which the the U.S. Constitution framers warned could be as dangerous as a tyrannical big government. Democracy leads to mob-rule, violence, spilled blood, and ultimately right back to an oligarchy of a fashion they had originally rejected. In a direct democracy there are no checks and balances, and it is easier for a particular ideology to fool the people, and then vote themselves into power.
The changes in the United Kingdom are good because the people are moving away from leftism, but there is concern, for if they move so far from leftism that they become a democratic mob, the road back to a tyrannical oligarchy will be swift, and painful.
Not quite the Glorious Revolution, but the changing tides in British Politics could be for the good. . . for a while.
"A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people." -- James Madison
We cannot turn the country around and restore the republic to its proper place unless we place our battle in God's hands, and understand the tools the Creator gave us to maintain liberty.
The Holy Bible and the United States Constitution.
The two greatest documents ever created reveal to us the principles and philosophies of freedom, and an ordered society.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." -- Benjamin Franklin
The rule of law is based on the Laws of Nature of Nature's God, and a people that pursue the rule of man and abandon the set standards established by the law of the land are destined to be ruled over by tyranny.
* * * "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
Are we willing to defend the American System, a system the Founding Fathers were willing to establish "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"?
"We in America do not have government by the majority - we have government by the majority who participate." -- Thomas Jefferson
The framers were problem-solvers and active members of their community. Are we willing to be the same?
"The Constitution is only ink and paper if we don't fight for it." -- Douglas V. Gibbs
As with any possession, our freedom is only ours if we don't give it away, and if we are willing to do the things necessary to protect it.
We should do all things in obedience to God, not just for ourselves, but for all of those we have been given the blessing of influencing -- 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
We have all been saddened and outraged by the vicious videotape of Islamic
State terrorists beheading an American journalist. Our hearts go out to James
Foley's family.
However, anger and sympathy are not solutions.
We, the American people, must come together in a righteous determination to
defend freedom and civilization from barbarism, savagery, and terrorism.
We must calmly, methodically, and with the same grim determination we brought
to winning World War II, implement strategies that eliminate the growing
worldwide threat of radical Islamists prepared to kill us as individuals and our
values as a civilization.
Some will suggest this exaggerates the threat from the Islamic State. Let me
remind them of some hard facts.
There are now an estimated 12,000 terrorists from over 50 countries in the
Islamic State-controlled parts of Iraq and Syria. Britain estimates that more
than 500 British citizens have joined the Islamic State. Our government
estimates that more than 100 Americans are now engaged in enemy activities.
When we remember the death and destruction 19 terrorists achieved on 9/11, we
have to take very seriously the threat from more than 12,000 terrorists.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has warned
that the Islamic State "has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision that
will eventually have to be defeated."
He has expanded on the danger, saying their vision of a fundamentalist
caliphate could "fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a
security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways."
Furthermore, General Dempsey has warned that the Islamic State cannot be
defeated only in Iraq. He asserted: "Can they be defeated without addressing
that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no."
In fact, the very existence of terrorists from over 50 countries means we
must be thinking in terms of a global campaign to eradicate the virus of Islamic
extremism and the spirit of terrorism and barbarism that it is fostering. This
is fully as grave a threat to our survival as was Nazism or Communism. With
appropriate strategies and consistent policies executed energetically, we can
defeat and eliminate the Islamic State and its various allied factions.
The Islamic State and its worldwide terrorist allies have become the focus of
evil in the modern world.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned that we must take the Islamic State
seriously when he reported "they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond
anything we have seen." He went on to assert that "they marry ideology and a
sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess."
That is the scale of the opponent we must defeat.
Yet defeating terrorists and blackmailers is nothing new in American
history.
In the very first years of the new American Republic, in May 1791, Secretary
of State Thomas Jefferson sent Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, a
letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco, stating that it is "lastly
our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to
any people whatever."
Jefferson hated war and loved peace. He also understood that there were times
when vicious opponents give peace-loving people no choice but to engage in a
just war. As president he sent the Navy and the Marine Corps to the shores of
Tripoli to reject blackmail, defeat piracy, and establish that even a young
America could project power in defense of principle and its citizens.
We were saddened but not surprised by the barbaric video of the killing of
James Foley. Back in January we noted that the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, gave a speech in which he warned America: "Soon we'll be in direct
confrontation, so watch out for us, for we are with you, watching." Islamic
State spokesmen have promised to raise their black flag over the White
House.
Because I take very seriously the security of the United States and believe
that my highest obligation as president is to protect America, I responded to
this direct challenge with a series of quiet steps.
We moved intelligence assets and began monitoring potential Islamic State
targets throughout Iraq and Syria.
We began re-establishing ties with both the Sunni tribes in Western Iraq and
the Kurdish allies with whom America has worked for decades.
We created an anti-ISIS intelligence network working with Egypt, Jordan, and
Saudi Arabia.
We informed the weak, chaotic government in Baghdad that defeating the
Islamic State is a higher priority than Iraqi political maneuvering, and we
reserved the right to arm, train, and coordinate with any effective group
prepared to help defeat the Islamic State.
We moved strategic assets including B-1 and B-2 bombers into position to be
prepared to respond decisively to any ISIS outrage.
In response to the deliberately vicious killing of James Foley, we began
hitting Islamic State targets in both Syria and Iraq. In the last hour over 200
targets have been hit.
The air campaign in coordination with Kurdish and Sunni Arab ground forces
will continue until the Islamic State disintegrates and is incapable of holding
territory.
The 12,000 terrorists from over 50 countries should understand as of this
date that they can surrender or we will hunt them down. Terrorists who videotape
beheadings operate outside the rule of law and in the tradition of eliminating
piracy they will be dealt with as outlaws.
We will coordinate with Britain, Egypt, Jordan, and every willing partner to
develop a strategy and a set of operating principles for the destruction of
extremist terrorism.
When Congress returns I will work directly with its leaders in a bipartisan
effort to establish rules for protecting America and defeating this growing
cancer of barbarism.
With the bipartisan help of Congress and our allies we will pursue our
campaign to destroy the Islamic State with the four principles I outlined
immediately after the bombing in Beirut: We will have a clear plan to win. We
will develop overwhelming forces among the combined civilized world. We will
report to you regularly and work every day to keep the support of the American
people for the campaign to destroy terrorism. We will define clearly who the
enemy is and they will have no sanctuaries.
In confronting an evil that seeks to kill us and destroy our civilization,
our goal must be complete and decisive victory.
The Foley family needs your prayers in this difficult time.
America and the forces of freedom need your prayers in this daunting
campaign.
Together, civilization will prevail and barbarism will return to the dustbin
of history.
When I was a kid, we didn't call them "drones," we called them toy helicopters.
When my son was a kid, we used to play with the same toy, but advancements made them "remote control helicopters."
Now, the technology has advanced so far that we not only have disallowed people from flying these things anywhere they want, but now we have to tell government not to use them, either.
With cameras and longer range as unmanned flying machines, these "drones" can be used for horrible things that we just can't allow. . . like taking aerial shots in a national park.
Yellowstone National Park rangers have been having to crack down on these toys, because three times this year a tourist has illegally flown a drone in the park, and got caught doing it.
Grand Teton National Park has had at least one drone citation.
I get it. These things can be used for nefarious reasons, and in the hands of private citizens, if they get used for reasons that betray the rights of others, the person should get in trouble for using their toys in such a way. But should the mere act of flying one for fun, or to take a few pics of wildlife, be a reason to be citing people?
The fear is if we let private citizens use them, and we let Amazon or Google use them, then so will the government, and the skies will be filled with them, and our privacy will go out the window. . .
As if we have that privacy with cell phones equipped with GPS, and RFID microchips on the verge of being inserted under our skin.
My opinion? Drones should be allowed for private use, with local rules and laws governing the use in the cases of disputes regarding an invasion of privacy. Government has no business using them, or if they do, with heavy restrictions and limitations.
Chisolm v. Georgia revealed that the courts were trying to seize more power, and the people, and the States, needed to futher limit the Judicial Branch. The 11th Amendment applies those limitations.
Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers.
New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. Go to Constitution Study Radio for all podcasts of past episodes.
Doug's book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution is available on Amazon, and CreateSpace.
President Barack Obama is working with world leaders to try to get a Climate Change agreement in place that will bully nations into compliance, shaming them into cutting emissions, because, as Obama said way back in 2008 about coal plants, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them." Like Al Gore, Obama is fanatical about the man-made global warming issue - but not for environmental reasons.
The evidence shows that the concept of man-made global warming is a myth. The only thing that has kept the lie alive has been well conceived propaganda.
Every prediction by the Climate Change hysteria has failed to materialize, and "real science" has shown that though the planet does warm and cool, it is a natural occurrence, primarily based on natural cycles and sunspot activity. Even the United Nations has admitted that the sun may play a larger role in global temperature change than previous believed by them.
In the end, however, the real evidence is in the ice caps.
Al Gore predicted that by now the ice caps would be ice-free. Instead, not only are they not ice-free, but they are actually thicker with ice. the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
To clarify, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.
Not exactly the irrevocable death spiral Al Gore claimed the Arctic Circle was in.
The ice in Antarctica is growing, as well, despite the claim that we are suffering from global warming.
But as I wrote earlier, the push for a global warming treaty, and climate change legislation, has nothing to do with temperature, and everything to do with control. The whole reason the liberal left progressive internationalists are pursuing global warming is for purely a political agenda.
Harvard Professor Robert Stavins, a lead author of the United Nations climate report, has confirmed that the United Nations has been editing their reports in order to support political interests, and the conflict of interest between scientists and governments was so bad it lead Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University to refuse to sign the final product.
Professor Stavins said the changes to the final version of the most recent report was to protect their ‘negotiating stances’ at forthcoming talks over a new greenhouse gas reduction treaty.
He said almost all of the politicians made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’
Climate Change Hoax Hysteria is pure politics. If there was any science involved, it departed from the scene long ago.
If the evidence that Climate Change supporters are full of crap gets any thicker, they'll have to resort to the old 1970s environmentalism hysteria, when these same kooks were warning everyone an ice age is coming.
Because, obviously, doing such a thing is against what Americans want, against the Constitution, and would result in heavy losses for the democrats in the upcoming elections. . .
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was always labeled the "bad communists," and China was the "good communists." Richard Nixon traveled to China in hopes of working out treaties with them.
China reminded us how communism actually works, even when being applied by the "good communists," during the Tiananmen Square confrontation in 1989. Now, the Chinese communists are ready to pull those silly capitalists in Hong Kong and Taiwan back into the controlling arms of mainland Communist China.
It won't hurt a bit, and it's good for the community. It's just a little loss of freedom for a whole bunch of security. Technology is your friend, and the government can be trusted with such power.
George Orwell suggested we would get there by 1984. We're a little late, but Big Brother has arrived.
The Bible suggested the mark would be on the back of your hand, or on your forehead. The mark turns out not to be a mark, so much, as it is a chip. A microchip. Under your skin, where nobody will be the wiser.
They are called RFID, which are microchips that use short-range radio frequency identification signals to transmit your identity as you pass through a scanner designed to pick up the signal. No need to stand in line, anymore. Have your entire financial record on a chip inserted under your skin, and then let the scanners deduct the funds for the groceries you bought as you wheel them out the door. What could go wrong?
Don't worry, you can trust them to be accurate, safe, and secure. The government did such a good job with the Obamacare website, so this should be easy to establish safely and securely.
Microchip implants already exist, and we've been using them for sometime. . . just not on people. We've been tagging pets, and animals released back into the wild, for a while now. People are next. We don't want you escaping your backyard without the government knowing about it, you know.
The dangers are being hidden by all of the claims of how being tagged like a released sea lion or dolphin can be good for you. For soldiers and journalists in war zones, an implant could be the difference between life and death. A tracker could also help law enforcement quickly locate a kidnapped child. Accused domestic terrorists, and citizens that dare to speak out against government control could be located and apprehended quickly and easily, as well. Heck, add a taser inside one of those suckers, and they could shutdown an entire population with the push of a button. No more Ferguson riots. Wouldn't that be nice?
Then, all the government would have to do is go in with a large broom and dustpan, and sweep up all of those anti-government domestic terrorists without having to fire a single shot.
So, let's see, disarm us with gun control laws so that we can't fight back, and then tag us like animals. Yep, Orwell would be proud.
Supporters of tagging people say that having a chip in you is much less intrusive than other ID systems. You know, like that absolutely intrusive method of having an ID card in your wallet? In fact, I hear that having an ID card in your wallet is racist, especially when it comes to voting. Tagging people like animals, however, is not dehumanizing at all.
It's not like they will follow our every move, or anything, right?
The government only has the best of intentions, after all. They said so.
There have been people who volunteered to use microchips for opening the door of an apartment as a personalized ID using your arm. It could be used to track criminals targeted for patrol who might wander into a restricted area.
Besides, there are limitations to what the government can do with these things, so be assured, you are totally safe from the government tracking your every move. The government would never lie about such a thing, would they?
Safe and secure. They tell us so right up front: "Implants are normally useful only at short ranges – as you walk through a portal or close to a transponder. So using chip implants to track people would require an infrastructure of transponders scattered around a city that read their identity in public buildings and street corners."
And that would be so hard to do. It's not like we have a nationwide network of transponders for anything, nor could we ever. Technologically, we just aren't capable of such a thing.
Oh, wait, my cell phone is ringing. Hang on a second.
People could unlock their homes or cars (and so could the government), gain access to a building (so could the government), pass through an airport and even unlock their laptops without using a phone or watch (and so could the government). A pin code could be used to activate the chip – or to deactivate it to maintain privacy - a pin number that would be stored safely and securely in the government's system of servers and computer networks where nothing would ever be lost or compromised. Just ask Lois Lerner.
And best of all, these chips are easy to install and remove, and, because they are implanted under the skin, and are completely unobtrusive. The chips, which could be the size of a thumbnail, could be injected into an arm or a hand (or the forehead?).
Think about the wondrous advantages of sticking chips in our children. The government-run schools could take attendance in the classroom much easier, and know where the children are if they aren't in class (and make sure parents aren't keeping their children out of class for any unauthorized reasons). But don't worry, they won't use GPS, we are told. The skin would block the signal. It's not like technology can solve such a problem anytime soon, so don't worry, the government won't track you, or follow you, or know your every move. The government is benevolent, after all. Scout's honor.
Police could track cars and read data without needing to scan license plates, too! And, at a hospital, administrators could locate a doctor without having to rely on a pager, and make sure you are signed into government health care so that they can decide if you deserve treatment, or not.
Reading the article I used as a reference for this, it turns out the dangers of these microchips are addressed at the end of the article. That's an old trick used by journalism. List the bad stuff last, because usually the reader doesn't make it halfway through the article, anyway. After all, in this age of technology, all we care about are headlines, texting, gaming, instant information, and for government to do all the work because we are just too busy with distractions to care about the details.
Regarding the chips, according to the Fox News article, there are concerns about the wrong people accessing personal information and tracking you via the chips. But as we've seen with the government in the past, that should be of no concern. After all, it's not like the Obamacare website is a hacker's paradise, or anything.
Oh, wait. Uh, okay, so the government's record is sketchy. But we can trust the overlords who consider themselves the ruling elite, right?
It's not like they wish to usurp the Constitution, or compromise your God-given rights. . . right?
But, if government can't be trusted, or if the criminal element can figure out a way to take advantage of this technology, here is what we could be in for:
Potential abuses could include hacking into the infrastructure and stealing your identity, or invading your privacy and knowing your driving habits. There are questions about how long a felon would have to use a tracking implant. And, an implant, which has to be small and not use battery power -- might not be as secure as a heavily encrypted smartphone. Using chip implants to locate abducted children could actually have the opposite effect, as well. Though a microchip would make a missing person easier to rescue, kidnappers want ransoms, not dead bodies. The most dangerous time for victims is during rescue attempts or when the kidnappers think the police are closing in. As for having a device inside your body, it could be used to track us in ways we may not even have thought of. . . yet. This kind of potential government intrusion into our lives, and privacy, goes way beyond the concerns over privacy issues like warrantless wiretaps, or anything else the Patriot Act was able to dish out. In the end, the government wants to take away a little more liberty, a few more freedoms, in the name of security, and convenience. But how do we have liberty if we are tagged like animals, and are tracked like criminals.
But don't worry, the microchips will bring you "Peace and Safety."
…2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief;… 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Today we open with Today's Guest, Colonel John Warden, says ISIS is very capable. John Ashley Warden III is a retired colonel in the United States Air Force. Warden is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. His Air Force career spanned 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, and included tours in Vietnam, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Korea, as well as many assignments within the continental United States. Warden completed a number of assignments in the Pentagon, was a Special Assistant for Policy Studies and National Security Affairs to the Vice President of the United States, and was Commandant of the Air Command and Staff College.
John Warden has been called "the leading air power theorist in the U.S. Air Force in the second half of the twentieth century". He has also been called "one of the most creative airmen of our times. John Warden is not just a creative airman; he is one of America's premier strategic thinkers".
Today's Book of the Week is a trio of books, two dealing with the spread of leftism in the United States, and one about the infiltration of the church.
Today's Constitution Quest Question of the Week is brought to you by Constitution Quest board game. Enter "Doug" in the discount box.
At Noon Pacific, the longtime mainstay of BlogTalkRadio, American Daily Review Radio, launches into another two-hour journey through conservative issues, the Constitution, and important news stories of the week. The tailgate party, and the pre-game show, for Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KCAA AM1050 at 2:00 pm Pacific, ADR is the perfect warm-up for a three hour extravaganza of Saturday Afternoon Conservative Talk Radio. Hang on every word of Blog Talk Radio titans Douglas V. Gibbs (Constitution Radio) and JASmius (Hard Starboard Radio) and Jennifer (jensgyrations.com) as they show Donk-occupied America what REAL AMERICANS sound like.
Still wondering why President Obama hasn't put together a plan for dealing with Muslim Terrorists called ISIS threatening the entire world yet?
The Democrats have a lot in common with Islam. They both desire a strong government that mandates the lives of the governed, they both are at odds with Christianity, and American conservatism, and they both have a putrid dislike for the United States Constitution and the principles of limited government and freedom that the document champions. About the only differences between Muslims and Democrats are that Jews tend to be Democrats (although like Islam, Democrats tend to have a particular dislike for Israel), and Muslims want a theocracy based on Islam, the teachings of the false prophet Muhammad, and Allah, while Democrats want a theocracy based on humanism, secularism, and the All Mighty State.
Since the two have common enemies (Israel, Christians, and American Conservatives), they have decided to be bed-buddies for the time being. At least long enough to get rid of all other opposition in the world. They figure they can deal with each other later.
It is a queer relationship when one considers that on social issues, they are diametrically opposed. Democrats want men to be able to marry men without anyone even batting an eyelid, and Muslims want to hang homosexuals from the highest tree and probably wouldn't have a problem with removing their eyelids. Democrats claim they are supporters of women's rights, and that the GOP has committed some kind of war against women, while the Muslims wish to beat their women into submission, hide their bodies and faces behind thick garments so that the men can more easily fight their sexual urges, and Muslim men consider women to be less than animals. Democrats fight for what they call "separation of church and state," while Islam declares that the religion of Muhammad must be the driving force of the State (politics and the Muslim religion are one and the same) The separation of church and state does not exist in any way, shape, or form in Islam.
The Democrats and Islam seem to be able to set aside those differences, for now. They have common enemies to kill. . . uh, I mean silence. . . uh, I mean subdue. . . I mean destroy. Uh, well, you get the picture.
So, when the Islamic Society of North America decided to have an annual conference, of course it made sense that hard left Democrat progressive socialist former President Jimmy Carter was chosen to deliver keynote address.
Carter says he will talk about "the historic need for religious communities to mobilize against discrimination and violence that is directed toward girls and women throughout the world," according to the convention schedule.
Well, that won't go over well with the Muslim men. . . especially the ones excited about consummating their marriage to child brides, and raping all infidel women.
Carter will also invite Muslim leaders at the convention to sign a Declaration for Peaceful Communities to join President Carter's movement for greater human rights.
There are no human rights in Islam. It is all about Muslim rights. You have a right to be a Muslim, or you have the right to be a slave, or dead.
The Republican Governor of Michigan, a man that is anything but conservative (so he should fit right in with Jimmy Carter), Rick Snyder, spoke at the opening session of the conference. Well, I suppose that makes a little sense, since the conference is being held in his State, and in a city not far from Dearbornistan. . . you know, that thriving bastion of liberal left economic prosperity at a municipal level, a city you may know as Detroit (bankrupt Detroit).
The ISNA is an organization that has been shown to have links to Hamas, as well as other terrorist groups, so both Carter and Snyder have received a bit of criticism for choosing to attend the conference. The leftists ignore the facts and actions of Islam and point to the ISNA's website, which proclaims the organization "rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration."
Why would they lie?
Islam is the only enemy faction we have ever seen in history that directly attacked the United States, and then received a 'preferred status' blessing as a result.
Today's Guest, Colonel John Warden, says ISIS is very capable. John Ashley Warden III is a retired colonel in the United States Air Force. Warden is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. His Air Force career spanned 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, and included tours in Vietnam, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Korea, as well as many assignments within the continental United States. Warden completed a number of assignments in the Pentagon, was a Special Assistant for Policy Studies and National Security Affairs to the Vice President of the United States, and was Commandant of the Air Command and Staff College.
John Warden has been called "the leading air power theorist in the U.S. Air Force in the second half of the twentieth century". He has also been called "one of the most creative airmen of our times. John Warden is not just a creative airman; he is one of America's premier strategic thinkers".
Today's Book of the Week is a trio of books, two dealing with the spread of leftism in the United States, and one about the infiltration of the church.
Today's Constitution Quest Question of the Week is brought to you by Constitution Quest board game. Enter "Doug" in the discount box.
And then during the last segment we will go over the 5 Big Stories of the Week, which will include Earthquakes, Gun Control, Economics, the business world, Unconstitutional Presidential Actions, Terrorism, ISIS, Immigration, Russia, and how in the United States we are losing God.
Join us at 2:00 pm Pacific, and you can listen online at KCAAradio.com.
The killing spree by ISIS through Syria and Iraq is horrific. The eyes of ISIS are on creating a caliphate, and eventually world domination.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has warned that the West will be the next target of the jihadists sweeping through Syria and Iraq, unless there is "rapid" action.
A concerned ally? Or just another Muslim leader hoping to use the United States to eliminate an enemy?
"Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East," said the king who was speaking at a welcoming ceremony on Friday for new ambassadors, including a new envoy from Saudi ally the United States.
ISIS advances in both Syria and Iraq, killing hundreds of people, including in gruesome beheadings and mass executions.
Lack of action would be "unacceptable" in the face of the phenomenon, King Abdullah said.
"You see how they (jihadists) carry out beheadings and make children show the severed heads in the street," he said, condemning the "cruelty" of such acts.
"It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: 'Fight terrorism with force, reason and (necessary) speed'."
President Barack Obama has yet to decide whether the United States should launch raids against positions held by the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria to follow US air strikes on IS activities in Iraq.
US Secretary of State John Kerry called Friday for a global coalition to combat Islamic State fighters' "genocidal agenda".
The Saudi King says, act now, act swift, and act decisively. President Obama has essentially responded, "I don't know, we want to be careful here."
Meanwhile, the slaughter continues, and Israel, Europe, and the United States are next.
Fox News reports that not only are Americans going to the Middle East to fight for ISIS, but they are on the lookout for these people when they try to return to the States:
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY considers 'additional security measures' to intercept foreign fighters who have joined with radical militants overseas, after reports 2 Americans died fighting for ISIS in Syria.
Barack Obama told a group of Democratic donors today that despite turmoil in Ukraine and Iraq the U.S. faces less of a threat than it did during the Cold War.
Horsepucky. The U.S. faced much larger potential consequences - mass death and destruction, nuclear winter, etc. - during the Cold War, but the actual chances of all-out - which is to say, nuclear - war with the Soviet Union were substantially less than are the chances of war with the Islamic State, which is already at war with us and has bigger ambitions for WMDing the American homeland than even al Qaeda ever did. And more to the point, jihadists love death, and are convinced their demon "god" commands it; quite the opposite of the atheistic rationalists in the old Kremlin, who, like Hillary Clinton, only wanted to go to war if they were guaranteed to win. Consequently, the threat America faces today is, on balance, greater now than it was back then.
The U.S. has confronted greater dangers and overcame them, including the stand-off with the former Soviet Union following World War II, he said.
Who overcame the Soviet Union, Barry? Ronald Reagan. How did he do it? Rebuilding a strong U.S. military AND economy and confronting the USSR. Would you have pursued any of the Gipper's policies? No, you would not have.
So shut the hell up.
“This is not something that’s comparable to the challenges we faced in the Cold War,” Obama said. “This is something we can handle.”
But you're not handling it, Barry. Thirty-six hours ago you said you "had no strategy" for any of it. That's like telling a eunuch to jerk off, or locking him in a round room and telling him to piss in the corner. If you had been in power during the Cold War, мыбысейчасговоритьРоссии. Or we'd be extinct.
Instead, thanks to you, the Islamic State will just do it to us piecemeal.
Exit rhetorical question: Any guesses on why O burbled this horrifying imbecility at a Democrat fundraiser? And you only get one.
The list of Barack Obama's unconstitutional actions is long. Someone once asked if I could write a book about all of Obama's unconstitutional actions, and I said, "Too large of a project. It would be longer than the Obamacare bill."
He's toying with a global warming treaty without seeking Senatorial ratification. His czars were appointed without Senatorial oversight, as required by the Constitution regarding appointments of public ministers and consuls. He has rejected his constitutional requirement of "faithfully executing the laws of the United States," as instructed in Article II, Section 3 (such as in the case of immigration law). Obama has issued executive orders that modify law, when Article I, Section 1 grants all legislative powers to the Congress of the United States. He has said time and time again that to get his way, he'll do it with or without Congress. And he has.
A couple years ago, he was even willing to dictate to Congress when they are in session, or not, by making recess appointments while Congress was in a pro-forma session.
Article I, Section 5 requires Congress to have a minimum number of members present in order to do business. That majority constitutes a quorum, and if the Congress deems it necessary, the present members may set fines for members who do not show up. The Houses of Congress may remain in session, during which no formal business is conducted because the House does not have a quorum, so as to prevent executive actions that may be carried out during recess. This kind of session is called a pro forma session.
In Article II, Section 2, the President is given the authority to make recess appointments, when Congress is not in session. Normally, the United States Senate has advise and consent authority over appointments, which means that appointments of personnel to fill vacancies are possible for the President to grant, but such appointments requires the approval of the United States Senate (voice of the States). If the Senate is not in session, and an appointment is necessary, the President may make appointments, but the terms of those appointments only last to the end of the Senate’s next session. If the Senate is in a pro-forma session, the President may not make any appointments. With Congress only in session when there is work to be done, and the founders believed that would likely be once a year, the ability of the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session was a valuable, and necessary, tool. In today’s political environment, it seems like Congress is always in session, so recess appointments are not as common.
In early January of 2012, President Barack Obama used a recess appointment to name Richard Cordray the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is a powerful bureaucracy created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul legislation. However, even though most of the members of Congress were on vacation, the United States Senate was still in session. President Obama’s definition of recess, it turned out, was broader than the Constitution’s definition. In reality, the U.S. Senate was in pro-forma session. John Berlau, Director of CEI's Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs, called the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray "very troubling," criticizing both Obama's controversial use of a recess appointment, and the selection of Cordray itself. Berlau later asked, “What's next, appointing nominees when the Senate takes a bathroom break?”
The immigration issue in regards to securing the border is not just about immigration, but it is also a national security issue. Those who have rallied against illegal immigration have stated that the national security threat is a large part of the reason why they want the federal government to secure the border.
As the slogan as been saying, "If we can send men to the moon, we can build a fence."
The Obama administration is suddenly being forced to recognize the national security threat.
As September 11 approaches, the reality of the threat is looming ever larger.
According to Judicial Watch, Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.
The problem is, such action by the federal government does not comply with the narrative the democrats have established, so any border protection will be downplayed, unless it stops an attack. Then, Obama will be paraded as our savior - even though he says he has no strategy on how to handle ISIS.
In Georgia, a brother and sister were caught having sex in a big rig parked in a church parking lot.
Incest is not a new phenomenon, but is usually viewed as something that happens to children in abusive situations. Sexual molestation occurs in America at alarmingly high rates, and though it is difficult to gauge exact numbers, it would not surprise this writer if the rate of incidents has been on the rise.
Incidents, like the one in Georgia, between older siblings, is probably also on the rise. But more alarming than the likelihood that sexual perversion between family members is on the rise, is the fact that incest, along with other kinds of sexual depravity, is the focus in some segments of the world population for normalization.
In Australia, a judge has determined that incest is okay, because the largest problem with incest has always been the deformed offspring that result from such a pairing, but now we have abortion to eliminate any pregnancies that may result from an incestuous relationship.
In Germany, the desire for strange flesh has gone way beyond incest. Germany's fetish seems to be with animals, and in that country Bestiality Brothels have become all the rage.
In Britain, there has been a drive to normalize pedophilia.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains that the natural tendency in nature is for the organized to break down into the disorganized. Human nature is the same. We have this tendency, if we do not adhere to a set standard, to devalue down to the lowest denominator. Inside all of us is the wicked reality that without a guiding standard, we are wicked, evil, and susceptible to depravity.
"Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
The symptoms we are seeing in society of our depravity follow societal engineering by government through programs like sex education and psychology. We have reached head-first for pornography, a sexual revolution, the desensitization of our acceptance of public sexual innuendo through sex on television, in our music, and on our devices. We have moved from the orgies of the hippy era to homosexuality of our era.
Sexual perversion is a drug. It becomes a never ending need for more and more. What God created for marriage has become a casual activity with no limits.
Culture drives politics, so if we are steeped in depravity in society, then it is of no surprise that politics is filled with sex, drugs, and corruption. Governor Rick Perry is being demonized for taking action to remove a district attorney who is supposed to fight for the law that broke the law in a drunken stupor, and made a mockery of her position. Those who try to stand up for moral standards, moral fiber, and godliness are attacked, called bigots, and are considered immoral by the people who are most guilty to sexual perversion.
Secular humanist progressives are not the only ones generally guilty of sexual depravity.
Incest runs most rampant in the Muslim World. That is what happens when God's set standard is perverted into a twisted, barbaric political system that claims to be a religion.
From order to chaos, because we have rejected the set standard given to us by our Creator.
And we expect our politicians to follow the set standard of the United States Constitution when we can't even keep our pants on?
