Obama Shows His Loyalties Once Again

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, long a friend and ally to the United States and one of the most brilliant leaders in today's world, has been invited to speak before Congress early next month about Iran, their nuclear program and their threat to Israel and the rest of the world.

House Speaker John Boehner violated protocol by inviting Bibi, as Netanyahu is affectionately known, to come to the US without the approval of President Obama. Contrary to what some people believe, the President's approval is not required but it is customary to inform the President ahead of time and get his blessing before inviting a head of state to speak before Congress. (Boehner says he informed the President the same morning that Bibi was invited.)

President Obama, in his customary childish way, reacted with anger to the knowledge that Netanyahu will speak before Congress and has not only decided he, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry will have something else to do that day and will have nothing to do with the Israeli Prime Minister while he's here. The Obama administration has also funded a political action group who traveled to Israel two weeks ago to assist in ensuring Netanyahu loses his upcoming election.

Many Democrat Representatives, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, have said they will not attend Netanyahu's briefing.

Obama won't meet with Netanyahu but he will be meeting Tuesday with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. The purpose of the meeting is said by the White House to be to 'work to further the “longstanding partnership” between the two countries and “our shared interest in supporting stability and prosperity in the Middle East.”'

So what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, many things, it seems.

According to The Times of Israel, the tiny Persian Gulf country has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas in the Gaza strip since Hamas took control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority. Qatar also supports Hamas diplomatically and Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani was the first head of state to visit Gaza after it fell under Hamas control.

As late as December 2014, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) wrote a request to the U.S. Treasury Department to do more to inhibit support for terrorism by Qatar and Turkey.

“It’s no secret that Turkey and Qatar provide refuge to many Hamas operatives, and that both of these supposed American allies have become major terror financial hubs,” the representatives wrote. “Both Turkey and Qatar have thus far been extremely lax in enforcing their terror financing laws and taking action against U.S. designated individuals or entities. By going after those individuals and entities tied to support for Hamas, Treasury can send a strong message to both governments that they need to get on board and sanction entities that are supporting terrorism or risk further isolation from America and our financial sector.”

The Daily Beast recently published an article that says “U.S. officials say Qatar has now replaced its neighbor Saudi Arabia as the source of the largest private donations to the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliates."

Just a few days before ISIS burned alive a captured Jordanian pilot, an imam preaching from the Qatari Grand Mosque called for the destruction of all non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians. He also called for the destruction of other Muslims, the Alawites and the Shiites.

“Allah, strengthen Islam and the Muslims, and destroy your enemies, the enemies of the religion,” cleric Sa’ad Ateeq al Ateeq said. “Allah, destroy the Jews and whoever made them Jews, and destroy the Christians and Alawites and the Shiites.”

Of course, the Qatari government isn't responsible for what an imam says but the Qatari put the remarks on Twitter and they broadcast it on Qatari TV. So it certainly wasn't denounced.

David Andrew Weinberg from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies told the Daily Beast “The emirate shows one face to the international community projecting a desire to help in the fight against terrorist organizations, while providing a platform for the preaching in their own backyard of the same kind of hate-filled extremism of ISIS.”

So President Obama won't meet with the man who has been our strongest ally in the Middle East but will be meeting with one of the biggest supporters of Islamic terrorism in the world to work on “our shared interest in supporting stability and prosperity in the Middle East.” 

Which shared interest would that be, Mr. President? Are you going to support those who fight terrorism or those who fund it? 

The answer seems obvious to me.

Obama Always Supports Islam

Did you happen to catch former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani's comments the other night when he said "I do not believe the President loves America."? When questioned about it later Mr. Giuliani refused to back down or apologize for his comments.

It's a pretty bold statement for a public figure to make. But is far off base? Let's look at some of the things the President has done recently that could lead one to believe what Mr. Giuliani said.

Mr. Obama, for some reason, believes it is his job to support and defend Islam from all who would slander or degrade it, and from those who speak the painful truth about it. I'm sure it has everything to do with his childhood and his Islamic education as a young, impressionable boy. It also has to do with his father and his exploration of who the man was.

The President has all but said that ISIS and other Muslim terrorists are justified in what they do because of violence committed against them in the past. He likened current Islamic terrorism to the Crusades, a twist that historically is completely inaccurate and misleading.

The President will not use the words "Islamic extremism," instead linking all violent extremists together as being the same - even though Islamic extremism is the most prevalent in all the world. He will not link Islamic terrorism to Allah, nor to Mohammed for that matter, completely ignoring the ties to the Islamic faith. Yet he calls out "Christian extremism," saying that during the Crusades "many atrocities were committed in the name of Christ." He conveniently failed to mention that the Crusades were in direct response to Islamic violence toward Christians and Jews throughout the Middle East. Of course - he would most likely say that the Muslims who committed those violent acts and conquered the Holy Land with violence were "not Islamic."

The President says Americans need to be more tolerant of Muslims even as Muslims are committing horrific crimes worldwide in the name of Allah, including here in the United States. The Boston Marathon bombing, various beheadings across the nation, the Fort Hood shootings (which were ridiculously labeled "workplace violence" by the Obama administration), the violent teachings of the Quran, and an ever-growing, vocal Muslim population here in the States that demands our free speech be curtailed in the name of their religion give Americans ample reason to distrust Islam and decry it as evil. Yet our own President tells us we must not talk bad about Islam and tells the world that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

President Obama refused to acknowledge that a kosher deli in Paris was attacked because the  (now dead) patrons inside were Jewish. Instead he claimed the attack was "random." He refused to acknowledge that the 21 Egyptian Christians were killed because of their religious beliefs yet he was quick to note the Muslim beliefs of three students killed in North Carolina by a crazy man who, according to his neighbors, hated everyone equally.

So how difficult is it to realize where his loyalties lie? President Obama has never really denied allegations that he's a Muslim. His latest response was "...they’ve said I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing.”

You know what, Mr. President? It would be a bad thing. It would confirm that you're nothing but a liar and a would-be despot, trying to change the United States in the name of Islam. In my book that would make you a terrorist through subversion, which would amount to treason against the United States.

The President professes to be a Christian yet nearly everything he says and does belies that claim. I won't try to tell anyone what to believe. Each of you must make up your own mind about President Obama and the things he does. I would ask, however, before you defend him, look closely at his words and actions. He is not what he appears to be on the surface. How much you really want to know about him will dictate how deeply you will dig to find information.

I will leave you with this. During his 2008 campaign President Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America." He certainly seems to be doing that. From undying love and support of Islam, to completely uncontrolled borders, to forced government healthcare, to degrading and dismantling the strongest and best trained military in the world, to doubling the national debt, to raising the number of people dependent on government handouts for subsistence, to unilaterally granting amnesty to millions of illegals without changing border security, to appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to his administration - Obama has been very successful in fundamentally transforming America. And he's not finished.

All we can hope for is that the Republican controlled Houses in Washington will stop being cowards and stand up to Obama's treachery. They talked big during the election but have yet to back that talk up. And with Hillary Clinton poised to run for President, funded through the Clinton Foundation by may Middle Eastern countries, we could be facing even more treachery and despotism. In my mind, anyone who would vote for Hillary doesn't are about the country and her future.

So is Rudy Giuliani correct? I believe he is. But that's just me.

Obama Still Won't Connect The Dots

In keeping with his protection mode of Islam, President Obama yesterday spoke about his summit on countering "violent extremism" by denying that ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremist groups are actually Muslim. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. But it is the major thing that prevents Obama from being an effective leader against those threats.

He started out by praising American resilience, citing our recovery from the Civil War, natural disasters, 9/11... all true and indicative of the American spirit. The problem with his references is that they all happened when America had a true leader in the White House instead of the Jimmy Carter clone that we have now.

He then cited a few examples of more recent acts by "violent extremists" in the United States.

"The bombing that killed 168 people could not break Oklahoma City. On 9/11, terrorists tried to bring us to our knees; today a new tower soars above New York City, and America continues to lead throughout the world. After Americans were killed at Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon, it didn’t divide us; we came together as one American family.

In the face of horrific acts of violence -- at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, or at a Jewish community center outside Kansas City -- we reaffirmed our commitment to pluralism and to freedom, repulsed by the notion that anyone should ever be targeted because of who they are, or what they look like, or how they worship.

Most recently, with the brutal murders in Chapel Hill of three young Muslim Americans, many Muslim Americans are worried and afraid. And I want to be as clear as I can be: As Americans, all faiths and backgrounds, we stand with you in your grief and we offer our love and we offer our support."

The most important thing he left out of that particular narrative is that with the exception of one, all of those incidents were carried out by Muslim extremists. 

He went on:

"We’ve always faced challenges. One of those challenges is the terrorist threat from groups like al Qaeda and ISIL. But this isn’t our challenge alone. It’s a challenge for the world. ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq, beheads and burns human beings in unfathomable acts of cruelty. We’ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa and Sydney and, Paris, and now Copenhagen."

Again there is a common denominator that Obama will not acknowledge - and that is Islam.

He attempted to explain it:

"By 'violent extremism,' we don’t just mean the terrorists who are killing innocent people. We also mean the ideologies, the infrastructure of extremists --the propagandists, the recruiters, the funders who radicalize and recruit or incite people to violence. We all know there is no one profile of a violent extremist or terrorist, so there’s no way to predict who will become radicalized. Around the world, and here in the United States, inexcusable acts of violence have been committed against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths -- which is, of course, a betrayal of all our faiths. It’s not unique to one group, or to one geography, or one period of time."

But Mr. President -who commits 99.9% of the world's terrorist acts? Again, that would be Muslims - those who use the Quran to justify their violence. Just because you say "they are not Islamic" doesn't mean they take your word for it. You won't acknowledge that some victims are Christians either. I call it willful ignorance.

"First, we have to confront squarely and honestly the twisted ideologies that these terrorist groups use to incite people to violence."

Agreed. But you refuse to do that. And you cannot defeat an enemy you won't properly identify.

"Al Qaeda and ISIL and groups like it are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders -- holy warriors in defense of Islam. That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the “Islamic State.” And they propagate the notion that America -- and the West, generally -- is at war with Islam. That’s how they recruit. That’s how they try to radicalize young people. We must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie. Nor should we grant these terrorists the religious legitimacy that they seek. They are not religious leaders -- they’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

Correction. We are at war with people who worship Allah and use Mohammed's writings to justify their violence. That makes them Muslims.

"Of course, the terrorists do not speak for over a billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology. They no more represent Islam than any madman who kills innocents in the name of God represents Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism. No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism."

That is only partially true. First of all, the "billion Muslims who reject their hateful ideology" do so in silence. Silence in the face of extremism is a form of tolerance. Polls of Muslims around the world show that a majority of them believe the violence is acceptable and welcome. As with many other thing you say, because you say the majority reject the violence doesn't make it so.

"And to their credit, there are respected Muslim clerics and scholars not just here in the United States but around the world who push back on this twisted interpretation of their faith."

Really? How many? Five? Six?

"The reality -- which, again, many Muslim leaders have spoken to -- is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historical grievances -- sometimes that’s accurate -- does buy into the belief that so many of the ills in the Middle East flow from a history of colonialism or conspiracy; does buy into the idea that Islam is incompatible with modernity or tolerance, or that it’s been polluted by Western values."

Personally, I am convinced that is what you believe, Mr. President. I believe you are caught up in the teachings of Islam (your Crusades comments pretty much proved that since you only gave half truths) and that you care more about protecting Islam than protecting the nation you were elected to lead. I wonder, if you allow ISIS to become a world power and they become a direct and immediate threat to us, where will you and your family live? They would kill you as quickly as they would kill me. Do you get that?

"Everybody has to speak up very clearly that no matter what the grievance, violence against innocents doesn’t defend Islam or Muslims, it damages Islam and Muslims."

You know - that's all well and good if you can get them to believe it. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. So you may not be at war with radical Islam but they are at war with you. 

The President went on to contradict himself, saying that poverty and lack of education contribute to people becoming violent extremists. Then he said "Conversely, there are terrorists who’ve come from extraordinarily wealthy backgrounds, like Osama bin Laden."

Gee - know what else there are in the world, Mr. President? There are real leaders of other nations who don't negotiate with terrorists and give back their commanders is ridiculous appeasement gestures!

He went on to talk about growing the economies of terrorism susceptible countries and giving the citizens meaningful employment that could prevent young people from joining terrorist organizations. But since most of us know that Islamic terrorism is an ideology and not something people join simply because they're bored or just need a job, that entire line of thinking is just plain stupid. 

He goes on and on to the point of nauseating boredom so I will close with this. The King of Jordon knows the threat that is ISIS and he is taking strong action against it. The President of Egypt knows the threat that is ISIS and he is taking strong action against it. President Obama acts like ISIS is just a bunch of neighborhood kids who got bored and formed a gang. He isn't taking the U.S. response to ISIS seriously (as of yet, anyway) and he is once again leading from behind - getting the other countries to take action while sitting back and mostly watching. Then, when a nation takes action without asking his permission he criticizes them as if they did something wrong. 

I can't help but shake my head in disgust and wonder. I imagine the Egyptian President feels the same way.

Obama Didn't Grant Legal Status To Immigrants?

I watched Fort Worth immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez on Hannity last night as he tried to say that President Obama "did not grant legal status to anyone" with his executive amnesty order.

Mr. Hernandez is an experiences attorney and quite good at what he does so it doesn't surprise me that he is able to twist the truth. But what is the truth?

Obama's Executive Order prevents 5 million (at least) people, who are in the country illegally, from being deported. It grants them the right to obtain a Social Security Number and a work visa. He changed these people from illegal status, for which they could be arrested and deported, to legal status, barring them from being deported and allowing them to legally acquire jobs.

Mr. Hernandez - if that's not changing someone's legal status what is?

At least twenty-two times over the last several years President Obama said he did not have the authority to do exactly what he did. He said it over and over.

"I can't solve this problem by myself," Obama has said in the past. "We're going to have to change the laws in Congress."

"I am president, I am not king," Obama said. "...I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it."

"There are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws." Simply issuing such an order would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

And yet with a stroke of a pen and an announcement, President Obama now says (literally) he is changing the law.

"There have been significant numbers of deportations," the President said. "That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law. The way the change in the law works is that we're re-prioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally."

The President himself said it. A federal judge on Monday put a temporary block on the implementation of Obama's executive actions on immigration. Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, who initiated the legal action against Obama's unconstitutional action while Abbott was still Texas' Attorney General, said last night that because of Obama's numerous statements over the years that he didn't have the authority to do what he did, Obama will be their star witness during the appeals process.

Geez, that's gotta sting a little, huh Mr. President?

In other news, the Obama administration and the President himself are playing word games again. Speaking to the National Press Club yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the idea that radical Islam should be defined as... radical Islam.

“Whenever you’re getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you’re probably getting it right," Holder said. "We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really. If Fox News didn't talk about this, they would have nothing else to talk about, it seems to me,”

“Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture; it doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground,” Holder said.

The soon-to-be-gone AG continued: "So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be. I think that people need to actually think about that, and think about will we be having this conversation about words as opposed to what our actions ought to be? This is a difficult problem. This is going to be an ongoing issue."

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Micheal Flynn (USA Ret), former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and chair of the Military Intelligence Board from 2012 to 2014, said just the opposite.

"The world is facing a cancerous component of the Islamic religion" with a fanaticism that opposes the free world's way of life," Flynn said on Sunday

"The wolf pack closest to the sled is ISIS, but there are other wolf packs around the world right now that are actually part of this larger expanding, violent extremist version of Islam,"

"The American public is looking for moral and intellectual courage and clarity, and not a sense of … passivity or confusion from Washington," he said.

"I think that there's confusion about what it is that we're facing," Flynn said. "It's not just what has been defined as 40,000 fighters in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It's also a large segment within this radical version of Islam that is threatening our way of life."

But hey - what's the big deal? With Eric Holder's vast military and intelligence experience, the American people should probably listen to him about such trivial things as defining the threat we face rather than a measly 3-star General who has, at best, a little knowledge of the subject, right? 

Oh, wait....

We Need A Leader... Now

Over the weekend the evil that is ISIS and its affiliates struck again, this time in Libya. Twenty-one Egyptian Coptic Christians were beheaded by ISIS thugs simply for being Christians. Egypt responded immediately and bombed ISIS targets in Libya in retaliation. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said Sunday that his country "reserves the right of retaliation and with the methods and timing it sees fit for retribution for those murderers and criminals who are without the slightest humanity."

"Avenging Egyptian blood and punishing criminals and murderers is our right and duty," one Egyptian military leader said.

President Obama apparently couldn't be reached for comment. He spent the entire weekend playing golf with friends in Palm Springs. His White House Propagandist Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, made a statement in the President's absence that condemned the actions of ISIS for killing "Egyptian citizens." There was no mention whatsoever that the victims were all Coptic Christians who were killed for that very reason.

Other government leaders, British, Canadian, Australian and others, all mentioned that the victims were Coptic Christians. “I am outraged and saddened by the beheadings of Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Christians in Libya by groups linked to ISIL,” said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The others followed suit. 

Two weeks prior, following the burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot, the King of Jordon launched an attack on ISIS in Iraq, vowing to fight them and kill them until his country "run's out of ammunition." President Obama condemned the killing but defended ISIS in his remarks.

“You know, I just got word of the video that had been released," Obama said. "I don’t know the details on the confirmation. Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt."

In other words - "ISIS is not Islamic."

Following the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish Deli in Paris in January, the Obama administration not only refused to acknowledge that the gunmen were Muslims but refused to acknowledge that the victims in the Deli were Jews and that they were targeted specifically because they were Jews. And Obama will still not acknowledge it.

On February 9th, a month after the shootings in Paris, President Obama said: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris."

Yeah, the victims were random. And the Benghazi attack was caused by a video. Because President Obama said so.

In related news, State Department Moron of the Week spokesperson, Marie Harf, in an interview with one of the leading recipients of the "Moron of the Week" award, Chris Matthews, said this about our conflict with ISIL. (I can't call it a war because the President can't seem to call it a war.)

“We’re killing a lot of them and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…”

Now why didn't I think of that? All we need to do is create jobs for the people that are joining ISIS and its affiliates and they'll stop joining. And the ones who have already joined will quit. They're just looking for something to do during their unemployment! And gee - the Obama administration is so very good at creating jobs. Perhaps he can employ them at the IRS!

According to Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC (Ret), when Jordon and Egypt attacked ISIS President Obama refused to share intelligence information on ISIS locations with them. What sense does that make if Obama truly has a desire to damage and destroy ISIS? He's been calling on Middle Eastern nations to join in the fight against ISIS for months and now that they are he won't share intelligence? Is it difficult to believe that this President doesn't really care about ISIS except when they ruin his "opticals."

Obama's war powers request was so badly worded and so badly formulated that both Democrats and Republicans rejected it. That's because he has no clue. We need a leader. We need a leader badly. We need someone with the courage of Vladimir Putin and the wisdom and compassion of Bibi Netanyahu. Until we get one nothing decisive will be done about ISIS. 

President Obama likes to use the word "degrade" when it comes to his ISIS strategy. Maybe, instead of bombing them and sending in ground troops, we should simply drop leaflets containing insults, cartoons of Mohammed and Allah, and small containers of pig blood. Things like that are very degrading to Muslims and perhaps ISIS will simply give up in sorrow. Then we'll offer them jobs. 

Hey - it could work...!

Should Israel Compromise With The Palestinian Authority?

For quite a while now Israel has been under pressure from various world powers, the UN and particularly the United States, to give back some of their territory (that which was conquered in the six day war) to the Palestinians. The Obama administration wants Israel to return to their pre-1967 borders and return the Golan Heights and Gaza to full control of the Palestinian Authority, reversing the results of the Six Day War in which Israel fairly  and decisively conquered those areas.

Some say that Israel has no right to they land they are on now, which was given back to them by Great Britain following World War 2. But what those people miss is the fact that God Himself gave Israel to Abram and his descendants in a permanent covenant. This covenant is clearly described in the Bible beginning with Genesis 13:12.

12Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom.

14The Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; 15for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. 16"I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered. 17"Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you."

In Exodus the Lord cast out the people of Israel and scattered them to the nations of the world because of their wicked ways. But in Chapter 36 the Bible says God brought them back into their land and vindicated His holy name.

"23And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

"27And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

In the early 7th century Muslims began invading and conquering Israel, once again scattering many Jews to other lands. The Crusades, in contrast to the intentionally misleading information President Obama put out last week, were initiated to take the Holy Land back from Islam so Jews and Christians could once again dwell in their promised land.

"You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers..." That's pretty clear. In Genesis God said "I will give it to you (the land of Canaan and all around) and to your descendants forever." There's nothing anywhere in the Bible that says "You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers until the Palestinians make a claim on a part of it - then you must give it up to them." Nor does it say "You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers until future world leaders tell you that My covenant with you is no longer valid."

God's covenant with the Israeli people is forever. The land of Canaan as defined in Exodus includes nearly all of modern day Israel including Gaza and the West Bank. Clearly Jerusalem and the Temple Mount belong to Israel, regardless of what the Palestinians claim. 

President Obama professes to be a Christian. Perhaps, before he tells Israel what they need to do, he might want to consult the Bible and read God's covenant to Israel concerning their homeland, then proceed accordingly. God's covenants always trump the wishes of politicians and human world leaders - particularly despotic leaders who misuse the Bible and twist Christianity for evil purposes.

AFGE: "Wrong Way To Run A Country."

A debate is underway in Congress right now concerning funding of the Department of Homeland Security. Since President Obama decided to unilaterally grant (the next best thing to) amnesty to millions of people in the country illegally, the newly elected Republican Congress is trying to figure out how to reverse the President's highly questionable, if not flat out illegal, action.

The House has drafted and passed a bill that would reverse the President's executive amnesty but it won't pass the Senate (they don't have enough votes) so it will never get to the President. And the President has already made it known that he would veto it anyway, just he will the upcoming Keystone Pipeline bill. So the only meaningful way Republicans can stop Obama's executive amnesty, which is one of the things they were overwhelmingly elected to do, is through the power of the purse.

While no one wants to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, Republican leaders of both Houses have not taken that possibility off the table.

"If funding for Homeland Security lapses, Washington Democrats are going to bear the responsibility," House Speaker John Boehner said. "The House has done its job. We've spoken. And now it's up to the Senate to do their job."

At this point the Republicans have only three choices with the proposed bill. They can pass a short term extension of current funding levels. They can cut the language out of the bill to which Democrats object, thus caving in to Democrat pressure and failing to make sound, constitutional changes to the President's plan. Or they can simply let the funding run out for DHS until Democrats are ready to consider compromise.

None of them are good choices and the Republicans know it. If DHS funding is allowed to run out and its employees are furloughed the President, Democrats, the American Federation of Government Employees (the federal union), and main stream media will all blame the Republicans, as they have in the past, even though the Republicans are fighting the good fight against Obama's overreach.

Among other complaints, AFGE is saying that those DHS personnel considered to work "essential positions," which will be around 90%, will still have to go to work and not get paid. But that statement is misleading, at best. All furloughed federal employees get paid as soon as the furlough is over - whether they worked or not. Their pay is sometimes delayed past a regular payday but they never lose money - even those who sat at home. And for the Union to say otherwise is deliberately deceptive.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson (what kind of name is Jeh, anyway?) has asked Congress for a "clean funding bill without any policy riders that would undo the administration’s policies and executive actions. Let's have that debate, but don't tie that to funding public safety at Homeland Security for the American people,” he said. 

I'm sure Johnson and his boss would love that. But Republicans were elected (did I mention overwhelmingly) to stop President Obama's unlawful acts not to allow and/or ignore them. And that's what they're beginning to do.

AFGE President J. David Cox Sr., weighed in on it.

“To block certain administrative actions or policies, lawmakers have regularly taken appropriations bills that fund government agencies hostage," he said. "This political maneuvering led to furloughs of employees and a government shutdown in 2013. This is exactly the wrong way to run the country.”

Having a President, supported 100% by AFGE, who is ignoring the Constitution and the rule of law, is no way to run the country. Perhaps Mr. Cox should be more concerned about unconstitutional actions by a President and the millions of American jobs that will be lost by legal citizens due to Obama's executive amnesty. Cox is all about keeping federal employees working but doesn't seem to care that the President is guaranteeing more unemployed Americans with his actions. 

But you won't see AFGE standing up and demanding the President stop doing what he wishes. How about for once they put America first instead of their own interests? But what am I saying? It's a union.

Glen Campbell's Triumph In The Midst Of Tragedy

In 1967, country music artist Glen Campbell won four Grammy awards. In 1968, he won the "Album of the Year" award. Forty-eight years later Mr. Campbell was once again awarded another Grammy award - this one for Best Country Song. It will likely be his last. The song explains why.

I'm still here, but yet I'm gone
I don't play guitar or sing my songs
They never defined who I am
The man that loves you 'til the end

You're the last person I will love
You're the last face I will recall
And best of all, I'm not gonna miss you
Not gonna miss you

I'm never gonna hold you like I did
Or say I love you to the kids
You're never gonna see it in my eyes
It's not gonna hurt me when you cry

I'm never gonna know what you go through
All the things I say or do
All the hurt and all the pain
One thing selfishly remains

I'm not gonna miss you
I'm not gonna miss you

Campbell's song, co-written by Julian Raymond, is about what's going to happen as his Alzheimer's Disease progresses. In a very poignant way he points out that as his mind gets worse he's not really going to know it. As he fails to recognize people's faces he's not going to miss them or even know why they cry. And he's not going to feel their pain as he slips away and leaves them behind.

He was able to record the song after it was written although in this late stage I doubt he can still do that. His wife accepted his Grammy Award for him and said the disease has progressed too far for him to have attended the show.

“I’m so proud of him tonight,” she told the crowd. “It’s been an amazing journey. He’s been so courageous in bringing awareness to Alzheimer’s and caregiving. Sadly, he can’t be here with us because he is in the late stages of Alzheimer’s, but he is healthy and cheerful.”

She said she believes that her husband’s music has helped him survive.

“I believe music kept him healthy for a longer period of time and enabled him to enjoy his life and his family even in the midst of living with a debilitating brain disease.”

I think Glen Campbell was the first country artist I really liked. Who can forget "Gentle On My Mind," "Wichita Lineman," "Galveston'" or "By The Time I Get To Phoenix?" I remember memorizing "Gentle On My Mind" and "Galveston" and singing along with the radio.

Campbell was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 2011. In 2012, with his children on stage with him, he went on a farewell tour to say good-bye to his fans. It is reported now that he is in a long-term Alzheimer's care facility.

In an interview Campbell was once asked: "Would it be fair to say that your ultimate goal was to become a successful touring, recording artist?" 

His answer was quite remarkable.

"Well, I don't really know. My ultimate goal is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and see God. That's my ultimate goal."

You may forget all of us, Mr. Campbell, but many of us will not forget you. You still have fans and you always will. May God keep you at peace while you're here and take you in His arms when the proper time comes. In heaven you'll be able to sing again!

It Pays To Be In The Country Illegally - Literally

A report in the Washington Times says that President Obama's so-called "executive amnesty" will give illegal Democrats aliens the right to file and claim Earned Income Tax Credit for the last three years - even if they did not pay taxes.

“IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday that even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to claim back-refunds once they get Social Security numbers under President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty,” the Times reported. “The revelation — which contradicts what he told Congress last week — comes as lawmakers also raised concerns Mr. Obama’s amnesty could open a window to illegal immigrants finding ways to vote, despite it being against the law.”

So under President Obama's order, people who are not even supposed to be here can collect money from the government that they didn't earn, paid for by the money you and I earned. 

And that's not the only perk Obama has given to illegals. Once illegals are allowed to obtain Social Security numbers and get driver's licenses it will be easier for them to register (illegally) to vote. In fact, many driver's license offices throughout the country ask applicants if they want to register to vote when they are getting their licenses. 

Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach says it has happened before and that this will cause it to occur even more.

“It’s a guarantee it will happen,” Mr. Kobach said.

Of course, Democrats say that voter fraud and voting by illegals doesn't happen - regardless of the many cases that have been prosecuted. 

In other news, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that she had been drinking a little prior to the State of the Union address during which she was seen dozing. (President Obama perhaps thought she was bowing to him...)

"The audience for the most part is awake, because they're bobbing up and down, and we sit there, stone-faced, sober judges. But we're not, at least I wasn't, 100 percent sober," Ginsburg said while speaking at George Washington University. "I vowed this year, just sparkling water, stay away from the wine, but in the end, the dinner was so delicious, it needed wine," she added.

My guess is she needed the wine because she remembered where she was going after dinner. But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Responsibility Versus Race Card

In Peachtree City, Georgia, last year, a little league team was getting ready to leave the next day for the regional championships. They had won their local division title. The night before their departure the league president called the coaches and gave them bad news.

Because of several violations of league rules, including having players that were not eligible to play on the team, the team had to forfeit their title. The second place team was awarded the win and got to advance to the regional games. The league president, Brandon Taylor, expressed his regret of having to take their title.

"It was nothing but broken hearts and sadness," Taylor said. "There have been a lot of tears shed over this."

"As the president of this league, it's on me," Taylor said. "If we make an error, I am standing here telling you I did. I own that. But, it is not fair to punish these kids to let them win a district championship, and a state championship, and then pull the rug out when three levels of Little League officials missed it, just like we did."

When asked how the team was handling the blow Taylor said their response showed just how good their sportsmanship is.

"They have not said a bad word about anybody," Taylor said. "They just wanted to play ball. They had a dream. A little league dream. They had it and it was pulled out from under them, literally the night before they headed to the tournament."

Jump halfway across the country to Chicago. The little league team "Jackie Robinson West" was stripped of their national title when it was discovered they had padded their roster with boys who were not eligible to play on the team. 

Complaints were lodged by two other teams who had played in the championship tournament and the league investigated. The team was stripped of the title because of their findings.

But in Chicago the reaction to the league's decision is a little different. According to parents of the boys, at least one attorney, Father Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson, the boys were stripped of the title not because the team cheated but because of their skin color.

Both Pfleger and Jackson appeared at a press conference following the announcement of the league's decision.

"Is this about boundaries or race? This decision's untimely and inappropriate at this time," Jackson told reporters. "It should not take six months after a team has played a championship game to determine eligibility to play the game in the first place."

"When you're going over to voter registration and going to birth certificates and doing all this time of hunting and a witch hunt that's been going on for the last number of months, I can't help but wonder the question if the same thing would have been done with another team from another place, another race," Pfleger said.

"It is amazing to me that whenever African-Americans exceed the expectations that there is always going to be fault," said one parent.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has called for the team to have its title restored.

It seems that if a team is caught cheating and the players are black then the cheating is supposed to be overlooked. I feel sorry for the boys who played the game. They were led by adults who broke the rules. But what are these people, Jackson, Pfleger, et al, teaching the boys? "If you cheat to win and get away with it, that's good. If you cheat to win and get caught - play the race card."

It seems to me that Jackson, Pfleger, and some of the parents could learn something from the Georgia team. Certainly being mostly white that team can't play the race card but they accepted the consequences of their coaches actions and are handling their disappointment with dignity. 

I can't help but wonder who came up with the racist allegations first - Jackson and Pfleger or the parents of the boys. My guess would be Jackson. That's how he makes his living. I guess I won't call him a race baiter though. A few weeks ago he said that was racist.

"God Bless America" Unconstitutional?

That's what the legal branch of the American Humanist Association, the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, says.

Last week a student at Yulee High School in Nassau County, Florida, was making the morning announcements. At the conclusion of the written announcements the student closed with "God bless America. Keep us safe!"

Two atheists in the student body were apparently offended by these words (Where do these people learn this stuff?) and complained to the principal contacted the American Humanist Association complaining that their Constitutional rights (and their poor feelings) had been violated by the other student's words.

The Appignani Humanist Legal Center fired off a letter to the school. The content of the letter borders on ridiculous.

“It is inappropriate and unlawful for a public school to start the school day with an official statement over the intercom stating, ‘God Bless America,’ for such a statement affirms God-belief, validates a theistic worldview and is invidious toward atheists and other nonbelievers,” the letter stated.

Actually, the student added those words at the end and they were not a part of the official announcements. He may have violated the school's rules for making announcements but he did so of his own volition and not as a part of the school administration.

The AHA went on to suggest that the student violated the Constitution and broke the law by invoking the name of God over the public address system. 

“The daily validation of the religious views of God-believers resigns atheists to second-class citizens,” the AHA wrote. “Because attendance is mandatory, the students have no way of avoiding this daily message either.”

Uh... wrong again. On two counts. First, the student has a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. Neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land say that right ends at the front door of the school. 

And second, "God bless America" is not said daily at the end of the announcements. It was said by one student one time and therefore is not a "daily validation of the religious views of God-believers." I can't believe a legal center actually made such a blatantly false statement in a letter of complaint. Perhaps they believed (correctly, it seems) they could intimidate the principal by using strong (if untrue) wording in the letter. They threatened to sue the school if the school did not "immediately cease and desist" with the practice.

It worked. The school principal immediately responded with a letter to the American Humanist Association apologizing and saying they had taken action against the student. 

“Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention," the prinipal wrote. "I want to point out that the statement "God Bless America, keep us safe" that was made last week on the morning announcements was not approved by school Administration nor was it in the scripted announcements. The student on his own accord made the statement. I have called the student in this morning and directed him that at no time is he to add or take away from announcements that have been pre-approved and that if he did it again, he would no longer have the privilege of making the morning announcements. I am disappointed that the students who filed the complaint did not do so with me first, as I would have addressed it immediately. Once again, thank you for bringing this concern to my attention. It is our desire and intention to respect the beliefs and constitutional freedoms of all our students at Yulee High School.”

He caved to the threat, big time. The threat of a lawsuit makes schools cave all the time. Perhaps the principals aren't familiar enough with the First Amendment or perhaps they simply don't want to take the time to deal with an over-aggressive atheist organization but they are selling the students out when the give in to such tactics.

I'm no Constitutional scholar but I do know what the First Amendment says. The First Amendment prohibits the government from mandating a national religion or promoting one religion over another. That is not what happened in this case. The principal could have answered the letter from the AHA very simply, without apologizing for anything.

"Thank you for your correspondence concerning the "God bless America" controversy. Legally, there is no basis for your complaint or threatened lawsuit. Students have a guaranteed right to freedom of speech and since the words he added at the end of the announcement were not on the written text they were not endorsed by the school. They were, however, within his right to say.

The "problem" has already corrected itself since this was a one-time incident. It has not occurred again. And since one student saying one thing in one school in one state doesn't really constitute a  "daily validation of the religious views of God-believers," and it has not happened again, there is no valid basis for a lawsuit. If you feel the need to pursue that course it is within your right. Our lawyers will tell the judge the same thing. 

Again, thank you for your concern. Have a blessed day."

OK, that last sentence is something I would add (just because that's who I am) and probably would not be necessary in an official letter from the school. But I'd never be tolerated as a school principal anyway, I'm sure.

Who Holds The Title Of Liar-in-Chief?

Every President surrounds himself with staff and advisers he trusts - people who will do and say what he wants in every situation. Often that position involves stretching facts and/or leaving certain details out when addressing the media and the nation. I must say that President Obama has selected some of the best. His trusted spokespeople will say whatever he wants - even if what they're saying is blatantly untrue.

Overlooking (for now) the lies the President himself has told over the last six years, let's look at his spokespeople. Obama has had three of the best, or perhaps I should say worst, liars in the business working for him: Jay Carney, Josh Earnest, and Susan Rice.

Let's look at the first - Jay Carney. I suppose it's not polite to talk bad about someone who is no longer in office or a part of the administration. That's why no one speaks badly of George W. Bush. Oh, wait...

In 2012, speaking at a luncheon hosted by the White House Correspondents’ Association, Carney said he never lies in response to reporters' questions, even when he knows more than he can say: "When I go stand up at the podium in front of the White House press corps, I never lie. I never say something that I know is untrue. Credibility is enormously important to a press secretary."

Really, Jay? Some might call that the biggest lie you told while you were the White House Press Secretary. He said it again when he was getting ready to step down from his position. But he explained why he doesn't lie to the media.

“Honestly, it's not because I’m a paragon of virtue, it’s because that would be a terrible way to do the job,” Carney told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.

So I wonder how Mr. Carney would explain some of these...

In 2011, Carney made the statement that President Obama was never against signing statements, except when George W. Bush abused them. But Mr. Obama, then Senator Obama and candidate for President, said that when he became President he wouldn't use signing statements to go around Congress.

"We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress."

In April of 2012, Carney said the President had never said that the so called "Buffet Rule" would fix the country's deficit problems. Perhaps he had simply forgotten the President's own words from September of 2011 when he said that the Buffet Rule would “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.”

In 2013, when people were losing insurance coverage because of Obamacare, Carney kept up the White House lie of "If you like your plan you can keep your plan." He continuously repeated “The fact of the matter is, if you had insurance on the individual market prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and you have that plan today, you can keep it, you’re grandfathered in forever. No matter how crummy the plan is.”

And of course, who can forget when the lie was finally exposed the infamous statement of the President and Mr. Carney that began with "When we said 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan' what we really said was 'If you like your plan you can keep your plan if your plan hasn't changed since the implementation of the law.'" Except that's not what you said. What you said was "If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period."

I could go on. There are many more examples of Carney telling lies on camera. But I'm limited on time and space.

Let's move on to Josh Earnest, the current White House Press Secretary. I think the biggest lie he's told so far is that the Obama administration is the "most transparent administration ever." Really? Can you say Obamacare? Can you say Benghazi? Can you say IRS? Can you say Fast and Furious? 

I knew you could.

Then, of course, you have Earnest's statements about President Obama's big faux pas when he said ISIS was "the JV team." Earnest defended the President saying "He wasn't specifically referring to ISIS when he said that." Right. He was referring to some hypothetical terrorist group that was hypothetically out there killing hypothetical people and growing their hypothetical numbers. Uh huh.

Earnest refused to answer when asked what President Obama was doing on the day other world leaders met in Paris in support of the French people in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Earnest pretended he had no idea what the President was doing. So much for transparency.

Finally - Susan Rice. The former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations made a name for herself following the Benghazi attack when she went on the Sunday talk show circuit and repeated the White House lie that the attack was caused by a Youtube video. By that time at least half the country knew it was a lie, yet she put it out there over and over. (Two weeks later, when the entire world knew the truth, President Obama told the United Nations the attack was caused by the video.)

Just last year Ms. Rice told the world that Turkey had granted the United States permission to use their air bases to attack ISIS. Turkey flat out denied giving any such authorization. 

And who can forget her praise of Bowe Bergdahl as a soldier who served "with honor and distinction" even as he was under investigation for possible desertion charges?

On Wednesday Rice unveiled the 2015 National Security Strategy speaking at the Brookings Institute. Her speech was brimming with lies and incomplete facts.

She began by saying the 2015 plan was to "sustain American leadership in this new century." But since President Obama has been pushing to end American leadership in the world and make the United States no better than any other nation - isn't that a lie in itself?

She said as a nation we are "stronger than we've been in a long time." If that's true why is half the world mocking us and laughing in our faces every time Obama talks tough? Once you draw a red line then back down from it when it's ignored you're not stronger than you've been in a long time. 

She mentioned our economic recovery and the "fact" that unemployment is down to 5.7%. She used the White House's convenient figures, leaving out the fact that people in this country who are without work and no longer eligible to collect unemployment benefits are not counted as "unemployed" by the administration. Forbes Magazine puts the real unemployment numbers at 12%.

She talked about the deficit being cut in half without bothering to mention that the national debt has doubled under this President.

She said the dangers we face in the world today are "not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War."

Really, Ms. Rice? Let's look at that a moment. Radical Islam is moving to take over the world a little at a time. Certainly they don't have Hitler's army - yet - but they're killing tens of thousands of innocent people and commandeering supplies, equipment and weapons as they go. It won't be long before they're an existential threat.

Iran is working, even as they smile at us over the negotiation table, to create a nuclear weapon. History has shown us that once a fanatical government decides to attain that type of weapon they will say anything to appease their opposition while the continue to work toward their goal. Obama has now threatened Congress not to create any more sanctions against Iran and has loosened the ones already in place, giving them money and even considering re-opening the embassy there. And the Iranian government is laughing all the way to their centrifuge.

"Strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever, Rice stated. "Think for a minute where the world would be today without decisive U.S. leadership. Ebola would be spreading throughout West Africa and likely to far corners of the world. Instead, America galvanized the world to roll back this horrible disease. Without us, Russia would be suffering no cost for its actions in Ukraine. Instead, the ruble is in a free fall, and Russia is paying dearly for flaunting the rules. Without us, there would be no military campaign or sixty countries countering ISIL’s advance. There would be no prospect for a global deal on climate change; no pressure for Iran to be at the negotiating table..."

Strong, sustained American leadership was indeed essential and unfailing - until 2009. That was the year that newly elected President Obama went on his world apology tour and told the entire world that he was going to take us down a few notches because we were arrogant, dismissive and derisive. And he has done just that for the last five years.

Ms. Rice spoke of Obama "maintaining the best trained, best equipped, and best led military force the world has ever known," even as the President is cutting the numbers in the military, cutting their budget, and firing military leaders who do not conform to his far-left agenda. 

She said the science of climate change is settled. Really? Settled by whom? 

One of the key lines from her speech, the one that people need to worry the most about, was this: Before I go through the elements of this strategy, I want to note how our approach may differ from what others may recommend.

When a member of the Obama administration says something like that it should be noted and remembered. Obama has done quite a few things that differed from what others recommended. Pulling all of our troops from Iraq and leaving a void was one of the biggest. And look how well that turned out.

So who gets the honor of being the Liar-in-Chief? I think of these three it would be Susan Rice. Of course, the man they serve is a model for each of them to emulate. He lies so often about so many things he has begun to believe them himself. I don't think the other three believe half of what they say on his behalf - but they believe in him and will support him to the end.

I think the next liar we need to focus on, without losing sight of Obama, is Hillary "We Landed Under Sniper Fire" Clinton. There are literally millions of Americans ready to make her the next President of the United States. Some would say "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It makes a lot of difference. President Hillary Clinton would be the final nail in the coffin of what once was the great and generous nation of the United States of America. And true to history, it will have taken just over 200 years for a free republic to fail.

Does Truth Even Matter Anymore?

By now we've all heard of the big story of NBC Nightly News anchor, Brian Williams, who has been suspended from his job for six months for lying exaggerating what really happened on at least one of his reports from the field. 

Mr. Williams began in 2003 by reporting from Iraq that two helicopters that were flying in front of the one he was on had taken ground fire, including RPGs. Within a few years he had changed that story to say that choppers in his group had taken fire and by 2010 he was telling Letterman that his chopper was hit by an RPG and they had to make an emergency landing in the desert, only to be rescued at the last minute by an American patrol.

The problem is - only the first story was true. When former military members who were there with Williams went public and said his story was untrue Williams lied again by saying he "misremembered" the events as they happened. I'm not sure how one can "misremember" whether or not their helicopter took fire but what Williams didn't do was apologize in any meaningful way.

"Misremembered" is the latest term used to replace the word "lied." Up until now the word has been "misspoke." America listens to the lies, listens to the spin when the person does their best to get out from under the lies, and takes it all in stride. But when did the truth become irrelevant in America.

President Obama has been caught in several lies since his campaign began in early 2008. The now infamous "If you like your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep them," has not only been proved false but proved a blatant lie. The President knew, when he was saying it, that it wasn't true, yet he repeated it at least 22 times (video record) over a period of four years.

President Obama said he would not allow lobbyists in his administration. There are currently at least 64 former lobbyists working in his administration today.

Obama said that Bush's raising of the national debt by $4 trillion was "unpatriotic" yet he himself has raised it over $8 trillion and suddenly that's no longer unpatriotic. And he tries to hid the debt behind the decreased deficit - a completely different thing.

David Axelrod, former adviser to the President, said in his new book that President Obama lied about his stance on same sex marriage in 2008 (he was against it at that time) because he didn't want to lose black voters (who are largely against same sex marriage), particularly in the South.

I could go on for a while but I'll stop with one more example - Benghazi. The President and his administration lied repeatedly about what really happened in Benghazi and the cause of the incident. And we still have no idea where the President was that night.

So what do people say when the lies are pointed out beyond a shadow of a doubt? The most common answer from the left is "Bush lied about WMDs," which is completely irrelevant and it has now been proved that Bush wasn't lying. WMDs were discovered all over Iraq.

The next most common answer is "All presidents lie." OK - perhaps that's true but when did it become acceptable?

Richard Nixon was caught lying about the Watergate break-in. He resigned rather than face impeachment charges. Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post investigated reports on Watergate and discovered the White House connection. The Washington Post is a liberal newspaper but back then it wasn't so much about political ideology but about truth. Woodward is a journalist - period.

Bill Clinton was impeached, albeit unsuccessfully, for lying about having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He lied before and during the hearing. Hillary lied as well, pretending it didn't happen when she knew it did. The impeachment failed then 'ol Bill admitted that he'd had the relationship with Lewinsky after all. It was then swept under the rug.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, saying that her reception ceremony had to be cancelled because they had to run from the plane with their heads down because of the sniper. Video of her landing and reception proved the sniper incident never happened. She went on to be Secretary of State where she lied about the Benghazi incident. She will most likely be the Democrat Presidential candidate in 2016. 

So where does the difference come from? Brian Williams, whose appearance on the Nightly News is comforting to some but doesn't effect American policy, foreign relations, the economy or health care, gets suspended for telling a lie and there are numerous calls for his termination from both sides of the aisle. Hillary Clinton lied about Bosnia and about Benghazi and millions of people want her to be, and say she deserves to be, the one who leads our nation after Obama.

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmm."

In other news, the White House is now saying that climate change is a larger threat to the American people than is ISIS. Really? How many Americans have died in the last six months due to climate change versus ISIS? Of course, under the "science" of climate change if there is a rain storm and someone gets hit by lightning they will blame man-made climate change for it - because no one has ever been killed by lightning before climate change. And if someone dies because of the massive winter storms going on in New England right now that will be the fault of global warming climate change as well. But thinking people know the truth. 

They are also saying that ISIS is not an existential threat because they are not here attacking us on our own soil. But gee - by that logic Germany wasn't an existential threat to us in 1941. They weren't here on our soil. But they were seen as an existential threat. And what did we do? We sent massive numbers of troops to Europe to defeat them.

So my question to those who believe we should do nothing about ISIS because they're not currently an existential threat is - why do you wish to let them be before doing anything to stop them? If we had done that with Germany, Hitler may have conquered all of Europe before we did anything. He would have been stronger and more difficult to defeat. ISIS is the same. They are growing larger and strong daily. Do you really want to wait until they take a larger portion of the Middle East and become a world class power before we do anything? Really?

The problem with leadership from behind is that the bad guys gain strength. We need to wipe ISIL off the face of the map. We'll never get them all, since they're now all over the world (including our own country thanks to Obama's nonexistent border security). But the largest concentration of them is in Iraq and Syria and that's where we need to take it to them.

But we all know the Obama administration isn't going to do that, regardless of what he says. His air campaign is mostly useless and his new, proposed ground campaign will most likely be the same. He has not stomach for the fight against radical Islam. He won't even admit who and what they are. Every day he proves what a non-leader he really is. Jimmy Carter would be better.

The Crusades, Islam and Obama

Last week, during the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama insulted Christians and history by comparing modern day ISIS to the Crusades, not only misrepresenting Christians but misrepresenting history itself.

In his misguided and curious attempt at validating Islamic terrorism as somehow deserved, President Obama said two things that once again show where his loyalties lie.

“We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” the President said. He criticized them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”

"Lest we get on our high horse and think this violence in the name of religion is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
There is huge significance in the words he chose for each group. When speaking of ISIS he said they are a death cult that commit barbaric acts in the name of "religion." But when speaking of the Crusades he specifically said they were done in the name of "Christ."

That's significant because he did not say ISIS commits their acts in the name of Allah or Mohammed, only in the name of religion. Refusing to make that acknowledgement concerning Allah and/or Mohammed means that he still doesn't consider the actions of ISIS to be "Islamic" extremism but he does consider the Crusades to be "Christian" extremism.

In addition, the President conveniently left out the fact that the Crusades were initiated in response to Islamic aggression. The Pope sent the crusaders into the Middle East to reverse the Islamic takeover of the Holy Land and surrounding areas, which had been conquered by brute force. Funny how, when you look at actual history instead of revisionist history, the story changes.

In related news, in an interview with Vox.com last week President Obama said that the news media make ISIS out to be far more of a threat than it really is.

“The news media ‘absolutely’ overstates the risks of terrorism because stories about things like climate change aren’t ‘sexy’ and don’t drive ratings, he said.

He compared his role in fighting ISIS to that of a mayor of any large city. “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive.”

Except in most American cities criminals don't behead people in the name of Allah. And the attack on the deli in Paris was anything but random, and the President knows it. Once again he puts out misinformation that makes ISIS and Islamic terrorism less threatening and less dangerous than it really is.

His own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, his former Defense Secretaries Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld, and his former CIA Director, Leon Panetta, and several retired military leaders all disagree with President Obama and say his "strategy" for dealing with Islamic extremism isn't working. As has been said several times - "You cannot defeat an enemy if you refuse to acknowledge their existence."

Finally, there is talk that NBC News anchor Brian Williams will resign or be fired by NBC for his embellishment of several news stories that made him appear more important and involved than he really was. He lied/exaggerated events to make them more interesting and he may lose his position over it.

But Hillary Clinton did the same thing back in 2008, telling audiences that as First Lady she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, that her arrival ceremony was cancelled because she had to run from the plane to the hanger with her head down for safety. It turned out that the story was a complete fabrication. Yet she went on to be Secretary of State and is the current Democrat front runner for President in 2016. I guess when it comes to a news anchor people want honesty and integrity. When it comes to a Presidential candidate - not so much.

Remembering My Son...

February 10th. A date on which I remind people just how precious life can be and how quickly it can be taken from us.

Thirteen years ago today my son was a passenger in the back seat of a car being driven by his best friend. Christopher was asleep, laying down in the back seat, as his friend drove a girl home from the party they had been attending. It was late; he was tired.

On a somewhat rural road in Midwest City, Oklahoma, another vehicle approached from the other direction. That driver made a left turn in front of Christopher's vehicle and they hit the right rear quarter panel it with the right front fender of their car. The car that carried my son spun around a couple of times before coming to a rest on the left shoulder of the road. The driver and the young lady in the passenger seat were shaken but not seriously injured. They turned to the back seat. Christopher was not there.

Sadly, tragically, he wasn't wearing a seat belt while laying down. The centrifugal force from the spinning vehicle threw his body out the back window. His brain died instantly when his head hit the road, the two arteries that feed blood to the brain severed by the impact. He survived the trip to the hospital thanks to a couple of well trained paramedics and he was placed on a ventilator. But testing throughout the day proved that his brain was gone. He would never survive without the ventilator.

I made the trip from Miami to Oklahoma City after his mom called me and gave me the news. It was the most difficult trip I have ever made. When I arrived at the ER there was a large group of family and friends gathered in the waiting room. Christopher wasn't there at the time. They had taken him to do one final test - the one that would show whether or not there was any blood at all reaching his brain. It took about half an hour for him to return. In the meantime, at the request of his mother, I signed organ donation paperwork because the doctor had already basically told us he wasn't expected to survive.

Do you have any idea what it's like to sign organ donation paperwork on your 17 year old son? Some of you may know. If so, you have my deepest and sincere condolences and empathy.

Christopher arrived back in the ER and his mother took me to see him. I can't describe the pain of those moments - seeing him lying there attached to the various life supporting tubes, unconscious, never to gain consciousness again. We talked to him - I let him know I was there - but he wasn't there and I already knew it.

The doctor came in and confirmed our worse fears. He said the test showed that both arteries had been severed on impact and that Christopher's brain had died within minutes of the accident. "He never knew what happened. If he was asleep I doubt he had a chance to even wake up before he hit the street. And that blow would have rendered him unconscious. He didn't suffer, if that helps at all."

It helped but it didn't help.

I tell this story once again, as I do every February 10th, not to gain attention or sympathy but to remind all of you that in an instant your life can be changed and someone you love can be taken from you without warning. I give you the same advice I give every year.

Hug your children today and tell them you love them. Hug your parents today and tell them you love them. If it's not possible to do it in person, give them a call and let them know. If that's not possible either (as is common these days) then ask God to let them know how you feel.

Life is precious and fragile. The lives of those we love are irreplaceable and can disappear in the blink of an eye. Never, ever let someone in your life wonder how you feel about them. If they're important to you, tell them so. You never know when that one time might be your last opportunity.

The memories I have of my son are wonderful and happy and I think of him every day. And while the pain will never completely disappear, it is bearable these days and the hard times are few and far between compared to the happiness I get from thinking of him. But how much better life would be if he was here. Think about that next time you look at your kid(s).

I love you, Christopher. You are never completely gone as you live on in my heart. And you always will.

God bless you all.

Netanyahu's Visit - Right Or Wrong?

I've been asked for my thoughts on the upcoming Congressional visit and speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu was invited by Speaker of the House John Boehner - a fairly bold move by the Speaker, who rarely does things to irritate the President. The White House is furious that 1) Boehner invited Bibi to speak without asking Obama's permission and 2) that Bibi accepted without asking Obama's permission. There is no written protocol or hard, fast rule that says Boehner needs Obama's permission to invite foreign dignitaries to speak before the House - it's merely a courtesy. But it brought out the juvenile behavior in the President and many Democrats.

According to news sources the White House reacted with anger. “We thought we've seen everything,” one unnamed senior White House official was quoted as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

In other words: "The President is having a tantrum and he'll get you back for this." It's the same childish reaction we've seen from Obama in the past. Do something that makes him mad and he'll find a way to get you back. Not terribly becoming of the leader of the free world.

Netanyahu is coming to brief Congress on the Israelis' interpretation of the current status of Iran's nuclear proliferation, a program that is essentially being helped along by the Obama administration. President Obama has told Congress he will veto any new sanctions they might create against Iran that "could interfere with the negotiations." He has already lifted some of the sanctions and plans to give them $11.9 billion during the course of the negotiations. Obama also is making plans to re-open the American Embassy in Iran. The Iranian government has got to be laughing at Obama all the way from the centrifuge to the bank and back.

For some reason I will never understand, President Obama believes that negotiating from a position of weakness and giving the other side everything while getting nothing in return is a good way to do business. He did the same thing with the Cuban negotiations and in the Bowe Bergdahl negotiations. "Make big concessions and take very little in return," seems to be his negotiating strategy.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says Obama's negotiating strategies are worse than Jimmy Carter's. That's quite a statement.

As for Bibi's speech - I'm all for it. I think it's vital that our elected officials get the official Israeli view of Iran as opposed to only hearing what Obama wants us to hear. I pray they put it on C-SPAN so the American people will hear it as well.

Obama won't be there. Biden won't be there. John Kerry won't be there. And many Democrats have promised to have something else to do that day. That's simply juvenile. In the meantime both Vice President Biden and John Kerry have met with Bibi's opposition in the upcoming election, seemingly to show their support for the candidate. And, of course, one of Obama's field agents for his own campaign is currently in Israel working against Netanyahu's re-election. It is rumored they are getting federal funding from the Obama administration.

The Anti-Defamation league has voiced their concerns about Netanyahu's visit not because they're opposed to him speaking but because of the current firestorm over it they believe could be detrimental to his purpose for coming.

I say let Bibi speak. Obama and his minions will get over their childish anger. They can call him nasty names (as they have done before) and have their little temper tantrums. Perhaps Obama will hold his breath until his face turns blue... then life will go on. Our nation will learn something from the man who probably knows more about Iran and its nuclear program than any other leader on Earth. 

The wisdom of allowing Mr. Netanyahu address the United States Congress is lost on Obama. For him it's all about hurt feelings and a bruised ego. How sad that the President of the United States has to hold petty grudges and get even with a man who is one of the most brilliant leaders in the world. Obama could learn so much from Netanyahu. Instead he's doing his best to alienate one of our closest allies. 

He should be ashamed of himself. But that's impossible for a narcissist.