Kerry: We Must ‘Put Real Islam Out There'

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that to counter ISIS, we must support “real Islam.”

“It has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.”

Firstly, I’d like to remind the good secretary of the first ten words of the First Amendment;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[.]”
-- First Amendment, US Constitution

Is the secretary not aware that Islam is a religion, not a social club? Or, perhaps given Obama’s love of his phone and pen being used to usurp the powers of Congress, that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the acts of the Executive? After all, the Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law,” not “The Executive shall make no Executive Order.”

Secondly, I’d like to ask the secretary about his credentials qualifying him to decide what, exactly, “real Islam” is. Are they recognized by the balance of the followers of Islam in the world?

One wonders what the response of the left might have been, had Secretary Rice said something about “real Christianity.” At least she has some claim to relevant knowledge of Christianity; more so than Kerry’s knowledge of Islam, I’d wager.

As part of Secretary Kerry’s foray into his “expert” knowledge of Islam, he goes on to speak about;

“...real Islam and how important the Friday sermons are and where they need to go.”

Well, the Divine Kerry is prepared to instruct others on aspects of Islam as well as tell its adherents their own direction.

I suppose, had Jefferson written, “separation of mosque and state,” Kerry would have a different opinion on the matter and might, even now, be telling the Pope how to run Catholicism.

Militarization of Police

Having worked for the Dallas Police, I tend to defend police in general, having experienced them from the inside. Yes, there are some bad cops, but I think the vast majority are doing the best they can in a thankless job.

However, there are intolerable extremes and this article exemplifies a few of them.

Firstly, never, ever, in a thousand years never should a police officer on duty have his face covered or identity in any way concealed. An undercover cop infiltrating a gang is an exception, but only barely. However, no officer executing a warrant of any kind should enjoy any level of anonymity. This includes unmarked police cars. No officer empowered to apprehend a citizen should have his identity concealed by hiding the fact that he is in a police vehicle. The element of secrecy should not be a part of a police officer's tool kit.

Secondly, the so-called "no-knock" raids should be done away with except in blatantly clear incidents where it can be clearly and without a doubt demonstrated that officers had a true need for such a raid. Further, after such a raid is conducted, it should, in all cases, be reviewed by a civilian panel selected along the lines of a jury to decide the propriety of the tactic. If the panel finds it to have been unnecessary, then no evidence gained thereby can be admitted and the police must pay for all damages to the property along with a certain percentage punitive penalty.

Thirdly, the "militarization" of police forces must be brought to an immediate and shrieking halt. Police should be no better armed or protected than the civilians from whom they are chosen. The wearing of military gear and the adoption of military tactics must cease. These people are hired to enforce the law, not invade a beach head, and their training, tools and tactics must reflect this.

These changes may hinder the smooth operation of a police mission, but so be it. They are our EMPLOYEES, not our superiors. Their job may be made harder, but that's the price of liberty - something this nation is sorely lacking.

What a Silly Question

Is Barack Obama an imperial president?

The answer is an unequivocal and resounding, "YES!!"

Not only imperial, but treasonous to boot. And, with a complicit, yellow-bellied Congress to back him up.

From the article;

"The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court."

Why has this man not been jailed as the traitor that he is?

The answer?

Because we have a do-nothing Congress that is more concerned with entrenched power and perks than with obeying the Constitution.

King Obama

From The National Review;

"It’s at least the 14th unilateral change to Obamacare that’s been made without consulting Congress.

'It shows that the Obamacare insurance products aren’t selling so, at the last minute, the administration is holding a fire sale on a failed launch,' says Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, a health-care advocacy group."

No, it shows that Obama is ruling by royal dictate.

He is, by the wave of his Imperial Hand, dismissing laws - regardless of popularity - and changing them as he sees fit in his Imperial Wisdom.

Had he been a Republican, the left would be tearing down the walls of Congress demanding that he be impeached. But, as a democrat, it's all just hunky dory.

If the Republicans in the House had the least amount of spine, they'd be filing charges of impeachment against this dictator and bringing him down.

Of course, it shows that we will accept the complete shredding of the Constitution, as long as we're not inconvenienced too much.

We are not worthy of the Founding Fathers' gift to us.

We Are Your Bosses

"Police becoming more militarized as wars wind down"

And, so should the People.

Police are a CIVILIAN force, not military. No police department should be more heavily armored, armed or transported than any CITIZEN.

Whatever a cop can have, so should a CITIZEN.

You want to be militarized? Join the military.

That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

"Obama has been racking up the debt at the rate of $1 trillion a year."

One TRILLION dollars a year.

That's $31,709.79 per second.

Repeat: PER SECOND!!

As of the 2010 Census, there are 281,421,906 people in the US. So, over the course of his presidency, Obama has tossed $20,881.50 onto the debt load of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

What was it this lying thief said when he was running against Bush?

Oh yeah, June, 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Obama has added $5.9 trillion - 1.475 TIMES MORE than Bush and in a shorter time - "by his lonesome."

$31,688.96 "for every man, woman and child."

Hey, Obama never claimed to be patriotic, so he's simply living up to that.

Remember, $31,709.79 per second; he's got 66,843,593.65 seconds to go and the clock is ticking.

$31,709.79 for each tick.

Tick tock, tick tock...

Laws, not Edicts

"...by calling on Mr. Obama to keep his promise and allow Americans to keep their insurance if they like it."
-- Washington Times, 18-Nov-2013

The United States is a nation of LAWS, not edicts from a president. Obama is not a king, he does not get to decide who gets to keep their insurance. The LAW does and this law, his "legacy," is as corrupt and flawed as he is, himself.

This article also mentions a "fix" from Obama.

Any "fix" to the LAW must come via the LEGISLATIVE process, not executive fiat. Obama is not authorized to do any "fixing" to anything, except the plumbing in the White House.

This man is a criminal and must be impeached. He is in complete violation of his oath of office and is a violator of the separation of powers. Biden is no longer sufficient insurance to prevent him from being removed from office.

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW.

Trust Government

I read this in another forum;

"You give the government information and it will be abused. It is not a matter of if it’ll be abused, it’s only a matter of when…"

Truth be told, this is not something unique to Obama. It is not even unique to the federal government.

The Founding Fathers had it right; government is a necessary evil that must be kept on a tight rein. Like a killer guard dog; it may keep trespassers off your property, but you don't let your kids play with it.

But, government is what it is because we, the People, have let it become that way through our apathy and downright laziness. All we are interested in are the conveniences, not the consequences - as long as they fall on "someone else."

For example, a recent article told of a young man who was devastated by his insurance premiums going up thousands of dollars because of Obamacare. He stated that he was all for socialized medicine, but didn't think that he had to pay for it.

This man is emblematic of the People in general. No one thinks. Well, too few, anyway.

Further, students are not taught the greatness of the history of the United States. Since the sixties, soft subjects have been hit hard by revisionists who despise the place of the US in the world, of US exceptionalism. The result is that schools focus on the bad things in American history at the expense of the good. Students are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" that changes and morphs at the whims of society, rather than the law of the land that it is with a specific legislative process required to change it; Article V.

We have become like the Catholic church, where the path to Glory must be through priests. The Church opposed what the Gutenberg press brought, because it made the Bible available to the common man, rather than just the clerics. However, in our case, we have become a society that accepts the supreme Court, elected officials and a small elite as the "clerics" of the Constitution, the law, of Liberty and Freedom.

We are in need of a Constitutional Reformation. But, rather than a reformation to introduce new ideas, it needs to be a reformation to embrace old ideas; that individual, common citizens are quite capable to read and understand the Constitution, the law and what Liberty and Freedom mean. That we should not accept the biased whims and political follies of a small collection of old men and women, simply because they wear black robes, or because they occupy great structures of classical architecture.

These "clerics" are our SERVANTS. They are in office as our EMPLOYEES. We must hold them to their oaths and that our Constitution rules over them.

Rather than Harry Potter, we need the works of John Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, Hamilton, Madison, Jay - the works our Founding Fathers read and were guided by in the creation of this nation. Then and only then will we be knowledgeable and FREE to know if what the "clerics" do is right or wrong.

Otherwise, we will be serfs, satisfied with the Bread and Circuses of government control, silently and stupidly trudging a path defined by others who ensure that we are guided away from the oases of Freedom and Liberty, keeping us locked in control and subjection.

So, Just Like There Aren't 57 States...

...there weren't 54 terrorist plots foiled by the NSA's phone call database.

"NSA chief’s admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders

Gen. Keith B. Alexander admitted that the number of terrorist plots foiled by the NSA’s huge database of every phone call made in or to America was only one or perhaps two — far smaller than the 54 originally claimed by the administration."

Hmm. Obama lied again. It's becoming so commonplace, one hardly notices it anymore.

An Example of the Folly of the supreme Court

In US v Lopez (1995), the Court found that banning guns from around schools was unconstitutional, that it was beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.

In the dissent, Souter wrote of the "old judicial pretension [that had been] discredited and abandoned" from which "the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago."

What he referred to was the pre-Court Packing scandal Court that was more in line with the Constitution. It was "untenable jurisprudence."

So, in Souter's view, the pre-1937 Court had been "abandoned."

But, here comes Kennedy with his concurrence with the Court saying, "stare decisis ... counsel[s] us not to call into questionthe essential principles now in place."

So, here we have Souter saying that we have to abandon the old ways, but Kennedy holding that we are bound to the old ways.

Now, the way things have been going, this nation is actually ruled by five guys in black robes (the majority). Sure, Congress and the president are involved, but the final say has been taken by the supreme Court when they usurped a power not granted them in the Constitution; judicial review.

However, these robe-clad guys are telling diametrically opposed stories. We end up with our lives being dictated by whatever OPINION sways the Court.

Obviously, not by LAW, because the LAW is the LAW, regardless of any opinion. A speed limit sign says "30 mph" and it means "30 mph," not, "oh, I think it means 42 mph..."

The same is true for the Constitution, except there are five guys who get to decide that it does mean 42 mph, regardless of the words.

If the Court was infallible, then Souter and Kennedy would not be so different in their words. They'd both agree that either decisions from pre-37 mattered or they did not.

We Are The Government

I see all these posts about the government is out of control, the government is taking over, the government etc...

Thing is, we have EXACTLY what we voted for and it's been building since FDR.

WE are the government. The problem is, too few of us take our responsibilities seriously.

Voting is a pain, so we don't vote - or, we let it be done early, so we can make sure we get our naps in. As a result, we end up with a government that is amenable to the activists, not the People.

Jury duty is so inconvenient that we take great pains to get out of it. So, we end up with ignorant jurors who lacked the imagination to get out of serving. Also, too few realize that when they are on a jury, it is not only the defendant who's on trial; the LAW is, too.

When asked what the Constitutional Convention gave to the nation, Ben Franklin is said to have replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Well, maybe we can't. Maybe no one can. As Rome did, the US keeps its citizens in line with Bread and Circuses. Rome fell, we are probably falling. We could stop the fall, but that takes effort and - well, there's American Idol to watch or something neat is on YouTube.

In school, kids are taught that the Constitution is malleable, a "living" document, changing at the whim of society. I know; I was a teacher. They are not taught that it is the LAW.

But, even if they were, so what?

We have too many laws and far too many of what we have address piddling issues. As a result, we go ahead and justify breaking those little laws. By doing so, we train ourselves that the law is something to be broken and we find it far easier to ignore the bigger laws - like the Constitution.

Does anyone think that the laws we have in place today would have passed even a cursory review by the Founding Fathers? I don't think so. I think they would be offended and distressed by what we have done to their gift to us. Although, they had a far different attitude back then. People were, in general, nobler, I believe. The Founding Fathers had no idea what dregs their prodigy would be.

Democracy lasts until the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasuries. Then the slide to failure becomes almost unstoppable.

Bread and Circuses. The bane of societies.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.


But, the left doesn't care about the Constitution, they've been wiping their feet on it since FDR. To them, it is something to get around, to be avoided, to be spat upon, a source of words that they arrange in any order they like to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is nothing more than ink on a page. It has no intrinsic means to provide for its own defense. Without good men to support it, to defend it, it will fail to protect us from the overreaching dictates of those intent upon its destruction - like Obama and his supporters.

Students in schools are taught the falsehood that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document; that it magically morphs upon the whims of society. Those who support this concept ignore that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, not a collection of suggestions, to alter and twist as the majority deems.

The LAW of the Constitution in no way supports Obamacare. It is a wretched and criminal misinterpretation to say that it does. This nation moved closer to death when Roberts cast his vote; he hammered home another nail into the coffin built by FDR and carried by the socialist liberals and progressives of this once-great nation, to sink within the grave dug by an apathetic electorate and a complicit Congress.

Obama must be removed in the coming election. Those in Congress who voted for this sucking chest wound of a law must be voted out as soon as they come up for reelection. We must return to the dream of America, the path the Founding Fathers laid before us, that we left almost a century ago and have refused to tread ever since.

When asked what the Constitution gave us, Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, our possession of it hangs by a thread, a thread that may well be severed utterly, if Obama and his ilk retain office. A thread that, if broken, may remove our Republic from us irretrievably.

Just What The Founding Fathers Ordered

Obama administration to order lenders to cut mortgage payments for
jobless

By Renae Merle and dina elboghdady
Thursday, March 25, 2010; 7:14 PM

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it's tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Nah, the feds aren't taking over the financial market.

This is just what the Founders had in mind; the federal government dictating to private business.

Hmm.

Dictating.

Wonder what that makes Obama?

Speaking as someone who is jobless and pays a mortgage, I oppose this act by the criminal socialist Obama administration.

I signed a contract with my lender. I have to live up to the terms of that contract. I have the right to renegotiate my contract due to my current status, but my lender is not required to agree. And, unless he does, my contract remains as is.

If the feds are allowed to step in and make contracts null and void, what reliance can be placed upon contracts?

Absolutely none.

No, No Power Grab At All

Not content to settle for control over US companies, the wonderful, change is good Obama administration has decided that the time has come for the federal government to control the entire US financial system.

Geithner to Propose Vast Expansion Of U.S. Oversight of Financial System

By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 26, 2009; Page A01

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to propose today a sweeping expansion of federal authority over the financial system, breaking from an era in which the government stood back from financial markets and allowed participants to decide how much risk to take in the pursuit of profit.

The Obama administration's plan, described by several sources, would extend federal regulation for the first time to all trading in financial derivatives and to companies including large hedge funds and major insurers such as American International Group. The administration also will seek to impose uniform standards on all large financial firms, including banks, an unprecedented step that would place significant limits on the scope and risk of their activities.

"Significant limits on the scope and risk of their activities."

Not only does the federal government want the power to seize companies and break contracts, they also want the power to dictate to them what level of risk they may assume.

So, in what way will these financial companies be private companies? In what ways will they not be mere extensions of federal power?

How short will the federal leash need to be, before the People of this nation realize the great danger of this administration?

Will they wait until there is no leash at all?

Let Them Compete Or Sink

Newspapers are finding themselves faltering in a world where electronic news is far preferable; where headlines can be read within minutes of a newsworthy event, rather than being forced to wait until the next morning.

Some newspapers are adapting by dropping their print editions and going 100% online. They see what they need to do to compete and do it.

So, what does the US government do, instead of letting the market dictate their fate?

U.S. bill seeks to rescue faltering newspapers

Tue Mar 24, 20093:05pm EDT

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax
breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

Well, Senator Cardin, you're not doing enough! Where's your bill to rescue Town Criers? When will you address the plight of the buggy whip industry? The daguerreotype companies need your help, Senator; why don't you aid them?

Could Wipe Out His Cabinet

From the mouth of the tax-cheat who is now Secretary of the Treasury;

Geithner: Obama to crack down on tax evaders

(NECN: Washington) - Over the next several months, the president will propose a series of legislative and enforcement actions to reduce tax avoidance," this afternoon said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Can the hypocrisy be any more clear?

Obama needs to watch out, though. Cracking down on tax cheats might leave him with no cabinet.

Tom Daschle had to pay back taxes, Nancy Killefer pulled because of tax issues and now, Ron Kirk, former mayor of Dallas, owes back taxes. Oh, but Ron has agreed to pay those back taxes. Isn't that big of him? He agreed.

And, we have Mr. Big, Tim Geithner, SecTreas, who didn't pay taxes.

How many more in this misbegotten administration are - lax - on tax isues?

Well, maybe "cracking down" is subjective...

Senate Rejects Pork Bill

Well, the Senate has lived down to expectations and rejected a bill to restrict pork spending.

And, the idiocy was not confined to one side of the aisle.

What really burns me is the excuse given by those who opposed it; They'd not be able to meet the needs of their constituency.

News for these Senators, their job is not to meet the needs of their constituency - it is to meet the needs of the NATION.

It is up to the states to meet the needs of their constituencies.

Big Brother Will Be Watching

Even though the Texas legislature is nearly unanimous in opposing this new technology, TxDOT is still going ahead with it;

=============================
Texas DOT to Install
Federally Funded Highway Speed Cameras

Despite the opposition of the state legislature, the Texas Department of transportation proposes a federally funded speed camera test.

Despite the near-unanimous opposition in the state legislature to the use of speed cameras, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is moving forward on a proposal to deploy photo radar on state highways using federal gas tax funds. Legislation awaiting Governor Rick Perry's signature prohibited only municipalities -- like Marble Falls and Rhome -- from installing automated speeding ticket systems. It was silent on the possibility of a state-run system.
=============================

So much for Government of the People, by the People, for the People. The People, via their duly elected representatives, have spoken that they do NOT want this system. Yet, the executive is going ahead with it anyway. I have come to regret having voted for Rick Perry and have written to him expressing that regret.

Not that it will do any good. He is ignoring the voices of millions of Texans by ignoring the will of the Legislature. Why should he care about a letter from an individual?

That aside, is the goal of this system to make the roads safer?Is it to ensure compliance with the law?

Of course not.

This is the goal;

=============================
In its request for proposals, TxDOT cited success of speed cameras in the UK and Washington, DC. The UK government generated 120 million pounds (US $240 million) in revenue in 2003 while the Washington, DC red light and speed camera program has issued $217 million in tickets since 1999.
=============================

Revenue.

Money.

That is the goal - to generate funds for the State. This is a tax, not a law enforcement effort. It is a tool to generate revenue.

Another interesting tidbit is this;

=============================
TxDOT's vendor will send notices -- warnings at first -- to motorists driving just 5 MPH over the limit with an accuracy level of +/- 2 MPH[.]
=============================

It's not even being monitored or enforced by duly appointed law enforcment officers of the State. It is being monitored and enforced by the vendor, a private entity.

Then, there's the Sixth Amendment. The one that says "[T]he accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]"

How can a camera be a witness? A camera is not a living being.

Get me on a Jury and I don't care if the camera caught you doing 110 in a school zone - I'll acquit. I will not support this system in any way or for any reason.