Where Do We Start?

Over the past week, the number of protests has been staggering, the obstructionism by the Senate has been frustrating, and the rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court has been puzzling as well as being as far removed from all common sense as well as the United States legal code.

All of these people need to be members of the WAH! Party tm and be issued their diaper pins.

The protests have pretty well been centered around the issue of illegal immigration as well as allowing refugees from the Middle East into this country that cannot be vetted or checked for terrorist inclinations.  The Ninth Circuit Court basically gave legal standing in the courts to this last group even though they are not citizens of this country.


My take on this as well as many others is that the rulings were politically motivated, designed to delegitimize President Trump’s administration and Presidency.  What is most disturbing is that these people do not seem to understand that the safety and security of this country is needed to insure that they would continue to have the rights and privileges of United States’ citizens to voice their opinions.  To allow unfettered immigration to this country is akin to suicide.  Ronald Reagan stated:

“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” ― Ronald Reagan

This past week, ICE has been rounding up illegal immigrants with criminal records for deportation.  While some of the arrests have been heartbreaking, let’s remember the following:

View image on Twitter

Would you want to have any of these people living next to you much less in the same city as you and your family?  Would you want an immigrant that has not been vetted living next to you?  Considering the track record of illegal immigrants committing violent and sometimes horrific crimes, it is simply not worth the risk to using an “open border” policy.  Considering what has happened in Germany (and in the United States as well) with their policy of allowing virtually all refugees into their country, is it moral to sacrifice your own citizens to to prove some philosophical or political point?  To whit:

Related image

Obviously, there will be some terrorists posing as immigrants that will slip through the cracks, but that is absolutely no excuse not to try and determine who is a legitimate immigrant, refugee, or student, and who is not.  Which makes the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision even more egregious than what I originally thought –

“One of these days the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may declare the Constitution unconstitutional” – Thomas Sowell, 2003

Are we a nation of laws, or are we a nation of personal whims and feelings fueled by insane politics?  Once we go down that road, this country is finished.

More on this later…

The Barbary Pirates

While working on the previous post, I ran across this article from P2T2 Solutions that explains a bit further on the situation with the Barbary Pirates of old, and the similarities of what is happening today.  Enjoy.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago the United States had declared war on Islam and Thomas Jefferson led the charge! At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic. They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart-breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.

These extortionist of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic. Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.

Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes (aka: “protection money” by American mobsters) to the Barbary States rather than engaging them in war.

In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard-of ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that:

Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

This is based upon the Qur’an’s teaching from Surah 47:4 which reads;

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”

Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming.

That changed everything. Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit.

Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but, having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thugery for long enough, decided that is was finally time to meet force with force. He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.

When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.

Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book the Quran not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers, was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.

This should bother every American. That Muslims have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged; Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities; ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah; public schools are pulling pork from their menus; on and on and on and on . . .

It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda. Sadly, it appears that today’s America’s leaders would rather be politically correct than victorious!

Any doubts, just Google “Thomas Jefferson vs. the Muslim World.”


Next time you hear this tune, remember just how long the US has been fighting “extreme Islam”, and Otrama is right, Muslims have been in our history for 200 years, like hemorrhoids in bunghole, Islam been there. Thank a Marine next time you see him for keeping our country free from this scourge. /salute

Lessons Learned?

This past week, POTUS stated that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”  Strangely enough, he was correct, although probably not in the way that he intended.

The following are excerpts from the article “Islam Versus the United States” in reference to the Barbary Pirates:

Prior to the Revolutionary War, American merchant ships enjoyed British protection on the high seas. Under the terms of Britain’s treaties with other nations, including the Barbary States, American ships were issued British-backed passes of safe conduct for the Mediterranean.
These maritime passes operated on a very simple yet effective system that declared the bearer immune from seizure. The pass would be cut in half along a serrated, lateral line, the top of which was issued to a ship’s captain, while the bottom half was given to the Barbary regency and copied for distribution to the corsair captains. When a vessel was boarded by pirates, the ship’s captain would produce his pass, and if the edges and words or images matched, it was usually accepted-although occasionally a palm or two would need greasing; the prize would be released and allowed to sail away unmolested. Although fraught with abuse and forgery, the system worked reasonably well. (London, Victory in Tripoli, p.13).

When Jefferson became President, the new nation possessed only 6 fighting ships.

The Muslim pirates in the Barbary States saw a golden opportunity for extortion, blackmail, and the obtaining of slaves.

They did not hesitate to descend like vultures on the defenseless merchant ships.

While he was ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson was frankly told that the Muslim creed commands them to make war upon all unbelievers:

In May 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the U.S. ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the resident Tripolitan ambassador, to try to negotiate a peace treaty to protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy. These future U.S. presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American Republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any animosity of any sort. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.” (London, Victory in Tripoli, pp. 23-24).

The above bolded quotes can be found in various locations and forms, and are historical facts (not fiction). 

The story of the Barbary Pirates continued with the United States sending a squadron of ships and Marines to the area, fighting, and defeating the pirates, thus the reference to “Shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Anthem.

The bottom line is that the Islamic practice of conquest, tributes, slavery, and murder is nothing new.  It’s just more horrific with modern weapons and mass-media.

And just in case you haven’t heard, here are the passages from the Koran that justifies such actions:

  • Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. (Sura 9:29).
  • When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens. (Sura 47:1).
  • They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. (Sura 4:87).

Why is it that our “leaders” fail to see that history is repeating itself?  Have the lessons of the past been relegated to the past and forgotten?  In the Land of the Free, we have taken things for granted, but recoil in horror as people are tortured, raped, and killed for their beliefs which are similar to our own.  We need to remember the following:


We really need to remember this as well:


And especially this one:


Is it now any wonder why the world is insane and burning?

The Syrian “Crisis”

Friends, the only thing that is a crisis about Syria is that innocent people are being caught in the middle of a civil war and and being killed.  That, in of itself, is tragic.

Situations like this are also one of the reasons why the United Nations (heretofore now the Useless Nations) was created – to provide an international forum for resolving disputes and monitor (and sometimes intervene in) inhuman warfare and conflicts.

Much has been said about the United State’s responsibility to intervene on the behalf of the Syrian citizenry being killed by both sides of the conflict for “humanitarian” reasons.  Somehow, I’m having a hard time with this explanation as there are multiple instances of conflicts throughout the world of where humanitarian intervention is needed.  Think of the multiple out of control conflicts in Africa, and you should understand.

No, the only reason that President Obama wants to get involved in Syria is to save face.  Period.  And to this end, the American public is told that the only military involvement that the United States will have in Syria is to punish the Syrian President by dropping missiles and bombs on military assets.

So let me get this straight – We, the United States, is going to bomb another country to punish the leader of another country for supposedly using chemical weapons (as yet unconfirmed by the Useless Nation’s inspectors), and to do so without the support of said Useless Nations or any other credible international community.  And by the way – said bombing will most likely kill more people, and probably not the ones responsible.

I’m not the only one smelling the BS – many Congresscritters are feeling the heat from their constituents to not get involved in what is really a civil war between two factions that are not friendly to the United States.  In other words, there is no good guy here for the United States to back.  There is no imminent threat to the United States from either faction, and should we get involved, we could find ourselves the target of both of the factions (remember the saying – The enemy of my enemy is my friend?)

Regardless, President Obama is hitting the airwaves over the next couple of days with his minions to sell to the American People and their non-representational Representatives & Senators to give him permission to unilaterally proceed with military action against Syria.  And if he doesn’t get it, he just might proceed without Congressional approval.

But can he do this legally?  Well, it depends on what side of the fence you want to be on.  Let’s take the following excerpts from an article from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on the legality of such an action:

Even if all this took place as Obama claims, can he lawfully bomb Syria to punish its government for violating international norms or to deter it from doing so again? In a word: No.

International law recognizes only three lawful routes to the use of military force. It recognizes the right of every country to launch military force in order to prevent its own borders from being invaded or to subdue those who commenced an invasion. It also recognizes the ability of any U.N. member state to come to the aid of any other U.N. member state when one of them has been invaded. And treaties to which the U.S. and Syria are parties permit limited purpose invasions when approved by the U.N. None of these lawful scenarios applies to Syria.

Can Obama just launch an invasion of Syria even if it would be unlawful and even if Congress says no?

Because of the vicissitudes of history, the personalities of presidents and the myopic compromises of past Congresses, the area of presidential war-making has different legal and constitutional ramifications. Under the Constitution, only Congress can authorize the offensive use of military force. James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 make it obvious that the Framers were nearly unanimous in their resolve to keep the war-making power away from the president and repose it exclusively with Congress. They did this clearly and unambiguously in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Notwithstanding the precise language of the Constitution and the history of the nation’s birth, the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a federal statute enacted in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto, does permit the president on his own to use the military for offensive wars for a maximum of 90 days. Thus, under current federal law, Obama may lawfully bomb Syria even if Congress declines to authorize him to do so and even though such an act would violate international law.

But the WPR is profoundly unconstitutional because it cedes Congress’ constitutional war-making power to the president. The WPR was an ill-conceived political compromise effectuated by a Watergate-weakened president, congressional hawks who approved of Nixon’s unilateral invasion of Cambodia and sober congressional heads more faithful to the separation of powers.

Yet, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the transfer of constitutional powers among the branches of the federal government is unconstitutional, even if popular and consensual, unless brought about by an amendment to the Constitution. Thus, Congress can no more let the president start wars than the president can let Congress appoint federal judges, lest the Constitution have no meaning or force of law.

No matter how this shakes out, President Obama has literally painted himself into a corner with his red line, and the international community with the American citizens are not amused, and I doubt very much that the Syrians caught in the crossfire of bullets, grenades, and gas are pleased to be pawns in a game of political football & brinksmanship. 

My thoughts are that the United States cannot be the world’s policeman, and unilaterally take action against perceived violations of international law.  As much as it pains me to state this, the Useless Nations must take charge of the situation and evaluate, recommend, and take actions in their inefficient, non-time critical fashion. 

From the point of international law and our own laws from our Constitution, the President of the United States cannot take action by and for himself to order an attack upon another country without provocation or a direct attack upon the United States.  From the point of Congressional approval to give the President permission to order an attack, they can, but I believe that they would have a hard time selling such an attack to the American people is in the interests of the United States and would have no repercussions from either Syria, its allies, or from the Useless Nations.

For the record, I oppose any military actions of the United States upon Syria or the Syrian rebels.  I do, however, support humanitarian aid to those Syrians not involved in the conflict.

I Have a Nightmare

This is going to be a post with several parts.  Sit back with your favorite beverage and sip between the lines – to do otherwise could present a choking hazard.

This past week marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Oh, how far his dream has fallen!

While I did not watch the speeches, what I saw of the speeches was anything but uplifting.  In fact, it was more of the same inflammatory speechmaking that placed blame on everything else despite the facts that the Black community is self destructing.  How can I make such a statement?

Bill O’Rielly, Walter Williams, William Sowell, and Ben Carson all point out statistics that show that the Black community owns their problems external from other groups.  Walter Williams had these comments:

The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.

Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites.

This is far from the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King where he wanted all people to stand on their own two feet.  From the post Equal Diversity:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissention, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas. It is truly a travesty that his own people have hindered this vision instead of completing it.

One of the things that I noticed during the speeches was an undercurrent of asking for increased governmental support in resolving the Black communities problems.  Government cannot solve the Black communities problems – only they can if lead by leaders like Dr. King.

I watched President Obama’s speech yesterday concerning the potential involvement of the United States into the Syria conflict.  A few of his statements lit me up like a Christmas tree.  Let’s take the following statement:

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.  I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I’ve made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

First off, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, although the politicians have turned it into a Democracy.  For a short essay on the difference, follow this link, and Rick Santelli had this explanation:

The difference is, in a republic, the sovereignty rests with every individual person. With a democracy, it rests with a group. And this is a big distinction. Because we elect leaders to represent us. So when they go to Washington, they are there for a reason. The president doesn’t hold all the cards. The cards are evenly split up!

Second, it is not President Obama’s decision to seek authorization, but it is his Constitutional duty to ask for authorization.  Now perhaps I’m taking this statement out of context, but the way the speech was structured, he made it sound like it was his choice to ask for Congressional approval, not his duty. But his statement further down the line makes me think it’s the former, and not the latter:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

The only reason for a President to take military action is if there is a clear and present danger to the United States.  Syria does not present such a threat – in fact, their conflict would more likely be termed a civil war.

Another statement:

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors.  I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.  As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Without UN approval?  Is he totally ignorant of International Law?  As of this time, only France has stated that they would support Obama’s action, and that doesn’t fill me with warm fuzzy feelings.  In fact, it fills me with dread.

After President Obama finished his speech, he turned around and walked away.  From his body language, I would say he was angry, and I would say that he was angry because he cannot do what he wants to do – which is cover his butt for making the idiotic “red line” declaration and appearing weak to the rest of the world.  I personally think that the reason he was 45 minutes late for his own speech is that someone was on the phone with him advising him not to act on his own in taking military action in Syria without Congressional approval, and a hasty rewrite of the speech he wanted to give.

The Powell Doctrine states that before military action is taken, does the action meet the following criteria:

  • Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  • Is there a clear attainable objective?
  • Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  • Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  • Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  • Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  • Is the action supported by the American people?
  • Does the United States have genuine broad international support?

The Syrian crisis meets none of the above criteria.  Congress should follow the United Kingdom’s example and refuse authorization.  If President Obama orders military action after said refusal, then President Obama should be impeached and removed from office.

The more time that goes by only highlights the disaster that ObamaCare is.  The unintended consequences are just piling up, and the financial fallout for everyone will be horrendous. 

Let’s consider the following scenario which I know will happen (my thanks to my wife for the following!):

  • A person is working for a small company when the company reduces the person’s hours to under 30 to avoid paying for employee healthcare because the company cannot afford it under the ObamaCare legislation (the fine is cheaper than paying for the worker’s coverage).
  • The person cannot afford paying for the coverage out of pocket because of the high cost of the coverage and the loss of income due to reduced hours.
  • The person must take a second job to make ends meet, and instead of working just 40 hours a week at one job, must now work another 10 to 30 hours a week to meet the bills.
  • The cost of healthcare coverage is still too high even with the second job, so the person pays the fine out of the paycheck from the second job.
  • The result is that the person is working 2 jobs, doesn’t spend any time with their family, pays a fine to the government, probably still cannot make ends meet, and still doesn’t have health care coverage.

So tell me again – What is the advantage of ObamaCare?