Obama’s Draft ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’ Falls Short

/1 Comment/in , /by

An Authorization For Use Of Military Force (AUMF) Should Implement A Military Strategy, But The U.S. Has No Military Strategy And Lacks An Adequate Definition Of The Enemy

One of the two principal problems with Obama’s draft AUMF submission to congress is the absence of a military strategy to implement; however, the second principal and more basic problem is that in order to have an effective military strategy, the enemy must first be specifically defined. But an adequate and realistic definition of the enemy is the missing the cornerstone for both an effective military strategy and a comprehensive AUMF to deal with the Islamic jihadists.

The public complaints so far about Obama’s proposed AUMF are that it stipulates a three-year sunset limit to the conflict which angers hawks, and it also contains no geographical limitations to the conflict that perturbs doves. However, it is the definition of the enemy, which no one seems to be complaining about, that is entirely inadequate.

In the AUMF measure before congress, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and/or “associated persons or forces” are singled out as the sole enemy against which Obama seeks authority to conduct military operations. The “associated persons or forces” are defined in the Obama’s draft resolution as:

“individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

The identification of only ISIL and associated persons or forces as the enemy is simply another of Obama’s attempts to evade acknowledging that our enemy, and civilization’s enemy, is Islam as comprehensively spelled out in the Quran (Allah’s words reported by Mohammad), Sira (Muslim approved biographies of Mohammad), Hadith (teachings, deeds and sayings of Mohammad), and Sharia (moral code and religious law of Islam).

While ISIL operates in accordance with these four Islamic scriptural documents to carry out Islamic “holy war,” or jihad, so too do “Hamas” in Gaza, “Islamic Jihad” in Gaza, “Muslim Brotherhood” in Qatar and America, “Council on American-Islamic Relations” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Muslim American Society” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Islamic Society of North America” (Muslim Brotherhood), “Boko Haram” in the African Sahel, “Al-Shabaab” in Somalia, “Al-Qaeda” in Pakistan, “Jabhat Al-Nusrah” in Syria, “Khorasan” in Syria, “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” “Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb,” “Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya,” “Islamic State in Libya,” “Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia,” “Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis” in Egypt, “Taliban” in Afghanistan, “Tehreek-i-Taliban” in Pakistan, “Lashkar-e-Taiba” in Pakistan, “Islamic State in Sinai Province,” “Islamic State in Gaza,” “Jemaah Islamiah” in Southeast Asia, “Abu Sayyaf” in Philippines, “Hezbollah” in Lebanon and Syria, “Houthis Ansarallah” in Yemen, “Badr Organization” in Iraq, “Al-Sadr Mahdi Army” in Iraq, “Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya” Iraqi militia, “Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force” in Iraq and Syria, to name some of the better known Islamic Sunni and Shia jihadist groups around the world. Obviously there are hundreds more Islamic jihadist groups that vary in size and threat capability, but all, whether Sunni or Shia, trace their reason for being and organizational motivation to the Quran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia.

Since ISIL is complying with the jihad mandates in the four fundamental Islamic scriptural documents, as also are the 30 other above-named jihadist groups listed above, it is undeniable that only declaring ISIL to be our enemy is woefully and misleadingly understating the scope of the threat faced by the U.S. After all, Obama asserts in his draft AUMF that ISIL “poses a grave threat to . . . the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners.” (It should be noted that although the Sunni and Shia copies of the Sira, Hadith, and Sharia are different texts, they all serve the same function and advocate jihad.)

But the key unasked and unanswered question underlying the entire war is: Why does ISIL pose a grave threat to U.S. interests? The answer is the one Obama avoids acknowledging, and it is because ISIL is complying with the four basic Islamic scriptural documents mandating jihad. And of course, this jihad-compliance answer has an enormous consequence that Obama also desperately wants to escape accepting – that is, it only logically follows that the other above identified 30 jihadist groups are just as much of a grave threat to U.S. national security interests! And since ISIL and all the 30 above Islamic jihadist groups (and hundreds more) are motivated by the same Islamic scriptural sources, it is inexplicable why all Islamic jihadist groups are not designated as exactly what they are, a cumulative, grave global threat to U.S. national security interests!

DOES OBAMA’S INCOHERENCE IN NAMING THE ENEMY MATTER?

The short answer to the above incoherence question is: Yes! Why? Because, if the U.S. were to destroy Sunni ISIL, then the Shia forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Hezbollah, Bashar Al-Assad’s Alawite State Militia, Badr Organization, Al-Sadr Mahdi Army, and Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya Iraqi militia are the winners. Furthermore, were the situation reversed and the Shia forces defeated, then the triumph would go to the Sunni ISIL and other Sunni jihadist organizations like Jabhat Al-Nusrah and Khorasan. Clearly, the American media and congressional talk of “boots on the ground” in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIL is wrongheaded because it does not address the crux strategic question: What’s next?

While the previous 2002 AUMF was actually more open-ended than Obama’s proposed AUMF in identifying Islamic jihadist groups against which U.S. forces can conduct operations by classifying them according to their participation in “international terrorism,” the 2002 AUMF was also mistaken because the criteria should be the jihadist motivation to install the Sharia in conquered territories, rather than whether or not they use the tactic of terrorism. The reason being, it is the Sharia that contains the political instructions to destroy and replace all non-Sharia, man-formulated jurisprudence and constitutions because, once Sharia is established as the god-given reigning legal system, the secular and religious obstacles to making Islam the dominant religion will be able to be removed and eliminated. It is the Sunni Wahhabi Sect in Saudi Arabia that is exporting the message that Muslims have a jihadist obligation to promulgate the Sharia throughout the world. The Saudi Royal Family, Saudi Oil Sheiks, and Sunni Wahhabi Clerical Establishment have been building and financing mosques around the globe to carry the jihadist message using Petrodollars.

To put Islamic Sharia law in its perspective, the Sharia places into practice in daily life the Islamic injunctions contained in the Quran, Sira, and Hadith with the force of law. Therefore, once the Sharia is the controlling legal system, the three existential choices of Islam become operative: 1) Convert to Islam; or 2) Submit, acknowledge the religious supremacy of Islam, and pay an annual blood money extortion “tax” for your life; or 3) Be put to death. It must be noted the single objective of jihad is install the Sharia by violent (war and terrorism) or non-violent (politics and deception) means.

Jihad is an essential and integral part of Islam that cannot be separated or eliminated from the religion, even though not all Muslims may actively practice or even favor jihad. Consequently, using participation in international terrorism as the determinant of enemy or non-enemy status is a false, unreliable, misleading, and dangerous discriminant.

THE STRATEGIC SITUATION

As the American society enters into public and congressional debate on the merits of Obama’s draft AUMF, it is obvious that both Democrats like Obama, Kerry, Rice, and Brennan and Republicans like McConnell, Boehner, McCain, and Graham are rudderless and clueless on how to effectively deal with the scourge of Islamic jihad rampaging through the world. No one in the national leadership has yet mastered the fact that attacking individual jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda, or Taliban, or now ISIL will not stem the worldwide tide of jihad any more than temporarily. There is absolutely no hope of quelling Islamic Sunni and Shia jihadists by merely continuing the singleton-group attack strategy that has been failing for 14 years.

In addition to the Sunni and Shia separate jihads against the U.S. and allies, there is a civil war within Islam that is simultaneously occurring between the Sunnis and Shiites for the dominance of the Islamic umma world community. The U.S. has no business getting drawn into this Muslim sectarian war because, regardless who wins, the U.S. loses for the reason that the other avowed enemy is thereby strengthened.

Conclusion

As the U.S. public and congress turn their attentions to the details of formulating a new AUMF to hopefully more successfully confront the Islamic jihad being relentlessly waged against the West, and take into account at the same time the on-going sectarian war within Islam, foremost in everyone’s mind should be the realization that any alliance in this region is fraught with insecurity.

This realization does not mean that the U.S. must renounce all relations or alliances with Muslim regimes, rather it means that the U.S. national leadership must be aware of the dangers of permitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants into this country, the menace inherent in relying on the trustworthiness of the Saudi Wahhabi Royal Family, the perils of trusting in a nuclear weapons limitation agreement with the Shia Mullahs of Iran, the jeopardy involved in the counter-factual idea that the Palestinian Islamic leadership actually seeks a “two state solution” and not the complete destruction of Israel, the precariousness of the unfounded belief that propping up the inept Shia regime in Iraq is in U.S. interest and not that of the Iranian Shia Mullahs, and finally the folly of not recognizing the pure treachery of the Muslim Brotherhood. And those cautions are just for openers.

However, on the positive side, there are potential Islamic allies in the Middle East whose natural interests are opposed to the jihadists like the current governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Kuwait. Of course, any or all of these allies could turn against the U.S. with little warning because in every non-jihadist Muslim lurks a radicalized jihadist in waiting. Such is the nature of Islam.

(Visit the original source, re-posted with permission HERE)
__________________________________________________________________________

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. During his year in Vietnam he daily scheduled 130 U.S. Army and Air Force intelligence collection aircraft. In his final overseas tour he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland. In total, Col. Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.

Additionally, he was awarded an Air Force scholarship to get a history master’s degree in revolutionary insurgent warfare at the University of Texas, as well as being granted a year’s educational sabbatical to teach and to write about international relations as an Air Force Research Associate in the graduate school at the Center for Advanced International Studies, University of Miami, Florida. Following the Air Force, Col. Snodgrass was an adjunct professor of military history for ten years at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sarah Palin: Get a Job, You Stupid Hecklers! [+video]

/3 Comments/in , /by

By TMZ Staff. Sarah Palin hilariously confronted hecklers after the “SNL” after-party early Monday AM, explaining to them that she’s clearly won the war of words because they’re on the wrong side of the velvet rope.

(Read more from this story HERE)


_______________________________________________________

Congressman Extremely Unhappy Sarah Palin Attended SNL Bash: ‘Why Perpetuate in Her Mind That She is Relevant?’

By Joe Saunders. One Democrat rep. who tried to hijack Sarah Palin’s appearance on “Saturday Night Live’s” 40th anniversary special learned Sunday night there really might be such a thing as bad publicity.

No doubt hoping to get his name noticed outside Memphis, Rep. Steve Cohen criticized the show for inviting Palin, ludicrously suggesting that the former Alaska governor, vice presidential candidate and walking cultural touchstone needs “SNL” to know she’s a relevant part of American life.

Watching @nbcsnl 40 yr reunion . Lifetime fan looking forward to show BUT Sarah Palin ! Why perpetuate in her mind that she is relevant ?
— Steve Cohen (@RepCohen) February 16, 2015

Someone could try to explain that Tina Fey’s impersonations of Sarah Palin in the 2008 election have become part of the show’s lore. And some might argue that Palin’s influence on the American political and social scene since that election have barely diminished (she’s still a coveted endorsement in any Republican primary.)

Others might wonder who the hell is asking such a stupid question. (Read more about the SNL bash HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Duck Dynasty Musical to Open in Las Vegas

/1 Comment/in , /by

If the South Park guys can make a successful musical about Mormons and the Flaming Lips can re-engineer “Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots” into entertaining theater, it only makes sense that a Broadway team could goose curtain calls out of duck calls in a staged production of “Duck Dynasty” . . .

Yes, the Robertson family from A&E’s hit (or miss, depending on who you ask) reality show “Duck Dynasty,” the long-bearded, camouflage-wearing, culture-war clan whose mixture of faith and business acumen leaves it frequently counting blessings and money, will be the subject of a 90-minute musical. The show will debut in April in a 680-seat theater at Las Vegas’ Rio hotel and casino, a venue previously known for shows involving Chippendales dancers and Penn & Teller. Tickets go on sale Tuesday.

The musical is based on a book about the family written by Duck Commander CEO Willie Robertson and his wife, Korie. Interviewed on Fox in January, Robertson said the musical is about “redemption.”

His wife said: “When we first heard, like the first four songs they played for us, I mean Willie and I cried, like we boohooed like babies.”

“I had something in my eye,” Robertson said. “I wasn’t crying.” (Read more about the Duck Dynasty musical HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Teacher Uses Immigration Topic To Explain Political Cartoons, Student’s Father Enraged

/3 Comments/in , /by

One father wasn’t happy after his eighth grade son brought home a seemingly biased homework assignment on immigration policy in the U.S.

The homework sheet was assigned by eighth grade Social Studies teacher Grace Davis at Shattuck Middle School in Wisconsin. It featured a political cartoon originally run by the Chattanooga Times Free Press that included two men: a Democrat laying the “pathway” to citizenship and a Republican removing the bricks.

The assignment required that each student answer a series of questions about the cartoon. One question asked what each man was doing and another asked how their actions might relate to immigration or citizenship.

When one student returned home to his father, Scott Radies, the man was outraged.

“I flipped it over to see if the opposite view was maybe on the other side of the homework assignment,” Radies said, “but there’s nothing.” (Read more about the immigration topic HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Proof that American Democracy is Dead, the Oligarchs Rule

/16 Comments/in , /by

Reactions to John Boehner’s re-election as Speaker have included scant attention to its implications for representative democracy.

As Lincoln noted, “unanimity is impossible; … so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism … is all that is left.” Yet Boehner’s continued Speakership demonstrates that there is now no way for a majority of voters to obtain representatives who will represent them; and no way to compel a purportedly representative government to comply with their clear wishes on matters they consider most crucial.

Angelo Codevilla’s contention has been confirmed again. America is now lorded over by an oligarchic Ruling Class. Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats. For voting majorities, who resoundingly rejected Obama Care in 2010 and all Obama policies in 2014, there is currently no place to go.

Due largely to Boehner, firmly and clearly stated campaign promises on the most important issues have been repeatedly and defiantly broken.

Not All Roll Call Votes Are Created Equal

Less than one month after he rammed through the infamous Cromnibus bill and two days after being re-elected, Boehner held a press conference that merits a prominent place in the museum of memorable denials, such as Nixon’s “I am not a crook” and Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The Speaker effectively declared: “I am not a spineless establishment squish.”

Objecting to opposition from the right, he laid claim to “the eighth most conservative voting record [,]” illustrating how unreliable roll call votes are in assessing a legislator’s performance.

· First, a favorite device for legislators to deceive voters is reliance on lack of public awareness of the importance of procedural votes, critical in determining actual policy but often not included by those who classify voting records as “liberal” or “conservative.” For example, the House has a Rules Committee that considers resolutions determining if, when and how controversial bills are considered. But the full House must approve a rule before a bill can be debated and voted on. Lying legislators often vote liberal on rules and conservative on bills. As will be explained, two blatant examples occurred when Boehner saved Obama Care and largely nullified the 2014 election.

· Second, raw numbers mask the vastly differing importance of issues and how strongly voters care about them. When polled, voters often express opinions, without much thought, on issues they care little about if they care at all. But other voters feel so strongly about the same issues that they will not only express opinions but cast votes based solely on them. A prime example of votes determined by one issue is ObamaCare. Countless polls have documented its unpopularity. Few would deny its transcendent importance or that the 2010 and 2014 Republican successes were based largely on promises to get rid of it. 2014 also included promises to block unconstitutional Obama amnesty for illegal aliens. More than any other member of Congress, Boehner has been responsible for breaking these promises.

2,813 recorded House votes occurred during the first four full years of Boehner’s reign (here, here, here, here). A handful, perhaps four, mattered more than all the others: the Rule that saved Obama Care, the Rule that enabled the Cromnibus 2014 election nullification, and the two votes that made Boehner Speaker.

Speaker-election votes matter more than most because the Speaker wields power over all other votes. Boehner has thwarted solemn promises that resulted in majorities that made him Speaker by blocking all serious efforts to halt Obama’s unconstitutional abuses of power, effectively approving and enabling these abuses. The American people now suffer a bizarre combination of rule over the House with an iron fist in order to kowtow to an iron-fisted president on the most critical issues.

The Rules Ruse: How Obama Care Became Obama-Boehner Care

It is now five years since Obama Care became law. Fewer than eight months after enactment, due largely to that law, the voters expressed their opposition by giving Republicans control of the House, resulting in Boehner becoming Speaker. Yet three months after the 2010 election and still less than a year had elapsed, he immediately used his new power to squelch promises to undo Obama Care, thereby taking co-ownership of that law for most of the period it has been on the books and responsibility for all the hardships and shocks it has caused and will cause to millions of Americans. Biased media will never use the truly descriptive term: Obama-Boehner Care. This policy, as well as Obama-imposed/Boehner-approved unconstitutional amnesty for law-breaking by millions of aliens, must be seen as two of the most critical oligarchical ruling class betrayals of the early 21st century.

Boehner’s autocratic complicity in these unpopular policies renders irrelevant any overall roll call voting record he may cite to fool voters. Is it surprising that substantial majorities of the voters who produced a Republican Congress did not want Boehner retained as Speaker? The latest poll came after one of the most important votes of Boehner’s cowardly House suzerainty, in which he begged President Obama to round up Democratic votes for Cromnibus in defiance of opposed Republican voters. As described by Rep. Jim Bridenstine, this lameduck

$1.1 trillion spending bill … funded the government for 10 months and blocked our newest elected Republicans from advancing conservative policy and delivering on campaign promises. [Boehner] gave away the best tool available to rein in our liberal activist President: the power of the purse[,] Congress’ Constitutional strength.… Boehner went too far when he teamed with Obama to advance this legislation. He relinquished the power of the purse….

It is critical to emphasize the immensity of this renounced power. The U.S. Constitution clearly states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This is a grant of absolute power, not just to Congress but to each of its houses. Although two thirds of each house of Congress can override a presidential veto, if a simple majority one house resolutely refuses to appropriate money, there is nothing that the president or the other house can do about it. Period!

Significantly, Boehner’s lameduck Cromnibus surrender required two recorded votes, illustrating the trap of relying on roll calls to assess legislative performance. Much was made of Boehner’s begging Obama to corral Democrat support because 67 Republicans voted against passage. Many of them were actually praised by gullible conservatives. However, prior to voting on the bill, there had to be a vote on the Rule allowing it to be even considered. Not one Democrat voted for that Rule and only 16 Republicans voted against it. If one more Republican had voted “No” on the Rule, the bill would never have been voted on, let alone passed. Thus, 51 Republicans had it both ways. They voted for the Rule allowing consideration and then against final passage. Doubtless, roll call voting analyses will list them as voting conservative when, in reality, they helped Boehner stab conservatives in the back.

Trey Gowdy, inexplicably touted for Speaker by such conservatives as Sean Hannity, was among the both-ways Republicans and supported Boehner’s re-election. Rep. Bridenstine was, regrettably, among Cromnibus’ both-ways Republicans. Despite its central role in determining the content of legislation, his “Communications Director” downplayed the significance of the Rules vote, which made the difference between relinquishing the power of the purse and blocking that surrender. In sum, Bridenstine voted to approve voting on what he then voted against and professed to be his reason to vote against Boehner. Like John Kerry, Bridenstine was for Cromnibus before he was against it. That does not mean his powerful quoted statement was wrong. What was wrong was his vote enabling a vote on Cromnibus in the first place.

Cromnibus is thus one classic illustration of the Rules Ruse. Another little noticed yet major use of Rules to deceive conservatives occurred February 15, 2011. The Rules Committee held a painful-to-watch hearing that prevented a House vote on Rep. Steve King’s amendment to defund Obama-Boehner Care. When professed Obama-Boehner Care opponent and actual Obama ally Rep. Foxx, revealing or feigning ignorance of basic high school civics, triumphantly asked (1:38) King what the Senate would do to his amendment, he patiently explained: “there is not a dime that can be spent by the federal government unless the House concurs” (2:01). (go to page 2 of “American Democracy is Dead” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska GOP-Controlled House Votes More Bureaucracy, Endorses Law of the Sea Treaty and UN Control

/9 Comments/in , /by

State House Bill 1 (HB1) was ramrodded through a Juneau floor vote on Friday with a strong push from the rural Bush Caucus. Many legislators didn’t know it was coming up for a floor vote until the night before and felt rushed to study it in a manner that brought back memories of Nancy Pelosi’s railroading through of the Affordable Care Act when she said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

If HB1 is passed by the State Senate in its current form and signed into law, it can cause a host of problematic consequences for the citizens of Alaska and United States Sovereignty as a whole. First, it will add additional layers of state bureaucracy at a time when the Alaska Legislature is bleeding the annual GDP of a small seafaring nation by spending over $6B with only $2B in revenue largely because we already have over 24k state employees we can’t afford now. Adding more state employees and red tape to further moribund our natural resource development does not make economic sense. Secondly, it sends a clear message to President Obama and the United States Senate that Alaska residents support the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty which would cede U.S. sovereignty and wealth to a UN organization!

This bill is heavily reminiscent of the attempt to create the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program (ACZMP) with Ballot Measure Prop 2 back in 2012. It looks like the spirit of this has been re-crafted into this bill to circumvent the will of the Alaskan voters who trounced Prop 2 at the polls.

Growing state bureaucracy typically results in increased delays and costs, while resulting in poorer decision making in the end. As far as the arctic goes, development and research efforts are presently underway through the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission that already consists of plenty of “seats at the table.”

By far though the greatest logic blunder in HB1 is the Alaska GOP House support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (see subpart E on page 3 line 27 of the Bill). If the U.S. Senate were to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, it would reduce Alaska’s “bargaining position at the table” as it were and cede this to a U.N. organization known as the ‘ISA’ or International Seabed Authority. The Law of the Sea Treaty includes some very disturbing elements. It would compromise our national defense capabilities and require the redistribution of wealth from the US Treasury to undeveloped countries, some of which intensely dislike us and are state sponsors of terrorism!

If our legislators took the time to poll Alaskans, they would soundly reject the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty provision expressed in HB1 by a margin larger than our state coastline. Alaskans by in large are not fans of the United Nations and HB1 is a sneaky way of circumventing both their views and the results of Ballot Prop 2 that soundly rejected the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program in 2012.

This bill now proceeds to the State Senate where it must be killed. When state legislators vote contrary to the will of the majority of Alaskan citizens on not one voter issue but two, they arise the heat of the electorate which could melt the very thin ice they are treading on.

Here’s how the recent vote went:

Yeas: Chenault, Claman, Colver, Drummond, Foster, Gara, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Hawker, Herron, Hughes, Johnson, Josephson, Kawasaki, Keller, Kito, Kreiss-Tomkins, Millett, Munoz, Neuman, Olson, Ortiz, Pruitt, Reinbold, Saddler, Seaton, Stutes, Talerico, Tarr, Thompson, Tilton, Wool.

Nays: Gattis, Wilson.

Excused: Edgmon, LeDoux, Lynn, Nageak, Tuck, Vazquez.

Click HERE for text of the bill.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Weekend News Reports: Obama the Antichrist and a Rape Suspect [+video]

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Joe Kovacs. For all those who may have wondered if President Barack Obama is the Antichrist mentioned in the Bible, a U.S. newspaper is now clarifying the issue.

The Lexington Dispatch in North Carolina has reportedly printed a correction to a reader’s letter . . .

“Boyd Thomas’ letter Saturday contained an error in the headline. He does not believe President Obama is the Antichrist, who will come after seven kings, according to Revelation. He thinks Obama could be the seventh king.”

The correction references Thomas’ letter to the editor published on February 6.

The Dispatch’s original title for the letter was “Is Obama the Antichrist?” (Read more from this story HERE)

___________________________________________________________

News Station Uses Obama’s Photo for Rape Suspect

By Eric Carriere. Fox 5 San Diego used a picture of President Barack Obama to depict a rape suspect in a story on Friday.

As seen in the video, the anchor, Kathleen Bade, began to discuss the story, while a picture of the president was posted as the suspect.

“The only suspect in a sex assault at SDSU will not be charged,” she said.

Mike Willie, an assignment editor, noted that it was an accident and that it was corrected within five seconds. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

America’s Disintegration and its Solution [+video]

/3 Comments/in , /by

I love my country. My ancestors through my mother’s mother knelt upon first landing at Plymouth on Cape Cod on Dec. 21, 1620, and dedicated this land to Jesus Christ. These Mayflower Pilgrims specifically prayed for the evangelism of this continent and the world beyond. They claimed the continent for King Jesus.

That is a covenant that cannot be broken, if we on our end will not allow the “flag” to fall to the ground. It is not a question of bringing the United States under the kingdom of Christ. It already is. We simply have to agree with it and stand with God, the way the people of Israel from time to time remembered their covenant (after often forgetting it) and renewed it again.

And yet the United States is crumbling before our eyes, so rapidly it is hard to believe. Like the hapless sinners who opened the Ark of the Covenant in the first “Indiana Jones” movie, we see the once great hope of humanity disintegrating into dust. And incredibly fast.

Why is this happening? How? How did we get here? What does it mean, and is there anything that can be done?

You have to trust me here. Without watching the following video, you probably won’t understand. I mean truly watch it. Stop whatever else you are doing. Get away from all distractions:

(Read more about America’s disintegration HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Unholy Alliance: Obama Administration Partnering with Churches to Post Bulletins to Promote Obamacare

/5 Comments/in , /by

By Jeryl Bier. In an effort to sign up as many consumers as possible for insurance under the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare), the Obama administration has gone to extraordinary lengths to partner with churches and other faith-based groups, even publishing sample church bulletin inserts, flyers, and scripts for announcements, as well as “talking points.” These materials are part of the “Second Sunday & Faith Weekend of Action Toolkit,” which is available on the website of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

From the beginning, HHS has sought to develop partnerships with faith-based organizations to promote the Obamacare. This “toolkit” has been available since 2013. However, the details of these partnerships have largely escaped the attention of the national media. The Second Sunday & Faith Weekend of Action program encourages churches to use the second Sunday of each month during open enrollment to hold informational meetings and sign-up events.

The materials also include two full pages of “talking points,” which end with an admonition to churches that “[y]ou are trusted messengers in this community. We hope you share this information with those around you so they can be connected with the care they need.”

Non-profits such as Community Health Connectors have also brought togeather churches and faith-based organizations with government officials for information regarding the ACA, recently even hosting an “off the record” conference call with First Lady Michelle Obama “to discuss how the Affordable Care Act is impacting the lives of your congregation members.” (Read more about the attempt to promote Obamacare HERE)

_________________________________________________________

Flurry of Sign-Ups at Health Law Deadline

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. After a computer glitch got patched up, supporters of President Barack Obama’s health care law were out in force Sunday trying to get uninsured people signed up by the official deadline for 2015 coverage.

The effort had the trappings of a get-out-the-vote drive, with email reminders, telephone calls and squads of community-level volunteers.

“You can’t avoid it: TV, radio, church, wife, kids, co-workers,” said Ramiro Hernandez, a previously uninsured truck repair shop owner who enrolled himself and his family in Joliet, Illinois, on Saturday.

Technicians anxiously monitored the federal HealthCare.gov website for any new bugs. The administration provided no statistics on weekend sign-ups, instead releasing numbers that showed tens of thousands of consumers were trying to connect, online and by phone. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Vows to ‘Squeeze Every Last Bit of Change’ From His Last Two Years in Office

/1 Comment/in , /by

By Ben Wolfgang. President Obama on Friday night returned to his core 2008 themes of hope and change, telling Democratic party loyalists that he intends to challenge “cynical politics” during his final two years office.

Speaking at a party fundraiser in San Francisco, the president blamed Democrats’ poor showing in the November midterm elections on voter apathy driven by frustration and anger with government. He said low turnout largely is to blame for the GOP gaining seats in the House and capturing control of the Senate.

But Mr. Obama said he still has two years in office and intends to use that time to strengthen Americans’ faith in Washington. (Read more about what Obama vows to do HERE)

___________________________________________________

Obama Taking Complete Control of the Internet

By Pam Key. Friday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said President Barack Obama is about to succeed in his attempt to take “alarmingly unprecedented direct involvement” into the FCC’s plan to regulate the internet, which he explained will mean “billions of dollars in new taxes,” slower broadband speeds and “less competition.”

Discussing the plan that the FCC has refused to let the public see Pai said, “Unfortunately it looks like the cake has been baked. President Obama gave his direction to the FCC in back in early November and lo and behold, the FCC majority has put together President Obama’s plan for Internet regulation. And it looks to be posed pass it on a 3-to-2 vote.” (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.