OBAMA AND KERRY-HEINZ, WILLFUL BLINDNESS OR PROVIDING AID AND COMFORT…

Is it just me or do we never, no matter what the topic of discussion, seem to get the straight story from this very pathetic group of scumbags who have now occupied the White House since that very fateful day back in January 2009?  Now, of late, there seems to be more than a little confusion regarding whether or not our country, and the world, is becoming a safer or a more violent place.  Now just between you and me, that would seem to be a relatively easy thing to figure out.  I mean, either the world is becoming safer, or it’s not!  Or the world is becoming more violent, or it’s not!  It certainly can’t be doing both at the same time!  So it would seem to be pretty cut and dried.

Now as you may recall, it was just last summer that we heard Barry make the claim that the world is "less violent" than ever before.  Barry said, "The truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have, if you had to be — if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you’d choose this time."  He then went on to say, "The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been."

And it was earlier this month that Barry was asked if the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to longer-term problems like climate change and epidemic disease.  Barry responded, “Absolutely!”  He said, “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that, the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive.”

And then just this week that we heard our esteemed secretary of state, John Kerry-Heinz, make the rather idiotic claim that despite the Islamic State terror group, Americans are actually living in an era of less threats than ever before. Acknowledging that the idea is “counterintuitive,” Kerry-Heinz insisted “it’s true.”  He said, “Our citizens, our world today is actually, despite ISIL, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to Americans and to people in the world than normally.”  And he then added, “Less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century.”

Kerry-Heinz went on to say, “And so even the concept of state war has changed in many people’s minds, and we’re seeing now more asymmetrical kinds of struggles.” Oddly enough, Kerry-Heinz’s imbecilic comments came on the very same day that three individuals were arrested in New York City for allegedly plotting to support what we’re told is the ‘non-Islamic’, Islamic State.  But then, also this week, we had the top U.S. intelligence official effectively saying, not so fast.  Because what he did was to provide a considerably different assessment of the terror threat than that posed by both Kerry-Heinz and Barry, declaring 2014 to be the deadliest year for global terrorism ever recorded. 

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in testifying on Capitol Hill, catalogued the growing terror-fueled violence in what can be called the starkest of terms.  Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled."  He offered statistics that very clearly contradicted all of those claims that the country and world are safer today.  Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that Kerry-Heinz is "out of touch with reality, he clearly is not listening to the entire U.S. intelligence community."

Clapper said that in 2013, about 11,500 worldwide attacks killed about 22,000 people. But in the first nine months alone of 2014, he said, preliminary data from a University of Maryland research unit show nearly 13,000 attacks killed 31,000 people.   Half of those attacks and fatalities were in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, he said.  He said the Islamic State conducted more attacks than any other terror group in those first nine months.  But look, do we really need a guy like Clapper pointing out that what Kerry-Heinz, and Barry, said was anything other than pure unadulterated drivel?  We’ve all seen the beheadings, heard about the kidnapping of Christians and seen the burning alive of a hostages.

Meanwhile when asked, on Thursday, about what seemed to be the rather obvious discrepancy in the two officials' remarks, White House Spokesmoron, Josh Earnest, said that he thought that what Kerry-Heinz might have been referring to was the success in pressuring ISIS leadership.  He said, "Pressure has been applied and has reduced the ability of ISIL to expand its reign of terror." he said.  Earnest said that doesn't mean the threat has been eliminated.  Gee, ya think?  What Clapper’s testimony does is to make it very plain that what both Barry and Kerry-Heinz are attempting to do here is to tell the same lie over and over hoping enough people will come to believe it. 

The Clapper testimony came as Congress focused attention on what's being done, or not done, to defeat the Islamic State, at all levels of government, as more cases surface of westerners trying to link up with the terror network, including a disturbing case out of New York City.  Clapper testified that about 180 Americans have been involved in various stages of traveling or trying to travel to fight in the region.  He said more than 3,400 total western fighters have gone to Syria and Iraq.  He spoke after the Justice Department announced Wednesday that three New York City residents plotted to travel to Syria to join ISIS militants and "wage jihad."

So when all is said and done what are we supposed to make of any of this?  In this age of 24/7 news coverage we are able to witness the atrocities that continue to be committed in the name of what is routinely referred to as a “religion of peace.”  And yet, we still hear statements, scary statements really, being made by both our president and our secretary of state that would seem to indicate that they are either living in some sort of perverse, alternative universe, or they fully recognize what is taking place at the hands of these ‘Islamic terrorists”, and for some reason, be it political correctness or something else, simply choose to lie about it.

As a side note here, while I have spent most of my time here talking about Barry “Almighty” and John Kerry-Heinz, let us not forget the role that Hitlery Clinton has played in downplaying the terror threat that so many of us see as being so very real.  Remember how just a few months ago, in a speech at Georgetown University how it was that Hitlery made the case for empathizing with America's enemies. What she said then was: "This is what we call smart power.  Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."

STENY HOYER AND THE TELLING OF MORE LIES…

Ordinarily I would have included this post as yet another chapter in my continuing saga, ‘The Gasbag Chronicles, starring Steny Hoyer”.  But on this occasion I chose to simply bring up another example of the sheer idiocy of the man from the People’s Republic of Maryland.  Because, you see, it’s according to Steny, who made his point from the House floor, that if Congress does not pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill by the end of the week, it would shut down the department, but that 200,000 of the department’s 230,000 employees would still go to work.  So I don’t see how that can be termed a “shut down.”

“The Department of Homeland Security will not be funded,” said Hoyer. “There are 230,000 people who work at that Department, and 30,000 of them, mostly administrative personnel, will be laid off. The others, known as critically important important—essential employees who are on the front line—will work, but they won’t get paid.”  I’m sorry, but these days I have very little sympathy for over-paid and underworked government employees.  And if it were to go as the last supposed “shut down” did, all of these poor government workers will probably make out pretty well getting any back pay owed, plus some!

Also it has been over the course of the last few weeks, but especially just the last few days, that we have been subjected to all manner of scare tactics regarding how it is that we would be exposing ourselves if we were to permit the shutting down of the Department of Homeland Security.  And it was in that vein that Steny said, “We can lament what others have done to undermine our national security, and share—I think in a bipartisan way—the conclusion that we ought not to further those enterprises, but as I said, Mr. Speaker, by our own hand we are about to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

But it’s by Steny’s own admission that the agency will not actually be shut down.  And if Steny and his fellow Democrats find themselves so concerned about those folks who will be going without a paycheck, then there’s a very simple solution.  Support the legislation that has already been passed in the House.  Why is it that the Republicans are always to be the ones forced to capitulate and the Democrats are ‘always’ the ones to get their way?  Up to this point Boehner is holding firm when it comes to his position that the Senate needs to do its job.  But with each passing day I expect to hear how he too has chosen to surrender.

You’ll have to excuse me, but when the only thing that I have to go on is what I’ve seen come from Boehner, at least in the way of showing any amount of political courage, it frightens me no end that at this particular moment in time that he is now the only person standing between ‘We the People’ and an out of control president who, together with his blatantly corrupt party, seem very determined to destroy our country.  I say a little prayer every single night that Boehner will do the right thing and 00not wilt under the pressure that will surely come his way if he does, in fact, continue to stand with the people.  I’m holding my breath.

ANOTHER DISAPPOINTMENT ON WHAT HAS BECOME A LONG LIST OF MANY…

I must confess that in looking back at how I felt right after the 2014 election, about how confident I felt about Republicans taking control of the Senate, I’m now feeling more than just a little embarrassed.  Call me naive, but the next day I actually felt certain that with Republicans coming into complete control of Congress, Barry’s agenda to destroy America would soon be derailed.  But once again I’ve been proven wrong.  Because, it would seem, that while our numbers may have increased, and rather dramatically, the collective size of our gonads has not.  And thus there can be expected to take place very little change in the direction our country.  The most recent example of this comes to us in the form of yet another surrender by our congressional leaders, this rather odd assortment of spineless eunuchs. 

Because, you see, with the Homeland Security Department having arrived on the verge of set shutting down come this coming Saturday, our esteemed Senate Majority Leader, the very hapless Mitch McConnell, just yesterday, caved completely on his previous threat to put a stop to Barry’s patently illegal move on immigration, and instead chose to hand to the Senate Democrats virtually everything they wanted.  And then the Democrats proceeded to ask for even more.  McConnell told reporters that after two months of begging, he would finally agree to give Democrats a clean vote to fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year. The funding, based on an agreement between Democrat and Republican appropriators last year, would come with no strings attached.  I don’t know why we should be surprised.

And it was in sounding so very proud of himself that, just yesterday, when talking to the press, McConnell said, "I've indicated to the Democratic leader that I'd be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a clean DHS bill which would carry us through till September 30th."  And so it was then that the Republicans offered earlier today to permit a Senate vote on Homeland Security funding without the immigration provisions strongly opposed by Barry “Almighty” and his fellow Democrats.  And in sounding as if he was talking about some grand accomplishment McConnell said, "We could have that vote very quickly," just days before a threatened partial shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security.  I can only think that he’s under the impression that none of are paying attention.

McConnell also said that he didn’t know how the Republican-controlled House would respond if a stand-alone spending bill passed and that the next step was up to the House.  But let’s face it, knowing our spineless Speaker of the House, as I’m sure we all do, I think we all know with some degree of certainty how that ‘battle’ is likely to turn out.  And then we heard from Senate Democrat leader ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid who said that he wouldn't agree to any proposal unless it had the backing of the Speaker.  And with many House Republicans just now returning to Washington after a weeklong vacation, it was Boehner's office, in what already appears to be an attempt to somehow try to have it both ways, issued a statement that neither accepted nor rejected the proposal that McConnell outlined after weeks of gridlock.

Conservatives, especially in the Republican-controlled House, are sure to oppose such a move as this cave-in to Barry. The House has already passed a budget that blocks DHS from complying with Barry's November order to issue work permits and visas to several million immigrants here illegally.  Critics of the sweeping amnesty measure have called it an unconstitutional abuse of executive authority that Barry himself had previously said, over 20 times, he lacked, and an incentive for more migrants to cross into the United States illegally and drive down American workers' wages in the process.  Michael Steel, a spokesmoron for Boehner, said, "The speaker has been clear: The House has acted, and now Senate Democrats need to stop hiding. Will they continue to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security or not?" 

But, let’s face it, we’ve heard all manner of tough talk from Boehner before, and it rarely amounts to anything more than just talk.  I have little doubt that Boehner will very quickly wilt under what is sure to be the coming pressure, and cave on this very important issue just as quickly as McConnell caved. Neither of these men possess the necessary courage or, for the matter, skills to actually lead.  They enjoy their titles as well as all of the associated perks that go with them, but neither are, in the very least, up to the crucial tasks at hand. The current stand-off dates to last fall, when Boehner told fellow Republicans they should allow the funding of Homeland Security without conditions until after the elections. By then, he said, Republicans would have more leverage to force a rollback in the president's immigration policy.

Republicans won control of the Senate in the last election, but still lack the 60 votes needed to overcome Democrat blocking actions.  As a result, they have been unable to force a vote on House-passed DHS funding legislation that includes the repeal of the immigration policies Barry put into effect in 2012 and last fall.  Among some Republicans, there was a recognition that McConnell was offering as graceful a way out as possible.  One those being RINO Lindsey Graham, who said, "I just don't know how we do it any other way."  Fellow RINO, Susan Collins said, "I've always thought the judicial system was an alternative way to deal with the president’s overreach last November, and now that one court has ruled to put a stay on his executive order, perhaps that frees us to go forward and get the department fully funded.”

With DHS funding set to run out on Friday, a Communist News Network (CNN) poll, not exactly the most reliable source, showed that most Americans would blame Republicans for the agency shutting down, several Republicans are rethinking the use of DHS funding to block amnesty.  Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican said, “I don’t think shutdowns and showdowns are the way to win the presidency in 2016.”  But some conservatives have questioned whether Republicans being blamed for a DHS shutdown would hurt them in 2016, noting the GOP trounced Democrats in the November midterm election despite a much larger government shutdown the year before.  Paul Gosar, an Arizona Republican said, "Hey listen, the government was slowed down … in 2013, and who lost? The president and the Democratic Party.”

At the end of the day with McConnell now having essentially thrown in the towel, the only question that remains is whether Speaker Boehner will follow suit, and how quickly. Boehner has previously said that House members did their part with a DHS funding bill that blocks amnesty, and that it's Senate Democrats who are holding up the government.  But it’s now being reported that ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid is actually spurning McConnell's offer of a clean DHS funding vote for now because Reid’s betting that Boehner will surrender first.  And if history shows us anything, it’s that that is probably a pretty safe bet.  Ya know, just once I wish our guys would play the game the same way that the Democrats do.  But nope, instead we’ve saddled ourselves with some real loser.  So I guess it’s our own fault. 

ALL WE GET IS SCARE TACTICS AND REALLY NOT MUCH ELSE…

Is it just me or is it every time that these creeps over at the White House get themselves in some kind of jam, we almost immediately start hearing about how bad things are going to get if they don’t get the money, and every single bit of what they’re demanding, that they claim to so desperately need?  And it was just yesterday, as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh (Jay) Johnson made what was essentially the rounds to all the Sunday talk shows, we again heard demands that Republicans fund the Department of Homeland Security and without blocking money for Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty plan.

But of course Jeh (Jay) went out of his way to make sure to preface his you-better-fund-my-department pitch by warning that an al Qaeda-linked terror group, Al-Shabaab, is publicly calling for attacks on shopping malls in the United States, specifically the Mall of America in Minneapolis.  And it was during his appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he went so far as to tell host Gloria Borger, "I would say that, if anyone is planning to go to the Mall of America today, they have got to be particularly careful. And, as the statement you read indicates, there will be enhanced security there that will be apparent to people who are there."

But it was on at least two of the Sunday morning shows that Johnson steered the hosts to the topic he wanted to talk about most, the fact that Republicans are attempting to use a DHS funding bill to block Barry “Almighty's” illegal immigration policy, which goes well beyond the scope of current law.  After talking about the threatening al-Shabaab video on CNN, Johnson said that "public vigilance, public awareness and public caution in situations like this is particularly important. And it's the environment we're in, frankly.  And it's all the more reason why I need a budget. And I'm assuming you're going to ask me about that."

"I will," host Gloria Borger replied. "I am going to ask about that because, of course, this comes down at a time when Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down your department in a week over a fight on immigration."  Now of course the truth of the matter is that, in fact, Republicans say they do not want to shut down DHS.  What they want to do is to fund the Department of Homeland Security, except for Barry “Almighty's” plan to give work authorization and Social Security numbers to millions of immigrant who are living in the United States illegally.  In other words they are wanting to do one of those things they were actually elected to do.

The same thing happened later on ABC's "This Week" with George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos, whose first three questions to Jeh (Jay) involved national security, not DHS funding, Jeh (Jay) told Stephanopoulos, "The reason I think we're all concerned about this is because it encourages independent actors who could strike with very little notice to our intelligence community, our law enforcement community here at home. And so that's one of the reasons, frankly, why it's imperative that we have a budget for the Department of Homeland security, which is due to expire at the end of the week. And I'm assuming you'll ask me about that at some point."  Of course!

And according to CNN, DHS officials began "walking back" Johnson's warning after he appeared on the Sunday shows.  A spokesman for DHS told CNN the agency "is not aware of any specific credible plot against the Mall of America or any other domestic commercial shopping center."  CNN quoted DHS Assistant Secretary Tanya Bradsher as saying, "Secretary Johnson didn't say that they should not go to the mall, he told shoppers to be extra vigilant and that security was increased."  But Jeh (Jay) later told CNN he does not regret any of the comments he made on the Sunday shows.  Of course not, because what he said was said with a purpose.

I think we’re all aware that the threat of lone-wolf attacks here in the United States is nothing new, nor is it a surprise that shopping malls might be a target.  And as Johnson amplified the video message from al-Shabaab Sunday morning, he said he was doing it because "there needs to be vigilance and, you know, just be careful, obviously. It is a new phase. We're in a new phase right now. And that involves public participation in our efforts."  And why might it be that we now find ourselves in what Jeh refers to as a “new phase.”  Might it be that because of political correctness Barry and his team have done nothing to prevent that from taking place.

Everywhere that Jeh went he was sure to work very hard in his effort to perpetuate the cockamamie notion that the ‘Islamic State’ is not, Islamic.  He went so far as to say that to refer to this violent group as being Islamic is to actually bestow upon it a level of dignity that it does not rightfully deserve.  I just don’t understand how it is that anyone can look at this group that calls itself the ‘Islamic State’ and claim that it does not have at its roots the Islamic ‘faith’.  Barry’s outright refusal to call this group what it is, makes very clear why, for most people, he simply cannot be trusted to do all that he can when it comes to keeping this country safe from another 9-11.       

I AGREE WITH RUDY!!!

As you may have heard, Rudy Giuliani has recently been accused of going too far in his saying that Barry “Almighty” does not love this country.  But did he really?  I just don’t think so.  Because if you look back over the course of the last 6 years, from just prior to the 2008 election when Barry declared that we were then just days away from “fundamentally transforming” this country, to today when we see time again how it is that Barry refuses to put a name to the most serious threat this nation has faced since the Nazis, who can say that Rudy doesn’t have a very valid point?

And the uproar now coming from the left really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since many of those very same people now so desperate to profess varying levels of faux outrage at the comments made by Rudy, also possess a rather low opinion of America.  It has always been pretty much common knowledge that the vast majority of those on the left hold nothing but a feeling of disdain for this country and all that it has come to represent in the world.  And as Rudy so rightly pointed out, does one wish to “fundamentally transform” something that one supposedly truly loves?

After having watched this man since he first strutted his cool-self into the Oval Office it has become painfully obvious, at least to me, how it was that he hated the country then, just as he hates it to this very day.  He has apologized for it, he has blamed it for committing all manner of atrocities that it never committed, and he has made it very clear that he sees this country as having done far more evil in the world than good.  It is specifically because of Barry that our friends no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us, and in order for us to be respected, we must be feared!

But, Barry sees America as being neither worthy of, or deserving of, any level of respect.  His view of America is one that has it being no better than any other country in the world and as a country that has been far too willing to insert itself into the inner workings of other countries.  He has no interest in doing anything to protect the American people especially if it comes at the risk of offending those from whom it is that we need protecting.  He seeks to weaken America on nearly every front at a time when America needs to be at her very strongest.  Yes, Barry hates America! 

OBAMA…THE CONSUMMATE ISLAM APOLOGIST…

So once again we’re hearing from Barry “Almighty” how it is the media that’s to be blamed for up offering what he calls a very “distorted impression” of Islam.  It was earlier this week in a speech that was part of the White House, ‘make it look like we’re doing something about terrorism,’ Summit to Counter Violent Extremism that Barry said, “In some of our countries, including the United States, Muslim communities are still small and relative to the entire population, and as a result, many people in our countries don’t always know personally somebody who is Muslim. So the image they get of Muslims or Islam is in the news, and given the existing news cycle, that can give a very distorted impression.”  Oh really?  He can’t be talking about the news that we hear from the major networks, or from the likes of CNN or MSNBC.  Therefore he can only be talking about Fox News.

Barry referred to it as “a painful truth that’s part of the challenge that brings us here today.”  He said, “A lot of the bad, like terrorists who claim to speak for Islam, that’s absorbed by the general population,” he said, adding that there’s “not enough of the good.”  Barry then went on to say, “The world hears a lot about the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris, but the world has to also remember the Paris police officer – a Muslim, who died trying to stop them.”  He said, “The world knows about the attack on the Jews at the kosher supermarket in Paris. We need to recall the worker at that market – a Muslim, who hid Jewish customers and saved their lives – and when he was asked why he did it, he said, ‘We are brothers. It’s not a question of Jews or Christians or Muslims. We’re all in the same boat, and we have to help each other to get out of this crisis’”

Barry said, “When people spew hatred towards others because of their faith or because they are immigrants, it feeds into terrorist narratives. If entire communities feel they can never become a full part of the society in which they reside, it feeds a cycle of fear and resentment and a sense of injustice upon which extremists prey.”  But apparently that would be pretty much of a one way street, since it would seem perfectly acceptable to spew hate toward Christians. And how many coming to our country today, including Muslims, have any interest in becoming a part of our society.  As in days gone by when immigrants who came to our country came here with a desire to become ‘an American,’ most today come here with no such desire.  They come here with the hope of attaining for themselves a free ride.  Or, they come here hoping to use our open society against us and to take advantage of our good nature

Barry said, “Terrorists prey upon young impressionable minds, so let’s bring our youth together to promote understanding and cooperation, and that’s what the United States will do with our virtual exchange program named after Ambassador Chris Stevens to connect 1 million young people from America and the Middle East and North Africa for dialogue.”  And you can tell that Barry was very much at ease in front of this crowd of fellow Muslim sympathizers.  Why else would he have felt comfortable enough to bring up the name of the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Stevens, the very man who he allowed to be butchered, along with three other Americans, by Muslim terrorists at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012.  After all, who among this crowd would have seen fit to criticize Barry’s decision to allow these men to be murdered during an attack by Muslims?

And demonstrating that he is either living in some twisted form of denial, or very determined to defend those who are members of this murderous cult, Barry said, “All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative. At the same time, we must acknowledge that groups like al Qaeda and ISIL are deliberately targeting their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth.”  He then went on to say, “The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie, and all of us regardless of our faith have a responsibility to reject it.”  In order for there to be a war there needs to be at least two combatants.  So what we have here does not fit the definition, because while Islam is at war on the West, despite a growing numbers of attacks, the West is yet to be at war with Islam. 

Ok, so once again Barry tells us that it’s not the fault of Muslims that so many of us now have a less than favorable opinion of those who practice this supposed “religion of peace.”  That the fact that the Middle East is now essentially engulfed in flames has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he remains content to sit idly by while those with whom he seems to sympathize slaughters a growing number of innocents in some of the most gruesome and heinous ways.  He says it’s all the media’s fault.  But as I asked earlier, who is it in the media that Barry blames.  Because if you listen to any of the network news shows they’re just as busy defending Muslim atrocities as Barry himself.  Might he be talking about CNN, MSNBC, or The New York Times.  He can’t be, because they too seem to be sworn defenders of those practitioners of the ‘so-called’ “religion of peace”.  So, as I said, that leaves only one possible culprit.  

JONH KERRY-HEINZ, SIMPLY PUT, HAS BEEN A DISASTER…

Frankly, I’m just not sure how much more in the way of proof anyone might need before finally being able to come to the conclusion that John Kerry-Heinz is, without a doubt, the most inept, incompetent, and impotent secretary of state this nation has ever had.  Worse even than Hitlery Clinton, Madeleine ‘Not-So-Bright, Cyrus Vance or Warren Christopher.  And it’s when compared to Kerry-Heinz that even Neville Chamberlain can be made to look like an absolute foreign policy genius.  And since assuming his current position, he has picked up where Hitlery Clinton left off in furthering leftist effort to reduce this country to the point of being irrelevant.

So what, you may ask, has gotten me to the point where I would make such a declaration regarding our esteemed Mr. Kerry-Heinz?  Well, maybe it’s the fact that according to Kerry-Heinz the foreign recruits who are joining the ranks of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are not doing so because of their religious fervor but instead because they are gullible enough to believe that the cause embarked upon is glamorous and successful.  Sorry John, but the only gullible one in this discussion is….YOU!  Sadly, however, for the man who heads up the foreign policy of this country to say such a thing makes it quite clear that he is far more than simply gullible.

So it was then that while attending the recent White House ‘summit’, the subject of which was the countering of what it calls “violent extremism”, Mr. Kerry- Heinz was heard to say, “Let’s be honest: Those recruiting for Da’esh (how the French refer to ISIS) are not looking for people who are devout and knowledgeable about the tenets of Islam.”  He went on to say, “They’re looking for people who are gullible enough to believe that terrorists enjoy a glamorous lifestyle, and pliable enough to do whatever they are told, and who are attracted by the perception of success.”  If it were truly that simple, then perhaps having Kerry-Heinz in his job might not be so dangerous.

Kerry-Heinz cited as being his example the reported case of two British men who went to join ISIS last year.  He made the claim that before leaving both bought the books Islam for Dummies and The Koran for Dummies.  Kerry-Heinz said while ISIS’ leaders were evil, they were not stupid.  Now I dare say that it has become very obvious after having watched how it is that John Kerry-Heinz has performed over the years, that if there is one thing that he knows more than a thing or two about, it’s being stupid.  Because it’s been on more than one occasion that he has proven himself to be one of those rare individuals capable of raising stupidity to somewhat of an art form.

Kerry-Heinz said, “That’s why the vast majority of suicide bombers and the frontline fighters are foreign recruits. You won’t find the bosses on the front lines.”  And then he added, “They give the orders so they can let other people, particularly gullible people who joined from abroad and think they’re fulfilling some higher mission – they let them pay the price.”  Apparently some of the same comments he made on Wednesday were lifted from an earlier speech he gave at the Transformational Trends Forum in Washington last November, except it was on that occasion that he used the administration’s earlier favored term for the terrorist group, ISIL, rather than Da’esh.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Kerry-Heinz described ISIS’ agenda as “a tyranny that seeks to impose a seventh century world view on a 21st century world.”  Later on Wednesday, at a reception for summit participants, Kerry-Heinz said the terrorists’ aim was “to drive us apart, to divide us and scare us, to frighten us away from values that have guided us for centuries.”  All very fine words, but really not much more than that.  Kerry-Heinz, like his pathetic boss, can’t even bring himself to call these murdering animals what they are or properly discuss the danger they represent not only to this nation but to the world.  And until they can, not much will change.  

He said, “We’re not about to let a bunch of thugs, and basic criminals and murderers stand in our way.”  He went on to say, “The hope that we have for our children is not to strap a suicide vest on them, but to enable them to live and to love and to start families, build careers, pursue their dreams in safety, and give back to their communities in their countries.”  Kerry-Heinz spoke of a vision of “a world where people can go to a mosque, go to a church, go to a temple, go to a synagogue, without fear – without the fear of simply being blown up, without the fear of any discrimination.”  And yet he has done precious little to make that a reality.

My earlier comparison to Chamberlain was no mistake.  Because it’s upon closer inspection that we see that the similarities between the forces of evil that have existed during both men’s times is rather striking, as is each man’s view of how best to deal with those same forces of evil.  Appeasement was seen then, just as it is today, as being the tactic of choice.  But it had no effect on preventing WW II just as it has little chance of curbing the rabid Islamists of today.  History shows us what it is that we must do in responding to the Islamist plague of today, but only if we choose to pay attention.  There is but one way to respond, exterminate the evil.

OBAMA’S “FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION” CONTINUES…

Barry’s “fundamental transformation” of America marches on, unabated, creating an American that is, for all intents and purposes, becoming completely unrecognizable.  The drive to create a dependency based society has met with a great level of success over the course of the last 6+ years.  Gone now are the days where we raised our young to be self-sufficient, productive members of society.  Many of our younger generation, today, seem to have no qualms about living off mommy and daddy well into their 30s.  And many mommies and daddies seem ok with it as well, although I quite sure many feel that they simply have no choice in Barry’s America.  And according to data from the Census Bureau it’s now fully one third, or 30.3 percent, of 18 to 34 year-olds who are living with a parent.

This new data comes to us from a Census release called “Young Adults: Then and Now,” which “illustrates characteristics of the young adult population (age 18-34) across the decades using data from the 1980, 1990 and 2000 Censuses and the 2009-2013 American Community Survey.  In 1980, according to the Census, 22.9 percent of the total population ages 18 to 34 were living with a parent who was deemed to be the householder.  By 1990, the percentage living with their parents had increased to 24.2 percent.  And in 2000, the percentage dipped a bit to 23.2 percent, and then in 2009-2013 it reached the highest level ever recorded in the dataset to 30.3 percent.  Like so many other ‘new highs’ that have been reached under this president, we see how it is that Barry has managed to ‘change’ the country, and not for the better.   

Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, attempted to put the data in context as a way of finding out why this is occurring.  “Millennials are taking a big hit in this economy,” said de Rugy. “Recessions are always rough on younger people, but this one has been particularly rough. The recovery has been so slow, and it’s also been kind of slow on the labor market side of things.”  She said, “For instance, the recession hit when some millennials were just getting out of college and so they went straight into the unemployment line. And then when they were lucky enough to get a job, usually there was a lot of underemployment going on, meaning not necessarily full-time and part-time jobs but also at lower salary than they would otherwise.”

She added, “The other thing that’s been really rough for them is the fact that during the recession and the slow recovery, the number of older workers that actually quit their jobs to get a better position, was down quite significantly, and unfortunately, I mean this is a bad thing, because this is one of the ways that first you measure the health of the labor market, but also this is one of the ways that younger workers go up the job ladder.”  She went on to say, “And when you actually have few options because people are worried and won’t quit their jobs for better opportunities either because they’re risk averse or because those opportunities do not exist, it means that you are stuck at lower positions without being given the opportunity to go out. So it’s a problem.”

She said, “The other major problem that we’re gonna see in the next - you know playing out for the next 40 years is the fact that the biggest increase in your expected income, future income, comes the first 10 years of your career.”  And then she went on to say, “So if you start slow, it means you’re basically losing out a lot in the long run. So it’s been rough.”  And I would argue that young people today what put themselves in this position.  By choosing to vote for Barry in rather substantial numbers make their present predicament essentially self-inflicted.  And if recent polls are anywhere near accurate a good many of them would have no problem, whatsoever, in voting for Hitlery Clinton.  Which tells me that they are bothered very little by their current living conditions.  

MORE HYPOCRISY FROM THE LEFT…

If there is one thing that we know for certain when it comes to those on the left, it’s usually only by accident that we find out how it is that they may feel about any particular issue.  You see, they are always quite careful in the guarding of their secrets, fore if their true feelings were to ever become common knowledge they would very quickly be revealed for the frauds that they truly are and have always been.  Because while they may profess to be the guardians of the down trodden and the guarantor of fairness for all, every once and a while they lower their guard, letting it slip what they’re really up to.  We must be watchful for such occasions.

Which brings me to former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has been quite desperate of late trying to block dissemination of certain comments that he made about gun violence and minorities during a Feb. 5 Aspen Institute appearance.  Comments that have been characterized by some as being rather "race-oriented" and that if uttered by anyone on the right would have very quickly drawn the wrath of the usual suspects such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or perhaps even Barry ‘Almighty’.  As it is, some conservative pro-gun groups have labeled Bloomberg's comments as "racist" and challenged his assertion that most murders involved minorities.

What has attracted all of the unwanted attention is the fact that Bloomberg apparently told an audience of around 400 in Aspen, that stopping minority-on-minority gun violence was essential to save lives and reduce crime.  While going so far to predict that his remarks would be interpreted as "controversial," Bloomberg went on to say that "95 percent" of murderers and murder victims were minorities.  He then said, "They are male, minorities, 15 to 25. That's true in New York, it's true in virtually every city in America.”  As is usually the case with those of his particular political persuasion, numbers are only something to be manipulated.

The billionaire former mayor is spending millions of dollars campaigning for tighter gun control laws at the state level partly through his ‘Everytown for America’ group.  He said, "You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people getting killed."  He added, "First thing you can do to help that group is to keep them alive."  He said minority youngsters "think they're getting killed anyways because all of their friends are getting killed. So they just don't have any long-term focus or anything. It's a joke to have a gun, it's a joke to pull the trigger."  Now I’m no highly educated billionaire, but it would seem he’s coming at this issue from somewhat of the wrong direction.

He tied the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy under his administration to a determination to save minority lives.  He said, "So one of the unintended consequences is, people say 'Oh, my God you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.'"  And he added, "Yes, that's true. Why?  Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes that's true, why do we do it?  Because that's where all the crime is.  And the first thing you can do for people is to stop them getting killed."  Most murderers and their victims in New York City were either black or of Hispanic heritage, according to 2013 NYPD data.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that after Bloomberg chose to make very plain how it is that he feels about such thing as gun and minorities, that he would then ask the Aspen Institute not to make footage of his remarks available for general consumption.  That’s how those on the left operate.  And it should also come as no surprise that the institute and the organization that filmed the appearance agreed to honor his request.  Jim Spiegelman, a spokesman for the institute, said "He did not give a reason nor did we have any reason to ask for one. We often feature speakers who prefer that their presentations not be videotaped."

If we can be as honest as was Mr. Bloomberg in his recent moment of candor, there was really very little in what he said that wasn’t true.  Now I while am far from certain when it comes to the accuracy of the numbers which he quoted, that most of the total murders in this country involve minorities, there is little doubt that most murders which occur in the black community do come at the hand of other blacks.  But even he can’t be foolish enough to think that limiting access to guns by law abiding citizens, of any color, will do much to accomplish his stated goal.  In reality such comments are nothing but a ploy in his attempt to accomplish something much bigger.

DEMOCRAT THINKS WE NEED TO MAKE IT ‘EASIER’ TO VOTE…

It never ceases to amaze me how eager Democrats appear to be in their continuing effort to subvert the one right that is so important to the survival of our nation, that being, of course, our right to vote.  They constantly claim how it is that those of us on the right are working to disenfranchise certain segments of our population.  But we do no such thing, all we ask is that a person prove who it is that they say they are when showing up to cast your vote.  How is that disenfranchising anyone?  Democrats, on the other hand, couldn’t care less who you are when showing up to, or even about how many times you have cast your vote.  What’s most important to them is that every time you did show up you cast your vote for a Democrat.  Their desire to reduce the importance of voting, to trivialize the entire process of voting.

Which brings me to Keith Ellison, Muslim sympathizer and moron extraordinaire.  You see, it was earlier this month while speaking at something called the U.S. Vote Foundation's Voting and Elections Summit that this flaming imbecile said "We need to make voting easier," and "I've often asked myself why you should have to register to vote."   In his remarks in the opening keynote address, Ellison said, "Now I also think we need to make voting easier. It should be easier. In other countries it's easier. Why should voting be so difficult? Tuesday? Who thought that up? I mean the fact is, is that there's wide variation in when people can vote. You can't necessarily register to vote on Election Day. I've often asked myself why you should have to register to vote. Why shouldn't it be automatic."  Seriously?  How stupid is that?

As is the case with most Democrats, especially with ones such as our esteemed Mr. Ellison, one who so very obviously emerged from what can only be one of the very shallowest of gene pools imaginable, there is a willful ignorance when it comes to the history that surrounds why it is that we vote when we do.  So since Mr. Ellison seems not to possess the necessary motivation required to seek out the answer to his own question, it was in my attempt to assist Mr. Ellison, while also wanting to refresh my own memory, that I went in search of finding out why Congress, in 1845, selected the first Tuesday in November as Election Day.  And I found what was a pretty terrific response to his question at, of all places, the web site of the Federal Election Commission.

Here's how they explain it:

". . . For much of our history, America was a predominantly agrarian society. Law makers therefore took into account that November was perhaps the most convenient month for farmers and rural workers to be able to travel to the polls. The fall harvest was over, (remember that spring was planting time and summer was taken up with working the fields and tending the crops) but in the majority of the nation the weather was still mild enough to permit travel over unimproved roads.

Why Tuesday? Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with Church services and Sunday worship.

Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday? Lawmakers wanted to prevent election day from falling on the first of November for two reasons. First, November 1st is All Saints Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Second, most merchants were in the habit of doing their books from the preceding month on the 1st. Apparently, Congress was worried that the economic success or failure of the previous month might prove an undue influence on the vote!"  So there you go Mr. Ellison.

It was also in his address that Ellison called for "greater enfranchisement" of voters in the US.  He said, "We have to protect voting rights. We need to make voting easy as possible, and we need to fix our broken campaign finance laws."  But I would argue that we have already carried the notion of ‘greater enfranchisement’ to such an extreme as to have resulted in making a mockery of the entire concept of voting.  Let’s face it, we have now gotten to the point where dead people routinely vote, we have pets and even cartoon characters voting, as well as people who show up at multiple polling places to cast their votes.  I’m not sure how it is that Mr. Ellison would have us make the process any easier than it already is.  Instead we need to instill in people that voting is uniquely important and not the equivalent of taking a dump.  

And it was this event that also presented Mr. Ellison with an opportunity that he was only too happy to take advantage of.  He get on what has become the standard Democrat soapbox and commenced to criticize conservatives for what he called, trying to restrict the right to vote through voter I.D. laws.  He said, "Conservatives know that the data doesn't support the need for these restrictive laws, and I remember way back as a Minnesota state legislator making the case that there's no voter impersonation going on, why do we need those photo I.D. laws?  Well, I was missing the point. The point was they wanted to restrict the right to vote."   On the contrary, what the vast majority of data tell us is that with each successive election the problem of voter fraud gets a little worse.  Hence the need for voter I.D. laws. 

PROGRESSIVES, THEY NEVER STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS…

Progressive Democrats, let’s just call them what they are since they seem to have ‘evolved’ well beyond anyone’s definition of ‘liberal’, have long tried, and by just about means they could come up with, to take guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans.  They’ve tried bullying us, they’ve tried threatening us and they’ve even tried shaming us into giving up our guns.  And then there have been some at the state level who have gone as far as to force rather draconian gun laws upon us, some of which that, thankfully, have gotten overturned by even left leaning judges.  But now it seems that there is possibly a new move afoot.  A little concoction that that is the brainchild of the more progressive member of Congress from Oregon.  According to his plan, guns, like tobacco products, should be declared as hazardous to your health.   

So anyway, what we have here is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, progressive Democrat, who recently released a plan calling for “more research on the health effects of guns.”  What he’s calling his “Enough is Enough” plan, looks back at how it was that the U.S. government addressed tobacco use and automobile safety in years past and calls for a similar approach to guns.  According to his plan, “The Surgeon General's report on tobacco was a major catalyst for the efforts to reduce tobacco use. Ralph Nader’s research captured headlines and focused public attention on automobile safety. Similarly, we need more research on the health effects of guns. We can start by improving the ability of researchers and the federal government to study and share information about guns.”  What does he see as being the “health effects of guns?”

His cockamamie plan also increases the role that doctors and nurses are to play in the ongoing debate on guns.  The plan states that, “Our doctors and nurses should be part of the efforts to increase gun safety. Just as your physician would encourage you to stop smoking, or to put your child in a car seat, they should be able to ask questions and give advice about guns. People know and trust their doctors; when doctors encourage safe gun practices, people listen.”  I suppose that ‘might’ be true if the physician himself, or herself, was in fact a gun owner.  If not, might anything that they might have to say make things more dangerous than they might otherwise be?  Other aspects of the plan are said to include “Improving the Mental Health System”, “Increasing Product Safety” and “Controlling Access to the Most Dangerous Products.” 

According to, this moron’s plan, “There is tremendous variability in gun designs and features. Some are best used as tools or for sport - specifically designed for hunting or target shooting. Other guns have additional features such as pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and magazines that are detachable or attach outside the pistol grip. These features can allow a shooter to fire a large number of rounds at an extremely rapid pace without reloading. Commonly referred to as assault weapons, they are designed to be highly deadly.”  The plan also says, “Restrictions on assault weapon availability and magazine capacity can be a small but important step in addressing the lethality of mass shootings.”  So would like to see a return to something like an assault weapon ban that proved so ineffective last time it was tried that it was simply allowed to die?

Apparently as the basis for his "Enough is Enough" plan Blumenauer cites Australia’s laws which ban semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, institutes a 28-day waiting period for every gun purchase and requiring every potential owner to show a genuine reason to own, possess, or use a firearm as an “inspiring” example of incremental steps to reduce gun violence that can be effective.  According to his plan, “Solutions in the United States will not look like those in Australia, but the Australian experience shows that it is possible to reduce gun violence significantly while still allowing hobby and sport shooting for responsible owners. We must chart our own path forward, but we cannot be afraid to take the first step.”  Democrats ignore completely the fact that stricter gun laws do little to reduce gun violence.

And it really wasn’t that long ago Barry, too, was citing Australia’s gun laws as being the example for stricter gun laws here.  Just last June Barry said, “My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.”  He went on to say, “A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.”

These two may have been a bit hasty because it was on 15–16 December 2014, that a lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia.  Police treated the event as a terrorist attack, and negotiated with Monis throughout the day.  After a 16-hour standoff, during which areas of the Sydney central business district surrounding the site were cordoned off and nearby buildings locked down, police officers from the Tactical Operations Unit stormed the café upon hearing gunshots from inside. At least one hostage was shot by Monis, who himself was shot dead after police entered in response.  Hostages Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson died, while three other hostages and a police officer were injured during the police raid.  The incident still has many asking, would good guys with guns have prevented this tragedy from happening?

And it would later be that a PRO-guns Senator there in Australia would seem to be of the opinion that his country has now become what is essentially a “nation of victims” because citizens, like the hostages in the Sydney siege, are now unable to properly defend themselves.  According to the Liberal Democrats’ David Leyonhjelm, those held against their will that day were helpless because they were unable to arm themselves.  It was Senator Leyonhjelm who told ABC Radio, “What happened in that cafe would be most unlikely to have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or perhaps even Switzerland as well,” adding at least “one or two” there would have had a concealed gun.  He said, “That nutcase who held them all hostage wouldn’t have known they were armed and bad guys don’t like to be shot back at.”

The bottom line here is that I find it somewhat, oh I don’t know, ironic I guess, that while progressives like this boob Blumenauer and Barry wish to emulate the gun laws of Australia because they are far more strict than those laws we have here, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in emulating the immigration laws of, say, Mexico, whose immigration laws are also far more tougher than the immigration laws that we have in this country.  Democrats have always been so very selective when it comes to determining into which areas they wished government to force itself.  They claim to be acting on behalf of increasing public safety when pushing for stricter gun laws while at the same time decreasing public safety by working to weaken, or to simply unenforced, our immigration laws.  So it simply makes no sense.  

WHEN I COME BACK, I COMING BACK BLACK…

Oh what it must be like to be black in America today.  I’m serious!  Because it would seem that far too many blacks today are of the opinion that society’s rules simply don’t apply to them, and that they should therefore be free to abide by them, or not.  And if they choose not to, then by virtue of their skin color, they should not be forced to deal with any of the rather nasty consequences that those of us who are not black would typically be made to deal with.  Also, we non-blacks don’t have the equivalent of an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson, but then most of us tend to act like adults and not juvenile delinquents, so our need for someone like that is not as great.       

And also if you happen to be black in America today, thanks to any number of various quotas that must be met and, of course, affirmative action, it’s far easier, and far cheaper, to get into college since you don’t need to be as bright as, or need to come up with near as much money, as your competition.  And once there, you’re pretty much shoved through to make sure you graduate.  From there it’s on to some cushy job in the local, state or federal government, a job that you have no aptitude for, are able to make a pretty decent living at and, oh by the way, that you can never be fired from.  It’s all a pretty good gig if you can get it.  All it takes is being black.

And also as we have learned a few months ago, if you’re black you can disregard what you’re told to do by a police officer, you can then assault and even attempt to kill that police officer, and when killed by that police officer, you can still be seen as a Saint.  And now word comes that if you happen to be an all black little league team there’s absolutely no reason why you should obey the rules if those rules prevent you from winning a championship. At least that’s what those associated with the Jackie Robinson West little league team claimed after Little League Baseball vacated all of the team’s wins from the 2014 Little League World Series tournament on Wednesday.

After investigating allegations that several players on JRW do not happen to reside within the team’s district borders, Little League Baseball (LLB) decided to strip the team of both its Great Lakes Regional and U.S. national titles.  Despite the open and shut nature of the case, several of the team’s supporters, including such well-known rabble-rousers like Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson and, rouge preacher, Michael Pfleger stated at a Wednesday press conference that JRW’s punishment had nothing whatsoever to do with any possible recruiting infractions and was born purely through…wait for it…RACISM!!!  Yup!  It’s all because it was an all black team.

What is it with so many of these faux preachers, these fraudulent men of God, who are so casually able to blame everything on racism?  To my way of thinking they not only do a great disservice to their parishioners, but to the black community as well.  For instance, according to Jesse ‘The Extortionist’ Jackson, “this decision is untimely and inappropriate at this time. It should not take six months after a team has played a championship game to determine eligibility to play the game in the first place… Is this about boundaries or race?”  Why, race of course!  It can’t be that they cheated, these days everyone cheats.   So it HAS to be because they are black.

And then we have this moron reverend Pfleger whose idiotic comments essentially expressed the same idiotic message.  He said, “When you’re going over to voter registration and going to birth certificates and doing all this time of hunting and a witch hunt that’s been going on for the last number of months, I can’t help but wonder the question if the same thing would have been done with another team from another place, another race.”  This moron has been around for years, doing his best to stoke the flames of hate, incite as much violence, with him being, at the end of the day, very proud of himself.  Another one of those fraudulent men of God.

While the team’s supporters made ample references to skin color, was it just a matter of coincidence that neither of our very stellar reverends, nor any of the parents of players on this team, bothered to mention either of the true culprits in this scam?  First there was Darold Butler, the team’s manager, and then Michael Kelly, the league’s district administrator; both have been identified as the scandal’s masterminds and have been indefinitely suspended from all Little League activity.  But to place the blame only on those two men would be to do nothing more than to use them as scapegoats.  Everyone, EVERYONE, knew what was going on here.

At the press conference during which accusations of racism were suggested, Jesse Jackson called Little League International’s decision to strip the national title from the Chicago-based Jackie Robinson West little league team for using players outside its boundaries “persecution.”  “This is persecution,” said Jackson, who is planning to hold a rally for the team Saturday. “This is not right, it is unnecessary and it is not fair.”  While he agreed the adults involved should be punished, he argued, the kids on the team should not.  Look, it’s obvious that what went on here was a concerted effort by all involved to garner for themselves a championship.  And all should be punished!

Players and parents also spoke up, including mother Venisa Green, who agreed that race played a role in the league's actions despite the clear violation of rules.  It was this mental midget that said, “It is amazing to me that whenever African-Americans exceed the expectations, that there is always going to be fault.”  This racist imbecile went on to say, “Little League says that they teach character and they teach courage, well this isn’t an act of courage and it sure isn’t an act of character."  So because they’re black, we should accept the fact that they cheated?  I’d also be curious to know if this supposed devoted mother, or any of the parents, knew what was up.

There are those in this country who make their fortunes from creating friction between the races.  These are the true racists in America today.  And it’s these individuals who are the haters and these are people who see themselves as being above the rules.  And these are examples of what it means to be black in America in the 21^st century.  Slavery, it seems, can still be blamed for just about everything, even though it ended 150 years ago and was, historically speaking, relatively short lived here in the United States.  That’s not to justify or to in any way provide an excuse for it, but to simply put it into the proper historical context.

STENY HOYER…THE GAS BAG CHRONICLES…

It is in this the latest episode of ‘The Gasbag Chronicles, starring Steny Hoyer” that we once again catch up with the lead character in what has become our continuing saga behaving badly.  This time we catch him in the middle of saying that while “freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee,” he would not vote to overturn a D.C. law that forces Christian organizations to employ people who advocate abortion.

Now what it was that prompted old Steny to even comment on the issue was the fact that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently co-signed a letter to members of Congress asking them to disapprove a D.C. law, titled the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014.  Their feeling is that this law is, and very clearly so, a violation of employers' First Amendment rights.  

And, of course, Hoyer declined to say whether he supported the D.C. law when asked about it at his weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill Tuesday.  However, later that same day a Hoyer aide said in an email that Hoyer would vote to uphold the District law, saying, “Mr. Hoyer supports D.C. autonomy and home rule, and consistent with that support, he defers to the City Council and Mayor in enacting legislation.”

Hoyer’s office was provided a copy of the letter sent to Congress by the USCCB and 14 other organizations with offices in the District of Columbia, which stated:  “The law requires our organizations to hire or retain individuals whose speech or public conduct contradicts the organizations’ missions, and could be read to require our organizations to subsidize elective abortions through their employee health plans.”

And the letter went on to say, "The law plainly violates the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), and possibly other federal laws and clearly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church and School v. EEOC.”  And the Bishops were quite right in what they saying despite the fact that it was falling on deaf ears.

The letter went on to point out that the D.C. law “prevents religious institutions, other faith-based employers, and pro-life advocacy organizations from making employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs, or their moral and ethical views about the sanctity of human life.”  And therefore the Bishops were more than justified in their request that Congress ‘disapprove’ the law.

Since all D.C. laws are subject to congressional review, the letter urged Congress to “disapprove” the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act as well as the Human Rights Amendment of 2014, which it said “requires religiously affiliated educational institutions to endorse, sponsor, and provide school resources to persons or groups that oppose the institutions’ religious teachings regarding human sexuality.”

First Hoyer was asked, "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is asking Congress to disapprove the D.C. Reproductive Health and Non-Discrimination Act because it would force religious organizations to hire people who advocate for abortion. Can the government force religious organizations to hire people who advocate for abortion?" Now you would think that a very reasonable, and relatively simple, question to ask.

But Hoyer chose a bullshit response, saying, "Well, look, I don’t know specifically what you’re referring to. We’ve been through this with the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I believe that clearly the ability of people to speak freely is a constitutional guarantee, but I also think freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee and they need to be balanced, and that’s always a tough thing to do. I’ll leave it at that."

Hoyer was asked if he thought Congress should disapprove the law?  And then in doing his best to ‘play’ dumb, he asked if the law being referred to was the ACA.  The answer was no, and that what was being talked about was D.C.’s Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act.  Hoyer then responded by saying, "I need to look at D.C., I don’t really know enough about it to comment directly.”  Somehow I doubt it!

You see, legislation becomes law in the District of Columbia after passage by the city council, except in the event Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval, which must then be signed by the president. It has happened just three times in the last 40 years.  Congress is also presently considering whether to overturn a recent referendum legalizing marijuana in D.C.  It’s doubtful that either will be overturned.