Congressman Alan Grayson Is Either a Moron or a Troll

On Wednesday, Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL 9th District) told radio host Alan Colmes if Ted Cruz is elected President, he “will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job” according to the Constitution.

Before we get in to the ridiculousness that is that statement, I think it is important to establish the fact that Grayson is not always the dumbest man in the room.  In fact, at points in his life, he has been fairly brilliant.  Like when he earned his Juris Doctorate from Harvard in 1983 (graduating magna cum laude.)  During his underclassman career, he finished in the top 2 percent of his class, and finished his bachelor's degree in only 3 years.  Later in life, he helped found IDT Corp., and served as its first president.

Of course, he hasn't always been brilliant, nor has he been polite as he began and continued his political career.  No one is perfect, though, so we'll just overlook his bitter partisanship, and chalk it up to bitter bitter butter corn due to losses he had suffered in that arena.

Before we fully delve in to the moronic statement that began this post, I'd like you to take a couple of minutes to listen to Rep. Grayson push forward a resolution to teach students about the Constitution.  It's quite obvious that Grayson should have pushed a similar resolution for Congressmen/women (along with POTUS and VPOTUS, members of the Supreme Court, etc.), but for whatever reason, he did not.  Perhaps that was an early warning sign of his fallibility on the issue.

Later in the interview, he would go on to say:

In a sense, I guess, Cruz is not technically that way — because technically he’s not even an America.  His mother was born here, so I guess like [President Barack] Obama, it's interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz, who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.

I guess my first question would be the other side of that coin:  why didn't he have a problem with Obama not being vetted during his 2008 campaign for POTUS?  He was a big supporter of Obama's campaign, and has been a big supporter of many of Obama's unConstitutional attacks on these United States.

It is well known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen, and there have been those who have argued that even if Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 as he maintains, his mother could not legally confer citizenship to her son.  The son who would grow up to despise her.  I'm not here to go down that road, again.  Obama's term is drawing to a close, and scaredy cat Republicans who have had had 8+ years to figure out what to do about that particular Constitutional crisis, and they've chosen to sit back on their laurels.

Rather, I'd like to enlighten Congressman Grayson to the particulars of the Constitutional requirements for a person to become President of the United States of America:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Latin phrasing of this concept would be jus sanguinis (literally "right of blood") & jus soli (literally "right of soil"), and it is these concepts that are applicable to whether or not a person has the right to call themselves an American citizen.  As noted in the link above that detailed whether or not Obama may have been Constitutionally eligible to be elected President, determining exactly what 'natural born citizen' means is a bit difficult.  While Cruz would not qualify for American citizenship under jus soli, I don't believe (he was born in Canada), both of his parents are and were American citizens, which means that he would qualify under jus sanguinis.  This is a concept so basic, that Congressman Grayson shouldn't even need to take a Constitutional refresher course in order to understand it.

What it truly shows, I believe, is that Grayson is afraid that Ted Cruz is a strong enough candidate to defeat whomsoever the democrats put forth as their candidate in 2016.  On that front, I have an update for him:  unless some heretofore unseen democratic candidate emerges, a Republican will be elected President in 2016.  Grayson obviously has a bone to pick with all Republicans, but is doing his very best to scare voters away from Cruz.  That may work in some instances, but in others, it may draw people to him that might not otherwise had him as their first choice.  Persons such as myself, for instance.  Anytime someone so diametrically opposed to my belief system is so vehemently opposed to something or someone, it gives that item or person extra credibility in my eyes.  At the least, it will cause me to investigate the situation further for myself, to prove the moron wrong.

Another thought is that Grayson may be looking to get his name back out in front of the public eye, as he runs for the U.S. Senate seat that Marco Rubio is vacating at the end of his term.  I wouldn't think that insulting a Cuban-American would play well in many parts of Florida, but perhaps he is reaching out to those with prejudices against minorities (the very people he claims to despise) as he goes about his campaign.

However, it is also just possible that he's a moronic Troll.

The WWE Draw a Line In the Sand With ISIS

According to the (London) Daily Mail, the online group Anonymous has said ISIS is planning an attack at the WWE event Survivor Series which will be held in Atlanta, Georgia Sunday evening.  The FBI has said that there is no serious or credible threat, but they are taking it seriously nonetheless.  This must be a comfort to the thousands who will attend the event, to say nothing of the athletes who will be performing, given our government's recent track record of predicting exactly what ISIS is capable of doing.  Then again, it is possible that the FBI is attempting to deke ISIS into a fall sense of security, so that they might catch the terrorists in the act.

Bigger news to me is the fact that the WWE is (at the moment, at least) refusing to let the threat of a terrorist attack detract from their event.  While perhaps not as grave, it harkens back to how Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush responded in the hours after al Qaeda's attack on September 11th, 2001.  Cheney refused to go in to hiding, once others in the Presidential succession were secure.  Bush returned to Washington 9 hours after the attacks, against the advice of nearly everyone around him.

To confuse a WWE event with an attack on our nation would be ridiculous, but it's a positive attitude to see.  Terrorists thrive on the fear they spread, the way to combat them is to show that our way of life will not be changed, no matter what.  It shows that as Americans, we are not as weak as our current crop of leaders may lead terrorist leaders to believe.  Rather, the move echoes Bush's comments when he said

I knew these terrorists like al-Qaeda liked to prey on weak government and weak people.

ISIS may be terrorists operating under another name, but the message remains clear (for now):  Americans will go about their lives, whether or not their government leads.  The threat of terror is very real, but to succumb to it is to admit defeat in advance.  Kudos to the WWE, and the government officials who are charged with protecting the citizenry.

The U.S. Continues To Lead From Behind

Friday evening, as I listened to the horrific news that came out of Paris, I waited on the POTUS to come forward and offer a plan as to what would occur.  It never happened.  Mind you, he did come out and state that it was a great tragedy, and it was even a major setback in our battle with ISIS, but not once did he come out and say the words I longed to hear:  we are in a battle with Islamic jihadist terrorists.  These people are looking to destroy our way of life, and of course we will help the people of France in any way that we possibly can to help stop the global terror threat that is spreading around the globe. 

Instead, he went on to say that there was no credible threat to the U.S. from ISIS (despite the fact that ISIS has specifically stated that the U.S. is a top target.)  He also gave the thumbs up to continuing to allow Syrian "refugees" to come to our nation, despite the fact that governors from Florida to Massachusetts, out to Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas and points pretty much everywhere else have specifically stated they will not accept any new refugees from a nation that has such large numbers of terrorist leaning persons until there is a way to properly vett those who are seeking asylum on our shores, something that the FBI and other government agencies have specifically stated is an impossibility.  Not only that, but they can't even keep up with the thousands of people that should be getting observed already, but can't, because there aren't enough resources.

Of course, what else could Obama say, as he is the man who (in) famously called ISIS the JV of terrorist networks, and then admitted months later that he didn't have a plan to forestall their terror regime.  It turns out, he still doesn't, outside of sticking his head in the sand and hoping that someone else comes up with an idea.

Thank goodness the French (the French!!  I'm banking on the French, now!!) have no such qualms about what needs to be done.  They spent their Sunday bombing ISIS centers in the city of Raqqa, with no civilian casualties sustained.  To all those who are against that, or are worried about the consequence of such action, I have only this question:  What else could be done?  ISIS had already stated very plainly that they intend to continue their attacks against France and other Western nations, and as the U.S. is turning a mostly blind eye to the situation, it is a good thing that someone has the cajones to stand up to ISIS.  I just wouldn't have expected the French to be the ones to do it, is all, but perhaps the fact that this is the second major terrorist attack in their nation in recent years has awoke them to the dangerous world we now live.

As a citizen of the United States, I can only hope that our leaders at the highest level take appropriate actions to preserve and protect our Republic, to say nothing of the citizenry.

Rob Lowe, Paris. Paris, Rob Lowe.

So Rob Lowe got himself into a bit of trouble on Twitter yesterday.  I don't think he meant to do that, but perhaps when a future tragedy occurs, he'll learn to simply stay on the sidelines.  As a friend of mine has noted often, celebrities should avoid Twitter and all other forms of social media unless it is expressly for the purpose of promoting a project they are involved with.  Rob Lowe is not involved with European politics, and with his words yesterday, he put himself in the cross hairs of a large portion of the social media world.

I have no more to do with European politics than Rob Lowe does, and my opinions certainly do not carry the weight of his, because being a political-type blogger does not draw in the same amount of Twitter followers as being a Hollywood actor.  It's simply the world we live in, and I have no problem with that.

As an unbiased observer, I happen to think that Lowe is correct, and not just because his words echo my opinion from yesterday.  For those who missed it, I said:

 The time for pretending that there can be a coming together of the minds to solve the divide between the West and Islamic terrorists is gone.  Attacks continue on a daily basis in Israel, yet the press portrays Israel as the bad guys.  A *refugee crisis* was manufactured, much the same way it was in the U.S., which has allowed unknown amounts of terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the European mainland (to say nothing of the U.S. mainland.)  Western nations continue to absorb persons who wish to bring about the demise of the West, and then sit back and wonder where the problems come from.  Here's a hint:  from the people who you continue to allow in to your countries, even as said people state out loud that they want to destroy your country.

That message wouldn't have fit in to a tweet, and that is where Lowe limited himself.  If he had taken to YouTube, or other video formats, he may have been able to get his point across better than when he Tweeted:

Rob Lowe Verified account ‏@RobLowe

Oh, NOW France closes its borders. #Hollande

• Retweets 3,427
• Likes 7,285

5:56 PM - 13 Nov 2015

To his credit, unlike other celebs who make social media gaffes, Lowe has not backed down from his comments, nor has he removed them from his account (at least as of this writing.), which leads me to believe that he was not attempting to be crass or insulting, but rather was calling in to question policies that are harming the people of Paris directly, but greater Europe and the Western world, to boot.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Western *leaders* and the PC police continue to jeopardize the lives of the citizens they are supposed to protect.  While Lowe may have seemed to be insensitive with his remarks, what better time to make the point that has been largely ignored than while there is a tragedy occurring?  It's a page right out of the Liberal (U.S.) handbook, particularly whenever there is a gun tragedy, or a manufactured race crisis - Always use the storyline to push an agenda.  Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

I don't believe that Lowe was attempting to push an agenda, but rather was simply stating what all others who have the brain power to both walk and breathe at the same time:  things are the way they are, because of decisions made by the elected persons in charge.  If citizens want to be safe in their daily lives, they should elect officials that will put forth policies that protect them.  If they want to continue on in this new type of world where terrorists determine who lives and who dies, then there will continue to be consequences.  Hopefully the focus remains more on how best to protect the lives of the peace-loving citizenry, rather than any celebrity's remarks on the tragedy. 

Further, we can hope that this is the last such event that we have to mourn, because our leaders awoke to crisis that has been ongoing for centuries.

The Next Crusade Is Here, Like It or Not

This is a post I had begun writing weeks ago, when I read that the Swedish prime minister, among many others were concerned that Sweden was on the verge of collapse.  The causation of the collapse has less to do with the Swedish people, and the way they live their lives, and more to do with ideological failings of their 'leaders'.

Perhaps it's not simply ideological failings, but rather it is a belief that everyone can be saved, or converted to the *modern* way of living that has led to the problems that are occurring across the globe.  However, as today's attacks in Paris have shown,  there are some differences that cannot be bridged, no matter how many olive branches are extended.  The time has come to acknowledge this.

It is also past time for world leaders, and particularly those who are in positions of authority on the world stage to stand up and state

This is enough.  We draw the line in the sand here, and if you choose to cross it, we will crush you.  We will wipe every single man and woman off the face of the planet who seeks to disrupt and destroy our way of life.  We will not be overthrown, we will not be overcome.  We are who we are, you may accept that, or you may die trying to change it, but that is your choice.

 The time for pretending that there can be a coming together of the minds to solve the divide between the West and Islamic terrorists is gone.  Attacks continue on a daily basis in Israel, yet the press portrays Israel as the bad guys.  A *refugee crisis* was manufactured, much the same way it was in the U.S., which has allowed unknown amounts of terrorists and potential terrorists to enter the European mainland (to say nothing of the U.S. mainland.)  Western nations continue to absorb persons who wish to bring about the demise of the West, and then sit back and wonder where the problems come from.  Here's a hint:  from the people who you continue to allow in to your countries, even as said people state out loud that they want to destroy your country.  You should probably stop doing that if you want to continue on, and not be relegated past, failed civilizations.

The terror attacks in Paris may serve as harbinger for Western leaders, but it may not.  In the moment, France's President Francois Holland has taken a hard line approach, closing all borders to his country, he has imposed a curfew, shut the city down, and put the military in the streets.  Further, the government has the right under the state of emergency declared to control the media, and enter private homes.  This is a tenuous step, because a free people will tolerate such action for only so long, but it is a step that is necessary to help bring the situation under control in the moment.

Unfortunately, merely cleaning up the mess from this latest terrorist attack is not going to solve the problem.  What needs to occur is something that the people of Europe (or the U.S., for that matter) may not be all that interested in doing:  fully repel the Muslim invasion, and if need be, eliminate any who would pose a threat to the Western way of life.  What is needed at this moment is a leader as charismatic as Winston Churchill, with the gumption of George W. Bush.  Failing that, perhaps we could put some money in to resurrecting Charles Martel, who knows a little something about repelling a Muslim invasion.

If not, the future pages of history books will be written by those seeking to overcome us through any and all means.  To preserve the Western way of life, any and all resources must be put in to defending our basic rights.

Fall

the air has chilled
summer once again fading away
there's still hope though,
because none of the leaves
have thought to fall
to the ground
yes, the leaves are now plotting on their own
holding onto the branches as tightly as they can
trying to extend the life they have
clinging to the hope
that it may be true
that summer doesn't have to end
that dreams can come true
and life can be eternal

Israel Shows Great Restraint

Sometimes, when I read things that people have said who hold a diametrically opposed opinion to myself, I wonder why I even bother putting my thoughts out there, because they make my point so much better than I could ever hope to.

Such was the case recently, as I read through some of the commentary of Amman (Jordan) based cleric Abdullah el-Alawneh.  In short, he stated that all Jews are terrible, horrible animals that should die, but he went about it in a funny way.

For instance:

The jihad against the Jews is a mandatory jihad, incumbent upon any Muslim country and upon any Muslim who accepts Allah as the Lord and Islam as his religion, but it cannot be done through such an emotional thrust and with such excitement that only serves to harm us.

As I read that, I was reminded of how often I have been told that Muslims are part of a peaceful religion, who seek only to better themselves and the world around them.  Unless, of course, you happen to be in a part of the world that has Jews.  Then you should murder all of them in the most horrific way possible.  Also anyone who might tacitly or overtly support the Jewish state.  Just to be safe, anyone who has ever talked to a Jewish person should probably be murdered, too.  Also, innocents (non-Jews, non-Muslims, also known as "Infidels") sometimes need to be slaughtered, just because.  Apparently it helps with the recruitment message.  A religion of peace, though.  That's the main point.

Then in response to the question "Sheikh, is it true that (the Jews) do not attack you if you do not attack them?":

I haven’t lived in Palestine but this is what the brothers tell me. Our brothers in Palestine tell us that the Jews do not attack anyone who does not attack them.

So (as has been stated by most right-thinking persons, myself included), Israelis do not attack Palestinians, except as a matter of self-defense.  It's odd to me that I never see this in the *mainstream* press.  Always (or nearly always) they are portrayed as the aggressors, looking to wipe out the peace-loving, simple people that they allegedly *oppress*.  Very peculiar indeed.

 Abdullah el-Alawneh went further, stating:

Nobody should think that by saying this I am defending the accursed Jews. But this is the reality. If they killed any Muslim they saw, nobody would be left in Palestine. All the people would leave Palestine. They would flee to other countries. But all the people there stay put — in the 1967 territories, the 1948 territories, and Jerusalem. They remain there, with the Jews around them with their weapons. (emphasis added.)

So el-Alawneh, while not attempting to defend Israelis, does exactly that.  He admits that if the so chose, they could clear the area of all Palestinians, and likely do so with very little loss of life.  Yet, the Palestinians remain where they were, through the graciousness of the Jewish people (It is so very important to point out that in the history of the world, there has never been a Palestinian state.  Ever, at any point.  People who self-identify as such most often were parts of other nations that declared {and lost} wars with Israel, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Syria.  It is also important to note that "Palestinians" were not part of the vernacular until 1964, when the Russians created the modern use of the term during the drafting of the PLO charter.)

el-Alawneh would continue:

You see (the Palestinians) killing (the Jews), who only kill (Palestinians) when attacked, but like I said before (the Jews) only do this out of wickedness and heresy. They have principles. They want to be able to say: ‘We are better than the Muslims, who kill us unprovoked. We don’t do that'.

"They have principles".  Principles like respecting human life, defending their people, not attacking their enemies in an unprovoked manner.  Such terrible manners, these Israelis have.  It would apparently be much better if only they would engage in open, unprovoked hostilities.  Then the Muslims would be able to take the moral high ground for the first time and 'defend' themselves.  In defense of those that would seek to destroy Israel, it has been 15 whole days (as of this writing) since there has been a rocket attack against their State. Of course, that does not mean that terrorist attacks have not occurred, as they have, on a near-daily basis.  Yet Israel continues to allow Palestinians to exist, and live within the Jewish state.  Because they have *principles*.

If only the Palestinians could develop such *principles*, we may not have any problems to discuss.  What a day that would be.