Thursday, November 26, 2015

Climate Change: Prince Charles Speaks Out

Happy Thanksgiving.


Thanksgiving Proclamation

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go. Washington

The American Persecution Test

CAN Factor Religion.

    The Politico writers agree with me. Asylum law in this country allows a persecution test to factor religious persecution in granting Asylum preferences into the US. Christian refugees have a prima facie claim for Asylum so should be granted in quicker access to refugee placement- because we don't know if the Muslim ones are militant ISIS or not until more comprehensive vetting is involved.
No Christians are joining ISIS. ISIS has proclaimed itself an Islamic organization that is persecuting Christians. This is well documented and incontrovertible. So for any President to say we don't have a "religious test" and can't consider religion in refugee issues is just wrong.

It's VERY American.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Refugee Priority

For Christians.

Should the US have let in Jews before, during and after WWII from Germany and Nazi occupied lands as a priority and precedent over non-Jews? If you said yes, then Christians should be let into America now from ISIS occupied lands because they are specifically targeted for persecution. Like the gold star of David sewn on jackets, a black "N" is scrawled on the homes of Christians standing for Nazarene meaning Jesus from Nazareth follower, and those houses are confiscated -stolen--if the people won't convert to Islam, with the people driven from their homes or killed. All those people would be legally eligible for asylum in America. ISIS was not doing that to Muslims. So, Yes, its Right, Good, Fair, Legal and the only decent thing to do to give refugee priority to Christians coming from ISIS controlled lands.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Just Pray

Christian GENOCIDE

And the Asylum Argument.

    Christians under ISIS controlled territory experienced and are experiencing Genocide. They appear to have prima facie claims for Asylum because of the well founded fear of persecution. CHRISTIANS have been beheaded, kidnapped, shot, imprisoned, hung, crucified, told to leave, convert or be shot and their heads have been decapitated and kicked around like soccer balls- for no other reason than that they are CHRISTIANS. CHRISTIANS are experiencing the worst persecution since NERO by ISIS. There is an Islamic Genocide of Christians going on now by ISIL.

That is why CHRISTIANS should be allowed in as refugees without much question as to whether they are terrorists. Christians are not terrorizing anyone in the Middle East, they are victims of Terror.

So listen Barach. It is highly offensive that you don't get that Christians are being persecuted and are subject to a genocide. It is offensive that you think that protecting them and providing immediate refuge for them isn't something that should be the absolute top of your agenda. It is offensive that you would criticize anyone for one minute wanting Christians to be able to come without delay from ISIS controlled territory. There is an argument for stricter scrutiny on the Muslim ones because ISIS is infiltrating Muslim refugees.

Barach, Sir, Mr. President - what is your problem?  Why are you not getting that this is an intense genocidal slaughter and persecution of CHRISTIANS not Muslims that ISIS is engaged in.

It is absolutely consistent with our Asyum laws and policies to provide immediate refuge for people under imminent threat and fear of bodily harm and genocidal persecution.
Where did you go to law school again?  Clearly you didn't take Immigration Law.

Saturday, November 21, 2015


The French-

   Love Them.

France's Ambassador to the UN (formerly France's Ambassador to the US) FRANCOIS DELATTRE  (a career diplomat who may one day find himself running for President of France) has succeeded in passing a UN resolution at the Security Counsel rallying the entire world against DAECH (Isil).

After a period of silence reflecting on the massacres in Paris, the vote was unanimous at the UN to 
crush Daech. 

Understanding Your Enemy

To Undermine Your Enemy

     Hillary on the trail is parroting an approach, that she in fact may have authored originally, to not call the Islamic State In the Levant (ISIL) "Islamic" radicals or "Islamic" terrorists or "Islamic" extremists because she doesn't want to offend all Muslims. Not only is this nuts, it is counterproductive to learning how to undermine them.

    Calling them Islamic radical extremists jihadist terrorists is exactly what they are. Yes, they are also criminal, but understanding why they self-identify how they do is a step necessary toward understanding how to undermine their thinking which is a necessary component on the War against them. You shouldn't call them ISIS or ISIL not because they are Islamic but because they don't merit ever being called a "state."

   Daech or ISIL is a deeply misguided geo-politically imperialist purification fundamentalist strain and vein of Islam. It is a movement that believes it is purifying the earth of the non-islamic non-believing infidels or Kafar and all their vices.  It sees itself as in service of their God (Allah) against vice infected westerners. It is rooted in a misguided theological emphasis on the Koranic versus calling for "Killing" and "fighting" infidels (Jews and Christians mostly) of which there are literally hundreds in the Koran. Pick up a copy, Hillary, and read it. They are translated in English. Anyone who reads it past the first chapter will immediately see all the calls to kill or fight the non believer.

  The other Muslims who are "moderate" or peace-loving, who do not subscribe to the barbarity of taking literally the "Kill" verses of the Koran but adhere to the peaceful pillars of Islam (prayer, service, tithing, etc) know that ISIL is a strain, a version of terrorist criminal Islam that believes it is a purification movement. Those moderate peaceable Muslims are needed to combat the perverse ideology of Daech, to undermine their legitimacy in the religion. It is incorrect to say that Daech has nothing to do with Islam. The fact that their recruits believe that they are God's Army indicates that their motivation is religious. The fact that their texts are the texts of organizing religion through all Islam in the Koran, means they are Islamic. The fact that they shout God Rules (Allah Akbar) while committing heinous criminal atrocities means they are Islamic, the fact that they say on video "Allah commands it" means they are Islamic. They are a brutal, fundamentalist, jihadist, extremist strain or version of Islam, but it is Islam. To quote someone running for President "Do you think they are all from Denmark?" Of course, they are Islamic and it is necessary to understand that this is a religious purification movement under Islam that has its attractiveness to recruits because it is an Islamic purification movement.

    I think sometimes the people thinking through these Foreign Policy strategies think they are a bit more clever than they are. The refusal to call a strain of Islamic fundamentalism for what it is does not help.

   The fact that it is a purification anti-vice movement that uses that as a recruiting tool should tell you that it is not a good strategy to promote things globally that they consider pure vice-like homosexual marriage-and doing that actually inflames them and creates more recruitment. For them its like promoting drunkenness when they are against alcohol. Western society is viewed by them as profoundly vice-ridden, profoundly decadent, and for them Paris the capital of EuroTrash vice. So note to foreign policy crafters: don't flaunt vice like it is a national past-time with a constitutional right in America. If you don't understand that jihadism is an islamic purification movement you don't get that vice matters in foreign policy. Its time to  connect the dots people.




Friday, November 20, 2015

Andrew Neil's message to Paris attackers - BBC News

Happy Thanksgiving

"I would maintain that Thanks are the Highest Form of Thought,  and that Happiness is Gratitude Doubled by Wonder." G.K. Chesterton

The Right to TRAVEL

is a Constitutional Right.

   It is as fundamental as the Right to Marriage well established by the Supreme Court. Revoking passports for tax debts is deeply wrong and a very bad idea.

Any attempt to restrict that Constitutional Right would be likely unconstitutional if based on someone's tax debt.

There is a a bill to revoke passports or not issue US passports if people owe taxes.
This should not pass- and would likely be viewed as Unconstitutional if it passed.

The IRS is a body functioning under the Executive Branch that acts outside Congressional oversight for the most part. It has a political agenda often and we recently have seen political enemies targeted by the IRS. People and organizations that have been hostile to the Democratic Agenda have been targeted by the IRS. See, Louis Lerner

The amount of IRS error is reflected in litigation against the IRS. They make mistakes. They can double or triple a tax debt with penalties, interest and fees.

We live in a Global Economy where it is just as likely that people's business enterprises require they go overseas as much as they go across State lines (or more depending on their business).

People need passports to travel to meet family, or conduct business as well as more frivolous holidays. This penalizes people who have family out of the country potentially. It potentially also impacts the poorest of the citizenry- who might be disputing tax debts or interest and penalties that double or triple the actual debt.

We do not in this country deny rights of citizenship in this country because people are poor or have a hard time paying their taxes.
There is already an enforcement mechanism in place to prosecute tax avoidance and evasion.  Denying a fundamental right to Travel (which people need to make money to pay their debts in some cases) is not only Unconstitutional, its counterproductive.

That is UnAmerican.

Without doing any legal research I quickly found this on Wikipedia which you can follow up on-
The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler had a significant impact in other ways. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had only vaguely been determined.[5] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) which the clause could cover.[6][7] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. It was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9]

Please Watch this- Senators



    The President often says his job is FIRST the Safety of the American People..

There is a bill that passed in the House that the Senate should pass also on refugee policy which places a security check in between unfettered admittance to refugees from countries where ISIS operates. This House bill seems measured, smart, and limited to those countries in which ISIS is operating and aggressively recruiting.

   There are wierd objections that miss the point, of the 'we should be nice and welcoming to refugees' vein. I can't tell you how many times I have been reminded on social media that "I was a stranger and you welcomed me." None of these platitudes are here appropriate because we are not denying refugees admittance with this bill proposal. We are letting them in- once they have been effectively vetted as safe.

  The other objection you hear is that we don't have the manpower at the FBI to effectively clear everyone. Then HIRE MORE FBI. If there is no money to hire more FBI then attach a rider or amendment to the bill that appropriates a huge budgetary allotment to hire more FBI. That is a ridiculous objection.

If the President is really serious about his duty and obligation to FIRST keep American people safe, then he should not Veto this bill.

Because WE NOW KNOW that part of ISIS strategy is to infiltrate the refugee populations. WE NOW KNOW that some people posing as refugees travel on forged passports and have false travel documents created for them in Europe and elsewhere. WE NOW KNOW that ISIS is determined to get to America and do harm.

To not address these serious concerns and just call people calling for better safety measures "UnAmerican" or worse, "UnChristian" is, frankly, disgusting.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

copy cats

“It’s quite severe in Europe now, and I also believe that copycats in America will do their best to do what their brothers have done in Europe.”ICYMI: Morten Storm, a former member of Al Qaeda who later became a CIA double agent, said last night that another attack is likely to occur within the next two weeks.
Posted by The Kelly File on Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Sticks and Stones

And Names do Hurt Me.

       There should be no place in the political dialogue of debating policy calling people "UnAmerican" or "shameful" or other slanders because they, upon reasoned judgment disagree with a strategy, policy or government position. Of course it is compassionate to be immigrant friendly and in the American character, but there are sound reasons to make exceptions.

Currently there is a reasoned debate on whether allegedly Syrian refugees should be admitted in the tens of thousands in American States and over half the States are having some pause and saying in light of the Paris attacks, perhaps we might rethink this.

   Sound Reasons to not allow in allegedly Syrian refugees include:

1. High level FBI people have said the sort of usual vetting is either not possible or unreliable because the sort of records and documents that are used to establish identity don't exist. Travel documents from people without passports were created in Greece for large numbers of them, who may or may not have given real information and there is no way to tell.

2. There have been large numbers of immigrant refugees who have in fact been arrested by the FBI in connection with previous ISIS terror plots or aiding and abetting.

3. We don't have effective gun control measures to stop people who are suspected terrorists or even those on terror watch lists from getting weapons in this country. Kids in a candy store.

4. ISIS has said they are coming to Washington to inflict more terroristic attacks in DC. Take them at their word. Do we want to give them a red carpet and food stamps?

So people who don't want refugees from allegedly Syria coming should not be demonized for being "safe not sorry" when dealing with mass casualty possibilities even if perhaps too safe.

Let me say a word about tone.
These are sensitive emotion laden debates. When emotion runs hot facts tend to run out the door.
It serves no legitimate purpose to demonize people who are trying their best to think through solutions given evolving facts.

National Security should not be a partisan issue. Refugee relocation isn't just about "widows and orphans" when we know the majority of refugees are the fit males who survived the passage across the Med. Further, if anyone thought widows were incapable of being terrorists, they didn't read about the woman strapped to a suicide vest who just today died in St. Denis.

National Security is serious business. It shouldn't devolve into Partisan PR epithet-throwing from either side. Our current vetting procedures and current gun restriction legislation look dangerously, lethally even, insufficient to tell us which refugees are ISIS affiliated and would shoot up the Capital given the first gun show they can get to. No Syrian birth, marriage, tax, residency, ID records or any personal identification exists for most of them and documentation was created for them once they got to Europe.

ISIS would not disguise themselves as Christians and it would be too easy to detect them as such. So Christians would be definitionally safer than Muslims to enter the country. That sort of "religious test" is not unAmerican-it is smart strategy. Christians are not terrorists, they are victims of terror in that part of the world. No Christian is strapping a suicide vest to themselves, using their theology to yell "Jesus Rules" and gunning down a concert hall. A national policy that allows in Christians and puts a hold on Muslim ones is a smart strategy because ISIS disguises themselves as moderate Muslims, not cross wearing Christians. This is not "islamaphobic' or "bigoted" or any other epithet the slander happy party wants to throw at people with whom they disagree (note the same strategy was used on people opposing gay marriage-just slander them into the ground with aspersions of "bigot" and the like.)

Slander is not an effective debate tool. It makes the person using it look small. It's not leadership-it has a bullying tone to it. Lets all start acting like grown ups and look intelligently at all the facts.

Here are some facts. Note-NONE of the below people are Christian.

An immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, carried out the Islamist attack that recently killed 4 military personnel in Chattanooga. (July 2015)
- An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
- An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. (June 2015)
- An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015)
- A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
- A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five relatives, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
- A college student who immigrated from Somalia who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (October 2014)
- A Moroccan national who came tot he U.S. on a student Visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and federal court house. (April 2014)
- The Boston bombers were invited in as refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship. (April 2013)
- Two immigrants form Pakistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, were sentenced to decades-long prison sentences for plotting to detonate a bomb in New York City. (2012)

Read more:

And what might these characters be up to:

The fantastique, indominable, indefatigable, formidable French

Vive La France

  and all who love her.

After three official days of national mourning the French are getting their mojo back and defiantly eating in outdoor cafes and living life as usual.

Its about LIFE declared L'Alliance in DC insisting that the Beaujolais festival at the Embassy will go on as usual.

France's export of Joie de Vivre to America is a great blessing- and the Embassy in DC dispenses boatloads of it.  Last night was no exception to the kind hospitality of the Embassy in hosting yet another climate conference, this time where an undersecretary of USDA spoke on carbon sequestration of effective agricultural policies.

Merci Mill Fois (thanks a Million) again for the kind hospitality. The COP21 conference will go on as planned and the French are building a state of art facility to accommodate some 20,000 anticipated visitors. Paris' Mayor is brilliant and making the city safe, beautiful and welcoming.

The French know how to live-which is why so many people want to live there with them. In their hour of struggle against these threats we should be standing shoulder to shoulder assisting them in the defense of all that is sacred. Countez sur moi.

Long Live France- Vive La France- and all who love her.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

nous sommes tous parisians

I am shocked and saddened beyond belief at the horrific carnage in Paris, from where I just returned a mere week ago.
My thoughts and prayers are with all my compatriots and friends in France. 

In solidarity with the three days of morning this blog will be silent and showing only black space for posts for three days. 

Because there really are no words.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Sunday, November 01, 2015


In the Boudoir

    Some people subscribe to a view that being gay is like being left handed. Sometimes they can write with a right hand but its awkward and doesn't work as well and they know its off and not 'natural.' It just feels more natural and really good to write left handed. A small minority of people are left handed and so should be treated no differently than right handed people. (Where are the left handed scissors?) Other people subscribe to a view that a gay inclination or attraction is a reflection of a totally debased debauched mind perhaps coupled with an adjustable hormonal rebalancing perhaps brought on by family trauma or mental illness regardless of how many gays think that they cannot or won't change, and there are plenty of examples of people who came out of a gay lifestyle and live heterosexual lives with families so it is not an "immutable" or "unchangeable" phenotypical or genotypical characteristic but a choice of action and conduct. There is no proof regarding which one  is scientifically valid regardless of how many people feel either way. But to insist that everyone embrace gay sex for life in marriage, against the teaching of three major religions, because you view or adopt the first theory is not sound policy, because the first theory is just a theory. Its the way some people feel about themselves. It is the way a political movement of aggressive gays insist all gays and everyone must view being gay. That doesn't make it true for everyone gay or not. It is not true in fact for everyone-for all those who once were but are not now gay- a population Obama wishes did not exist and ignores because he wants to delude himself into thinking the theory is true. It might be his truth, but that does not make it true for all gays or any gays.
If a private limo driver or cab driver had a pregnant woman jump in their cab with a huge belly and said "take me to the abortion clinic on x street" and driver was against abortion, can the driver refuse service and tell the woman he won't do that as a private business serving the public? Of course- a cabbie can refuse service and tell you they don't want to take you to a bad part of town if he doesn't want to--or the airport--or anywhere he doesn't want to -he reserves the right to not serve people he doesn't want to. Recently a case involving two Muslim truck drivers found the drivers were discriminated against because they would not take a load of alcohol and were fired. It was discrimination against them based on clear religious conviction and belief that its wrong to drink alcohol so they were not going to drive it anywhere. Neither was being asked to drink it. No one shouted if you don't like alcohol then don't be an alcoholic. They were requesting that they not be made to do something against their conscience by participating in something their religion said was immoral and the court found they didn't have to or lose his job. The EEOC brought this action initially.

The EEOC's press release HERE:

This is no different than Kim Davis or any flower provider or cake baker or anyone else who thinks gay marriage is immoral and they do not want any part of it. No one should shout-if you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married to them. They are perfectly happy baking a birthday cake, just like the cabbie above might have been fine with taking the pregnant woman to her sister's house just not an abortion clinic. If a Muslim truck driver doesn't have to ship liquor or lose his job Kim Davis doesn't have to sign gay marriage licenses. Its her constitutional right not to have to do that if she finds it immoral according to the tenets of her religion- however whacky you may feel about that religion.
No Christian, Muslim or Jew or anyone should have to be discriminated against on the basis of their clear religious conviction that gay sex is immoral- and it does not matter what the state of that Christian's morality is or how many times they were married or divorced or if they are sinfully casting stones- it is a question of allowing that person to live their life according to their conscience. That is their constitutional right. It should be firmly protected.
The view that being gay is nothing different than being left handed, or that it has no moral implication such that it is illegitimate to attribute morality at all to sexual acts, and so should be treated no differently than heterosexual, as opposed to someone plagued with inappropriate sexualization of same sex people immorally as a product of a debased mind, is a value judgment simply made up without foundation in fact or science- even if there are more gays coming out there insisting that they are just left handed. More people sinning doesn't make more morality. More people subscribing to a wrong theory doesn't make the theory right.Gay people being talented, beautiful, funny or "loving" also does not make the theory right-it is irrelevant. Shoving the theory down everyone's throat as if it were universal fact demanding legal respect is just piss poor policy.
The African nations are correct to rebuff the President in his gayification of discrimination laws.
What is completely unacceptable is anyone slandering anyone with labels of "hater", "homophobe" or "bigot" because they subscribe to their religious teachings and have a conscientious objection to actions they find immoral. That is ignorant and unacceptable and it needs to stop.
No one would think to call the Muslim above a WinoPhobe, or a hater of drinkers. He just find the actions immoral. I am sure the cabbie above doesn't hate the woman he is refusing to take to the abortions -to the contrary- he doesn't want to participate in her butchery for her own good as well.

     Whenever accommodations can reasonably be made to accommodate religious views they should be made so long as rights of others are not infringed upon. The Muslim truck drivers schedule could perhaps have been changed so he drove the next load of anything but alcohol (and bacon) and the pregnant girl can catch the next cab. The gay couple wanting a cake doesn't get to insist that everyone in the world will want to facilitate or participate in their celebration while there is a gay baker down the street who needs the business. The Constitution does not demand all Americans must approve of everyone else's conduct. Were that the case the laws which prohibit service of alcohol to clearly drunk people in bars with keys in their hands would all have to be voided.  Were that the case then judges couldn't examine adultery in divorce or custody cases ever.

   The people currently being discriminated against the most are the people who hold true the second theory: that there is a permissible morality assessment regarding gay behavior and they would be violating conscience to participate in something they view as debased or debauched. Those people are the new persecuted in the Western Church. They are losing jobs, clients, having their businesses boarded up, fined and blasted all over the media and social media as "haters" "homophobes" and "bigots" in pure defamation.

    This has to stop and right itself with the next President.