Well the numbers are now in and it would seem that
Barry’s recent trip back to the homeland, one that had him paying a visit to
both Kenya and Ethiopia, provided him with a total flight time of 29 hours and
left the taxpayer to pick up the tab which totaled $5,983,773. And visiting this region of Africa also
required some additional security measures be taken for Barry, as well as the
20 Members of Congress and additional members of the Executive branch who
traveled with him, which, of course, added to the total cost to taxpayers. But hey, that’s what we the taxpayers are
there for right? To pick up Barry’s tab.
According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation
(NTUF), which launched a presidential travel study entitled “Still Up in the
Air”, on the day our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’ returns from his trip to Africa, he
will have spent a total of 161 days abroad during his presidency, with 41 of
those trips being international. NTUF
found that Barry has traveled internationally as much as any U.S. President
through July of the seventh year in office, having now equaled ex-president
‘Slick Willie’ Clinton with 41 trips. However, Barry has tended toward shorter
stays, falling just shy of the ‘Slickmeister’s’ 178 days spent overseas.
NTUF estimated that the hourly cost of flying Air
Force One during 2015 has been $206,337 per hour of flight. However, the press
release did add, “This figure, obtained by Judicial Watch, represents a slight
decline from 2013.” And a rather interesting
fact that most people may not know, but was emphasized by NTUF, is that
vacation trips by presidents are considered as official travel and are funded
by tax dollars. And we all know how many
vacations ‘THIS’ president has seen fit to take during his tenure, as well as
the high dollar destinations he has seen fit to visit with the family in tow.
Study author and Policy Analyst Michael Tasselmyer
stated, “While flight costs can be estimated, the rest of the expenses
associated with travel, including security, lodging, food, and more, not just
for the President and Air Force One, but additional staff and airplanes,
remains opaque.” NTUF is currently
researching and analyzing the First Lady’s international travel record. NTUF
previously found First Lady Laura Bush in the lead in comparison to Moochelle
Obummer on international trips and days spent overseas. But Moochelle has more than enough time to
catch up and, very likely, surpass the former First Lady.
Now if there is one thing that Barry has proven
himself to be quite proficient at, it’s
the spending of taxpayer money. Whether
he’s spending it on his many useless trips such as this recent one to Africa,
or on his numerous vacations or golf outings, or even a date night in the ‘Big
Apple’, Barry has demonstrated little regard for the fact that we out here
beyond the beltway have to work very hard for the money that must then turn
around and hand over to the government in the form of taxes. It would appear that as far as he’s
concerned our purpose in life is to fund his many extravagancies and to
subsidize the increasingly parasitic Democrat voter base.
Well I hate to say it, but it is truly a very sad
day for America as yet another one of our finest youth organizations has been
forced to bow under what has become the increasing weight this latest leftwing
perversion. And it’s sadder still for the
millions of young boys who will now never get to experience the comradery that
comes with a part of, what had been up will yesterday, such a wonderful
organization. And I’m sure there is much
celebrating going on as gay men everywhere celebrate the possibility of now being
able to more easily prey on the innocents in our society.
The Boy Scouts is one of the largest youth
organizations in the United States, with more than 2.4 million youth members
and nearly one million adult volunteers.
Since its founding in 1910 as part of the international Scout Movement,
more than 110 million Americans have been, at one point or another, members of
the BSA. But with this egregious
decision having now been made, there will likely be far less of our young
people who will come to know what it’s like to be part of this group out of
fear for their safety. And for what? So gays can try to gain some level of
acceptance?
The Boy Scouts of America decided on this past
Monday to allow openly gay men and women to be volunteer leaders and to work in
the organization’s offices, a major concession by the group in a protracted
battle between the Boy Scouts of America and LGBT activists. The decision, of course, prodded by gay
rights groups threatening lawsuits against the organization and has caused
consistent infighting in the organization. Those choosing to go along with this insanity
have done nothing but to guarantee that this organization will likely now begin
what will be a long, slow death.
The Boy Scouts of America put forth the claim that
the decision allows chartered groups to use sexuality and religion as a factor
in choosing a scout leader. It was a
statement released by the Boy Scouts of America that said, “Chartered
organizations will continue to select their adult leaders and religious
chartered organizations may continue to use religious beliefs as criteria for
selecting adult leaders, including matters of sexuality.” Why must one’s sexuality even be a factor? Well, because gays want to use our kids force
their perverse lifestyle even further down our throats.
It was this same statement went on to say, “This
change allows Scouting’s members and parents to select local units, chartered
to organizations with similar beliefs, that best meet the needs of their
families. This change also respects the right of religious chartered
organizations to choose adult volunteer leaders whose beliefs are consistent
with their own.” I think we all know
that gays will stop at nothing until there are no barriers remaining which will
in any way prevent them preying upon our young boys. I’m sure they’re nearly salivating at the
prospects.
Look, we already know that the provision for local
exemptions has left LGBT groups unsatisfied, claiming that it still allows for
discrimination. They’re calling for a complete and total ban on discrimination
based on sexuality at every level, including at the local level even for troops
sponsored by religious organizations.
It’s never enough for these people.
That’s because they now have our young boys in their sights and they’re
not going to stop until there is absolutely nothing standing between them and
their prize. These freaks desire for
themselves ever younger sexual conquests.
“Today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America to allow
gay, lesbian and bisexual adults to work and volunteer is a welcome step toward
erasing a stain on this important organization,” Human Rights Campaign
President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “But including an exemption for
troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the
historic nature of today’s decision.
Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period.” The only thing “historic” about this decision
is its level of depravity. In that
regard it is simply unparalleled.
We’re told that the Boy Scouts of America National
Executive Board voted 79 percent in favor of the policy change. And it was National President of the Boy
Scouts of America, and pathetic loser, Robert Gates who announced the decision via video. I’d like to ask Gates if he
would have an issue sending his own young son, or grandson, off and a weekend
excursion knowing full well that it would be a gay scout leader watching over
him. But then he’s a liberal so he’d
probably have no problem, he would probably encourage the boy to ‘experiment’ a
little in order to find himself.
But I would argue that this decision was less about
giving those who may be gay a chance to enjoy scouting and much more about providing
to gay men a wide avenue that allows them to prey on young boys whose parents
had once been able to entrust to this organization so skilled at turning young
boys into responsible young men. Sadly,
that is obviously now no longer the case. Because what responsible parent would ever
even consider sending their young son off on a weekend campout knowing that
those charged with keeping them safe actually posed the greatest threat?
In the end there will be only one way to combat this
homosexual assault, that being, of course, that we simply refuse to allow sons
to participate. It’s sad that our sons
will now be made to miss out on what a valuable organization scouting has
proven itself to be. But the risks have
now become simply too great. Some
alternative organization will need to be brought into existence, one that can
provide a safe environment of our sons while at the same time instilling in
them all that it means to be a responsible, God-fearing member of our society.
You know, putting that all important decorum of the U.S.
Senate aside, sometimes you just gotta call ‘em like you see ‘em. And such was the case where we all saw
conservative Senator Ted Cruz was recently left with no alternative but to call
out RINO Mitch McConnell. I would like
to think that it was very few of us who reside out here beyond the beltway who
saw anything wrong with what Cruz said.
McConnell is useless, as is his counterpart over the House, John
‘Boner’. Neither one of these guys are
the kind of ‘leader’ that we need in what has now become, or has been made
into, such a critical time in our history.
And Cruz proceeded to double down on his criticism
of McConnell this past Sunday after senior RINO senators criticized him for
calling McConnell a liar on Friday. The
anger at Cruz came after he called McConnell a liar on Friday for allowing a
vote on an amendment to a highway funding bill that would re-charter the U.S.
Export-Import Bank. Cruz complained, and
rightfully so, that McConnell, who also opposes the Ex-Im Bank, had promised
him and other Republicans that there would be no deal to allow the Ex-Im
amendment. It was during a floor speech
on Friday that Cruz said, "I cannot believe he would tell a flat-out
lie."
Later the same day, Cruz made an appearance on Rush
Limbaugh's syndicated radio show, where he said, "Back when we were having
the fight over trade promotion authority, I asked Mitch McConnell directly if
he had cut a deal to reauthorize this cronyism and corporate welfare in order
to try to get the votes, and he looked at me, he looked at all 54 Republican
senators, and he said flat-out, 'There is no deal. There is no deal. There is
no deal.'" McConnell is no better
than ‘Dingy Harry’ Reid, you can’t believe a single thing he says. And in some ways he’s even worse than Reid,
because you expect such sleazy behavior from someone like him.
It was in his Senate floor speech that Cruz compared
McConnell's repeating of the phrase to the Apostle Peter, who three times
denied Christ. And it was shortly
thereafter that we heard from three of the more prominent RINOs, Orrin Hatch of
Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas when they all took
to the floor during a rare Sunday session to denounce Cruz before then advancing
the Ex-Im amendment on a 67-26 vote. The
credibility of these three turncoats borders on being nonexistent. Far from being part of the solution, they are
three of the primary players involved in making sure the status quo is maintained.
In fact it was RINO Hatch who said,
"Regrettably, in recent times, the Senate floor has too often become a
forum for partisan messaging." And
he went on to say, "Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other
venues and perhaps on the campaign trail, but they have no place among
colleagues in the United States Senate.”
So I’m guessing that the outright dishonesty of McConnell is behavior that
seen as being acceptable as well as far more appropriate for the Senate floor
than is the honestly that we saw, and heard, coming from Sen. Cruz. Well, no real surprise there, I suppose. Which is to be expected.
Hatch added, "The Senate floor has even become
a place where senators have singled out colleagues by name to attack them … and
impugn their character in blatant disregard for Senate rules." He said, "Such misuses of the Senate
floor must not be tolerated."
Adding finally, "It has been used as a tool to advance personal
ambitions, a venue to promote political campaigns, and even a vehicle to
enhance fundraising efforts, all at the expense of the proper functioning of
this body." If anyone can be said
to be guilty of misusing the Senate floor, I’d say that would be Mitch
McConnell and his cadre of RINOs ever since this Congress came into session.
Cruz responded moments later, saying he agreed with
Hatch's call for civility and decorum. But, he said, "speaking the truth
about actions is entirely consistent with civility." Cruz argued "it is entirely consistent
with decorum and with the nature of this body traditionally as the world's
greatest deliberative body, to speak the truth." He said, "On Friday I gave an unusual
speech, a speech unlike any I have given in this chamber. It was not a speech I
was happy to give." He added,
"I described an explicit promise the majority leader had made to me and to
all 53 Republican senators." But
you see, McConnell and the RINOs see themselves about having to tell the truth.
When asked whether he had gone too far in Friday's
speech, Cruz said he had not, and accused the press of not focusing on the main
issue: whether McConnell lied. He said,
"I would note that on the discussion of my speech on Friday, there have
been no stories written about whether in fact of Mitch McConnell told the
truth," Cruz said. RINO John Cornyn, the second-ranking Senate Republican,
said Cruz was "mistaken" in contending that McConnell had
misrepresented plans regarding the Ex-Im Bank to other Republicans. Cornyn added that if McConnell had, "I
suspect you would find other voices joining that of the junior senator." These
RINOs are as thick as thieves.
In opening the Sunday session, McConnell said that
"when there is overwhelming bipartisan support for an idea, even if I
oppose it, it doesn't require some 'special deal' to see a vote occur on that
measure." He went on to say,
"This is the United States Senate, after all, where we debate and vote on
all kinds of different issues."
What a sanctimonious blowhard this guy is. He has absolutely no business being in a
position of leadership. Especially
during such times as we now find ourselves, as a country simply trying to
survive. Times that McConnell, himself, played
a considerable role in bringing about and is quite content to have
continue.
Also on Sunday, senators refused to support a
maneuver by Cruz to skirt a procedural rule blocking an Iran-related amendment
he sought to add to the highway bill. The measure would have blocked sanctions
relief to Iran until the Islamic Republic recognized Israel's right to exist and
freed four Americans who are missing or being held there. That these supposed adults whom we have chosen
to elect to such high office could behave so childishly says much more about
them than anything they could ever say about Cruz. Promises were made by a great number of
people during the run up to the 2014 election, and McConnell was far from being
the only liar.
Look, I think we can all safely agree that McConnell
has been nothing short of a huge disappointment as well as an unmitigated
disaster. He has squandered what was
very clearly the mandate that was handed to him last November. He is a liar, there is simply no other word
that adequately describes him. If you
doubt what I say simply look back over some of his campaign ads and campaign
speeches from last year. If you didn’t
know better you’d swear one of these guys is an imposter, either the guy making
the speeches or the guy in the Senate today.
Because they can’t both be the same guy.
And yet, sadly, they are.
Apparently being of the opinion that he remains far
from having done as much damage as he can possibly to our country, Barry made a
pledge just this past Thursday that he fully intends to use his last 18 months
in office to work on gun control, calling it “the one area where I feel that
I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied.”
And I would think it rather foolish on our part not to take this as the
threat that it is.
It was in a BBC interview that Barry said, “If you
ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated
and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one
advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient, common-sense gun
safety laws – even in the face of repeated mass killings.” But common-sense laws are not what Barry
really wants to bring about.
Barry went on to say, “And if you look at the number
of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at
the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of
thousands." And he continued, “For
us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing,
but it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18
months.”
But I think it fair far to say that Barry is little
more than delusional when it comes to his patently dishonest “tens of
thousands” claim. Not even if you add up
all the shootings in all the liberal hell holes from all 6 1/2 of his years in
office do we get numbers like that. Now,
perhaps if he intends to disarm the Blacks and the Hispanics who are doing the
vast majority of those shootings, well then, he can have at it.
But the real reason Barry has failed in gun control is
because he has failed to enforce existing gun laws. In 2007, candidate Barry said, "We know
what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He
also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous
gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in
2008, including calls for stronger background checks.
Back when Barry addressed the people of Newtown, he
asked, "can we honestly say that we're doing enough?" and answered,
"If we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing
enough," adding, "surely we can do better than this ... if there's
even one step we can take to save another [life] … then surely we have an obligation
to try." President Barry had
apparently forgotten the words of candidate Barry.
In truth, Barry would have to look no further than
the nearest mirror if he were truly interested in finding out exactly who it is
that’s responsible for not doing "better than this." Barry has never made enforcement of existing
guns laws a political or policy priority.
Barry’s Justice Department, at least under Holder, never strongly
enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun
background checks.
And let’s face it, there's simply no good reason to
not enforce this law and prosecute violators, unless, of course, there is an
ulterior motive for doing so. I mean
when you have 99% of non-NRA member gun owners as well as 95% of NRA members
expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law,
what might be the purpose for not doing so?
Why might Barry not want to “do better."
The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued
for years is that it's not more gun laws that are needed, the only thing that’s
needed is for existing laws to be enforced or at least better enforced. Take the city of Chicago, Barry adopted
hometown and a place that has the strictest gun laws in the country. Just this year alone there have been nearly
1500 shooting victims, one person is shot every 3 hours and 14 minutes.
But Barry goes on and on, as do so many of his
fellow Democrats and a good many ‘Republicans’, about how more laws are the
answer. The approach to gun laws bears a
rather uncanny resemblance to the approach used when talking about illegal
immigration. Because there are thousands
of immigration laws already on the books that also go unenforced, while at the
same time we hear calls for even more laws.
So we need to take Barry at his word, and to
understand how it is that he will try to go about making good on it. He has no interest in enforcing current laws,
because they don’t get him to where he wants, or needs, to go, which is to take
guns out of the hands of every law abiding American. So he’s going to need ‘new’, more far-reaching
laws that will provide to him that opportunity.
We must be ready to fight!
Because Barry and his gang of Democrats, and more
than just a few Republicans, will soon be headed our way, again. So we had better be working on, or adding to,
whatever fortifications, Constitutionally speaking, that will be needed to stop
them. And if those fortifications fail,
then my friends we will have few options left, and none of them are something
that I ever thought would take place in this country.
It was during his press conference yesterday that
our esteemed Speaker of House, John ‘Boner’, actually refused to say whether or
not the Republican-majority House will allow federal funding of Planned
Parenthood in fiscal 2016, which starts on Oct. 1. So I’ve got ask you, just what good is this
guy? ‘Boner’ was asked: “By September
30, the House needs to pass a bill to fund HHS for fiscal year 2016. Will that
law--whether it’s a stand-alone appropriations or a CR--fund Planned
Parenthood?” To which he responded,
“Listen, the Planned Parenthood issue is under review of two of our
committees.” So is the fact that this
barbaric activity is now under review by two committees supposed to make me
feel better?
‘Boner’ continued by saying, “Listen, I’ve seen
these two videos.” And he went on to
say, “They’re gruesome, and I think they’re awful,” in reference to two
undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress that appear to
show Planned Parenthood officials negotiating over the transfer of tissue and
organs from aborted babies. He went on
to say, “That’s why the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary
Committee are doing an investigation.” He would go on to add, “I expect we will
have hearings, and the more we learn, the more it will educate our decisions in
the future.” Ok, so what else needs to
be learned? I’ve seen the videos,
they’re pretty self-explanatory.
A moment later during this very same press
conference another reporter asked, “Are you going to use the appropriations
process to gut Planned Parenthood?” And
‘Boner’ responded by saying, “There is an investigation under way, and I expect
there will be hearings. And as that process develops, we’ll make decisions
based on -- based on the facts. But let’s get the facts first.” Get the facts straight? Is that not the typical kind of response that
we have come to expect from this useless shit. All he has to do in order to get
his “facts straight” is to watch either of these very disturbing videos. This should be a cut and dried issue and yet,
once again, our gutless Republicans refuse to take any action.
According to its most recent financial report, for
2013-14, Planned Parenthood received
$528.4 Million in government funding (grants and reimbursements) in 2014. In
fiscal 2013, the organization performed 327,653 abortions, the report
said. If Congress included language in
the law funding HHS, or in a continuing resolution funding numerous government agencies,
that prohibited federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, the
administration could not give federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Ultimately, Planned Parenthood cannot receive
federal funding in fiscal 2016 unless the House agrees to allow it. But it remains uncertain if any such action
will ultimately be taken.
Does ‘Boner’ actually think this is why he was
handed the largest House majority since before the Great Depression and the
presidency of Franklin Roosevelt? The
last time the GOP enjoyed such a majority was the 71st Congress in 1929 and
1930. And, yet, what has been
accomplished? And while the GOP majority
in the Senate may not be veto proof, it is still sizable enough to at least
slow Barry’s progress. And yet nothing
has been done thus far that matches any of the many promises that were made
during so many 2014 congressional campaigns.
Republicans had but a very short window of opportunity upon taking
control, and they have done little more than to very badly squander their time
thus far.
Far from making good on any of the promises made
throughout the 2014 campaign, promises to expend every effort to put a stop to
Barry’s wholesale destruction of this country, Republicans in Congress have
tuned out to be some of Barry’s most potent allies. Over the past few years many have accused
Barry of being incompetent, but what he has been is very purposeful. Meanwhile it has been our Republicans in
Congress who can said to be guilty of monumental ineptness, driven, at least in
part, by some rather impressive egos.
And so much time has now been wasted that there is likely not enough
time left to recover even if that was something being seriously
considered. Which, apparently, it is
not!
You ever have the feeling that you’re living through
what would be a real life version of that Bill Murray movie ‘Ground Hog
Day?’ At least as far as our GOP ‘leaders’
in Congress are concerned? Remember how
it was during the lead up to the last election, how we heard all manner of
promises being made about how, if we were to hand to the Republicans complete
control of Congress, they would then fight Barry tooth and nail and put a halt
to his ongoing effort to fundamentally transform our country. Republicans promised they would put a stop to
Obamacare, get a handle on our debt and put an end to Barry’s unlawful actions
regarding immigration. And what
happened? Absolutely nothing!
And so it is that we are now once again hearing much
the same nonsense. We had House Speaker
John Boehner who, just yesterday, saying how it is that the chamber's
priorities are "the people's priorities," and that lawmakers will
continue to fight the recent "bad deal" struck with Iran over its
nuclear program. Continue to fight? And he went on to say, "Here in the
House, the people's priorities continue to be our priorities." And as amazing as it might sound, Boehner was
actually able to get through his entire spiel with a straight face. He actually seems to think that there are
still people out here beyond the beltway who will still believe what he has to
say. And there just isn’t anymore, or at
least very few.
Boehner went on to say, "And while the
president's Iran deal may have been applauded at the United Nations, I think he
faces serious skepticism here at home. Let me just assure you that members of
Congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the
president's team. Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American
people — and we're going to do everything possible to stop it." Blah, blah, blah. Not one word of this drivel is anything that
we haven’t heard before and on any number of occasions. And it has been every single time that
Boehner, as well as that other boob McConnell, have been proven to be nothing
more than pathetic liars. They are
utterly useless.
Most Republican lawmakers have, or so we have been
told, long been opposed to this deal with Iran, which was announced last week. Congress now has 60 days to review the deal,
after which it will vote either for it or against it. If the latter happens, Barry “Almighty” can
veto that rejection, which would then require two-thirds of lawmakers to veto
that decision if Congress actually decides to press on. And while it has been reported that the White
House sent Congress a copy of the entire agreement on Sunday, rumor now has it
that there were at least a couple ‘secret deals’ that may have been left out of
what was sent to Congress. But that will
like matter very little to Democrats as they will likely rally behind Barry.
And Barry was said to have irked more than a few lawmakers
this week by choosing to submit the deal to the United Nations, which approved
of the deal, before allowing Congress the time to read, vet, and vote on the
agreement. House Homeland Security
Chairman Michael McCaul took the criticism a step further, saying he would have
liked to see the American people weigh in on the deal before it was placed in
front of the United Nations Security Council. The White House responded to the
criticisms by saying rejecting the deal would let Iran off
"scot-free." But rejecting the
deal is exactly what needs to be done, but there is very little doubt that
there will be more than enough Democrats to support it.
Personally, I no longer trust to be true anything that
I hear coming from those who are in positions leadership on the Republican
said. They all lie. They simply tell us what they think we want
to hear and then, with a smile on their face and gleam in their eye, they proceed
to stab us in the back, twisting the knife as it goes in. And I feel very confident in saying that come
2016 they are all in for what will most assuredly be a very rude
awakening. Because, quite frankly, I’m
tired of being lied to, and you would think that if the popularity of Trump
were to show them anything it’s that we’re no longer going to tolerate the lies. But nope, judging by recent comments it all
seems to be sailing right over their heads.
Democrats certainly are a disgusting bunch. And nothing makes that point better than our
latest chapter in “The Gasbag Chronicles starring Steny Hoyer” because Steny
recently left little doubt in anyone’s mind that he is truly one sick puppy. What prompted me to set to work putting
together another chapter in this little series of mine was something that Steny
said, just this past Monday, at one of his weekly pen-and-pad meetings with
reporters. What he did was to reject
entirely the “premise that Planned Parenthood is harvesting fetal organs.” Well off course he does, it’s what people
like him do. And of course when I say
“people like him” I’m sure everyone will know exactly what I talking about.
It was also on Monday that we heard about how the
House Energy and Commerce Committee had decided to launch an investigation into
that rather disgusting goings on over there at Planned Parenthood, which also
happens to the nation’s number one provider of abortions and, apparently for
some time now, has also been acting as a distributor of baby body parts. This investigation was prompted after video
footage of Planned Parenthood executive Dr. Deborah Nucatola was released which
showed this heartless bitch discussing fees for fetal tissue. In a letter to the committee, Planned
Parenthood’s attorney acknowledged that a “small number” of clinics facilitate
donation of fetal tissue for medical research.
It was during his little weekly get together between
himself and members of our state-controlled media that one of those
enterprising reporters present proceeded to ask Steny, “In its last annual
report, Planned Parenthood said it did more than 327,000 abortions in fiscal
year 2013. Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood doctors have been
harvesting tissue from aborted babies. So should federal taxpayer dollars be
required to subsidize Planned Parenthood or should Congress cut off all federal
funding?” Now Steny had one of two ways
that he could about answering this very easy question. He could say that there is no way an organization
that takes part in something like this should get any taxpayer money.
But Steny chose not to go that route. Instead he once again behaved as expected,
and answered the question as one would expect any pathetic Democrat to answer
it. Because what Steny said was, “Look,
I don’t accept the premise that Planned Parenthood is ‘harvesting’ anything.
Planned Parenthood is doing very, very important services for literally hundreds
of thousands, maybe millions of women as relates to their health.” First of all, in order for Steny to even make
such an idiotic statement he must first be willing to either ignore the reality
of what it is that’s going on right before his eyes on these videos, or be willing
to simply lie about what was so very clearly going on here on both of these
videos.
Steny went on to say, “I know there have been
controversies, national controversy over these tapes that pertain.” And he went on to say, “I haven’t reviewed
the tapes, but I’ve read articles on them. And, certainly, the Congress, as I
understand it, will be having hearings on it and I’ll be interested to see when
that is.” He added, “But I’m not going to jump to conclusions,” he said. “But I will say that I reject any premise
that Planned Parenthood is harvesting fetal organs, or body parts, anything.” So while this boob hasn’t even seen either of
these videos, he feels confident enough to say that there is simply no way that
they would show that this organization has in any taken part in the gruesome
activity as has been suggested.
Regarding the video footage of Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, the
organization’s letter to Congress states, “The video also conveyed the
impression that all Planned Parenthood affiliates have tissue donation
programs. In fact, only a very small number of affiliates have programs to help
women and families who wish to donate tissue for medical research.” A second video was released on Tuesday by the
Center for Medical Progress, which has been investigating Planned Parenthood
for three years, and it shows Planned Parenthood official Dr. Mary Gatter also
discussing fees for fetal body parts. And
yet Steny stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that which is so obviously taking
place.
Concerning that video, Speaker John Boehner said,
"This new video is as sickening, disturbing and callous as the last video.
It's now clear that Planned Parenthood allows this horrifying conduct to happen
throughout its organization.” Boehner
went on to say, “Last week, I called on Congress to investigate these gruesome
practices.” He said, “The Energy &
Commerce and Judiciary Committees have begun immediate investigations and I
look forward to their prompt and thorough action.” And he then went on to, “President Obama
still has not denounced these horrific practices. He has a responsibility to also speak out
immediately and stop these practices now."
It’ll be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens.
And you have to ask yourself, what is it with folks
like those in the People’s Republic of Maryland? A place where most folks apparently have
little or no problem with the act of killing of babies for their body parts. I mean, how else can you explain Hoyer’s
idiotic response to the question, and the fact that there must be more than
enough people who share his ghoulishness or how else could he keep getting
himself re-elected? Maryland must be a
truly sick place populated some truly twisted individuals. But let’s face it, isn’t that the case with
most Blue states? These people are, for
the most part, the very ones who have absolutely no problem with abortions right
up to, and including, the moment of birth.
Democrats are truly sick people!
Those on the left had better hope that old bitch
Hitlery can pull this thing out, because those waiting in the wings, should she
stumble even more than she already has, are all candidates who seem to more
than ready for the loony bin. Take as a
for instance, Marty O’Malley, former governor of the People’s Republic of
Maryland. And so it was that fresh off his apology to an obvious racist who professed to be some Democrat strategist for
saying that all lives matter, Marty has since seen fit to blame the rise of
ISIS on, of all things, ‘climate change’.
Anyway, for as long as I have been paying attention
he has ostensibly been trying to separate global warming from national security
concerns. But recently Democrat
presidential candidate Marty O’Malley saw fit to jump on the environmentalist wacko
crazy train, joining his fellow wackos who now claim that global warming is the
true culprit behind the creation of those conditions which are necessary in
order for the Islamic State to grow. Now
I’ve heard a lot of cockamamie theories coming from the left but I gotta tell
ya, this one is pure idiocy.
It was in responding to a question on foreign policy
that this genius told Bloomberg news:
“One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of
Syria and the rise of ISIS was the effect of climate change and the
mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to
cities, created a humanitarian crisis that created the symptoms — or rather the
conditions of extreme poverty — that has now led to the rise of ISIL and this
extreme violence.” That this guy actually
sees himself as capable of handling the job of Commander-in-Chief is laughable!
So, Marty’s comments now seem to echo those of Barry,
John Kerry-Heinz and any number of other environmentalist wackos who continue
in their effort to paint global warming as not merely as an environmental
issue, but also a national security problem.
You’ll probably remember how back in May Barry told graduates of the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy to prepare for the fight against global warming. The
White House has been working hard to shift the focus of global warming away
from temperature and more towards public health and national security.
In past comments, Marty has made a point to declare
global warming a “natural threat,” distinguishing it from “man-made” threats,
the greatest of which he said is a nuclear Iran. It was back on March 29 that Marty told ABC’s
George ‘Stephy’ Stephanopoulos that, “The greatest danger that we face right
now on a consistent basis in terms of manmade threats is — is — nuclear Iran
and related to that, extremist violence.”
He went on to say, “I don’t think you can separate the two. I think they
go together.”
Marty would go on to add, “In terms of natural
threats, clearly, it’s climate change. And we have to confront — we have to
confront manmade and natural threats.”
Maybe it’s clear to those on the left who, despite the now overwhelming
amount of scientific proof that has come out against their insane theory,
continue to claim that the discussion is now settled. Far from it.
With each passing day the claims made about the consequences of ‘manmade
climate change’ become more extreme and all the more unbelievable.
But today Marty is singing a different tune, playing
up the national security side of global warming, joining a chorus of ‘scientists’
and environmentalist wackos claiming the war in Syria is a prime example of how
a warming Earth will cause violent conflicts.
For years, reports have been trickling out attempting to link the
beginnings of Syria’s deadly civil war and the rise of Islamic State to global
warming. Most recently, a study out of the University of California, Berkeley
argued that man-made global warming made Syria’s 2006 to 2010 drought worse,
therefore driving political discontent and civil war.
And while the study’s authors are careful not to claim
that the drought directly caused the rise of ISIS, those that comprise the state-controlled
media were quick to make just such a connection. It would seem that anything that can even
remotely be tied to the insane theory of ‘climate change’ and can in any way be
said to support the theory that man is in fact the culprit behind some supposed
warming of our planet must be exploited as much as possible. But to believe any of this nonsense one has
to be ignorant beyond belief, or a Democrat.
So, is global warming responsible for the rise of
Islamic State? Hardly. Even if a drought did exacerbate tensions in
Syria, research shows environmental factors are rarely the cause of violent
conflict. Other researchers have
postulated it was the Bashar Assad regime’s response to the drought that
sparked tensions, not the drought itself. Syrians are no strangers to prolonged, vicious
droughts. People there have weathered their way through low rainfall for
centuries. But that hasn’t stopped the
hardcore believers from making their outlandish claims.
In terms of the climate science behind the claim, there’s
not much evidence of a man-made fingerprint on the climatic backdrop of the
conflict. According to Chip
Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato
Institute who wrote back on March 5: “It is not until you dig pretty deep into
the technical scientific literature, that you find out that the anthropogenic
climate change impact on drought conditions in the Fertile Crescent is
extremely minimal and tenuous—so much so that it is debatable as to whether it
is detectable at all.”
The two scientists argued “the identifiable
influence of human-caused climate change on recent drought conditions in the
Fertile Crescent was almost certainly not the so-called straw that broke the
camel’s back and led to the outbreak of conflict in Syria.” They then added that drought “conditions
which are part and parcel of the region’s climate and the intensity and
frequency of which remain dominated by natural variability, even in this era of
increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.” None of this has any effect on the
true-believers.
So the liberal hysteria surrounding ‘climate change’
mythology continues to intensify as believers continue to search out new and
more calamitous ways that can then be used convince an increasingly skeptical
American public that they now face an increasingly dangerous future if nothing
is done to address this bogus threat.
The latest ploy is put forward the claim that if we do something about ‘climate
change’ we will at the same time make Americans safer from those very same Muslims
who seem so determined to kill us. When
all else fails, simply make shit up!
NEVER LOSE SIGHT OF THE BIG PICTURE, IT'LL COST YOU!!
First it was the Democrats robbing money from
Medicare to assist them in the funding of Barry’s signature healthcare ‘reform’,
Obamacare, but that just wasn’t enough for them. Because now, or so it would seem, Barry now
has in his crosshairs some 4.2 million Americans, Social Security recipients,
who use a fiduciary to handle their monthly benefits as way to prohibit those folks
who have been found incompetent to manage their own financial affairs from being
able to own a guns.
This most recent proposal, part of an overall
maneuver to bolster gun laws since the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Connecticut, the incident the good thing about which, Ed Rendell
said, was the fact that it was so horrible, would require the Social Security
Administration to report those 4.2 million people to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, which ensures felons, drug addicts, illegal
immigrants and others cannot buy firearms.
It’s that 4.2 million figure which represents those
who receive monthly benefits but use a fiduciary because of "marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or
disease." The figure breaks down to
about 2.7 million people with supposed mental health problems, "a
potentially higher risk category for gun ownership" and another 1.5
million who have their finances managed by others for what referred to as
"a variety of reasons."
The NRA and other gun-rights advocates have already
said they will object to this latest scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. National Council on Disability member Ari
Ne’eman has also said that the independent federal agency would oppose
"any policy that used assignment of a representative payee as a basis to
take any fundamental right from people with disabilities." And he went on to say, "The rep payee is
an extraordinarily broad brush."
Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied
mentally ill veterans and how they manage their money, cautioned that
"someone can be incapable of managing their funds, but not be
dangerous." Rosen said, "They
are very different determinations."
But such a conclusion matters very little to those who wish to make sure
that the only ones who have guns are those that wish to do the rest of us some
level of serious harm. We don’t have the
luxury of body guards or the Secret Service.
In December, it was Bloomberg that reported on a
federal appeals court ruling that a history of mental illness should not
prohibit citizens from owning a weapon. The
case under consideration involved a Michigan man who in 2011 was denied a gun
permit based on the fact that he had been committed to a mental institution in
1985 after suffering a breakdown during a contentious divorce. It was after roughly a month that the man was
released and returned to work.
But federal law bars those with a past history of
mental illness from owning a firearm unless they qualify for an exception. A Cincinnati appeals court found that the
law’s provision barring gun ownership for anyone "adjudicated as a mental
defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" violates the
Second Amendment. But Barry has
demonstrated on any number of occasions that he will leave no stone unturned in
his effort to strip guns from the hands of law abiding Americans.
And it was Chris W. Cox of the National Rifle
Association who said in a statement reacting to the proposed regulation, “If
the Obama administration attempts to deny millions of law-abiding citizens
their constitutional rights by executive fiat, the NRA stands ready to pursue
all available avenues to stop them in their tracks,”. And I’m sure it will come as a surprise to
anyone to learn that the Social Security agency “has been drafting its policy well
outside of public view.”
So apparently the right to defend oneself is now
deemed, at least by Barry and the Democrats, to come with an expiration
date? Or at least an age that once it has
been reached excludes from our seniors one of the most basic and fundamental of
our Constitutional rights. The most
vulnerable among us are to be left defenseless against what has become, during Barry’s
tenure, a growing number of hoodlums who view our seniors as nothing more than
easy prey.
While I’m not exactly sure what his credentials are
as a journalist, he constantly demonstrates his credentials as a rabid,
card-carrying, left-wing propagandist.
The most recent of what is his blind devotion to the leftist cause came
on July 17, the day after which Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, obviously a
radical Muslim, opened fire on a recruiting center and then a reserve center,
gunning down four US Marines and a Sailor.
It was then that Williams actually said he was “baffled” by the push to
end gun free zones in military recruiting centers. Baffled? Really Juan?
In seeming to ignore completely that we’re talking
about military members, Williams said the center which was targeted is in a
“strip mall” and that changing the gun-free policy would mean people would be
walking around with guns, which could lead to “workplace violence.” He also suggested it could create a situation
where a simple “dispute in the parking lot” could escalate into armed
confrontation. Fox News’ Martha
MacCallum countered Williams by pointing out that this was a military
recruiting center–regardless of where it was located–and that it why it was
targeted.
But Williams was not be deterred from the insanity
of his pathetic argument. He responded by saying, “What we’re talking about
Martha is, you’d be in favor of sort of the wild, wild west. Everybody has a
gun on them as they’re walking around the mall? Not in my mall, I don’t want
it.” MacCallum then continued to express
her concern over the fact that our military personnel and their families are
increasingly targeted and that military gun free zones make them sitting ducks,
a fact that seemed to have been missed entirely, or simply ignored, by Williams
as it is with most leftists.
Williams said, “Martha, you can pander to fear,
anxiety, anger over what happened [in Chattanooga], but it is not a substantial
policy to say, where we have military police–who do have guns–where we have
situations where we say, ‘We don’t want everybody carrying guns’–that somehow
that’s illogical or bad policy or blame President Clinton.” There was nothing said that would indicate
that anyone is advocating everyone carrying guns. Again, what we’re talking about here are
military members, and Williams knows that, but doesn’t want to talk about it.
Williams as you know, or should know by now, has
devoted much of his time over the course of the last seven years being one of
the more vocal Obama-apologists. To
Juan, Barry can do absolutely no wrong.
And why do you suppose that is?
Well, there is but one reason.
It’s because like Juan, Barry is black.
Oh, and is determined in his efforts to destroy this country. Whenever invited to discuss a topic,
hopefully as an adult, Williams comes to any discussion woefully ignorant. His arguments rarely make sense and, more
often than not, consist of little more that leftwing talking points.
First came his support of the stealth attempt at
“leftist indoctrination” referred to as ‘Common Core’ and then came his
patently idiotic statements regarding illegal immigration, saying that those
who break our laws do so only out of an act of love. And now, apparently, Republican presidential
candidate Jeb Bush fully supports Barry “Almighty’s” move to allow transgender
individuals to openly serve in the U.S. military. And it’s this guy who’s supposed to be the
frontrunner for the 2016 GOP nomination?
Sounds to me like he’s obviously in the wrong party.
Bush reportedly said he was just “fine” with
transgender persons openly wearing the uniform as long as the Pentagon
determines that doing so would not undermine U.S. troop morale. What kind of an idiotic copout is that? So like he actually believes that a Pentagon
now being run by what is nothing more than a bunch of Barry’s yes-men can be
actually counted upon to even make such a determination? How incredibly naïve is that? So I ask you again, this is the guy who’s
supposed to be our GOP frontrunner?
Under no circumstances should this guy become our candidate!
Jeb said, “If you can accommodate people who are
transgendered and deal with making sure the military’s comfortable with this
and making sure that the overriding principle ought to be how do we create the
highest morale for the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen… and if
you can accommodate those two concerns, then fine.” Seriously? What kind of a namby-pamby, wishy-washy,
noncommittal statement is that? And this
is the guy who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief? Personally, I’m thinking he’s just not up to
the task.
Earlier this week, it was Barry’s Department of
Defense (DoD) that issued two directives, bringing the Pentagon closer to
rescinding its ban on open service by transgender people. Defense Secretary Ash
Carter ordered a 6-month review to examine the implications that allowing
transgenders to serve openly in the military would have on policy and military
readiness. Carter said the transgender DoD ban is “outdated.” Actually what seems to have become outdated,
here, is the importance of America being able to maintain the most powerful
military on the planet.
I just love these guys who have never served not
even one day in the military and yet think it’s all just fine and dandy to
allow all manner of freaks, from gays to transgenders, to serve in our
military. They seem to have no concept
whatsoever of just what the purpose of our military actually is. And if I may be so bold here as to remind
them, the purpose of our military is not to function as some progressive Petri
Dish, the function of our military to protect the homeland against what has
become our rapidly growing list of enemies!
That’s it, end of freaking story!
Jeb’s stupid comments echoed remarks made by that
moron Carter shortly after taking office, saying he was “very open-minded”
about transgender people serving in the military as long as they can carry out
their duties. Let me be clear, I have no
intention voting for Bush in the primary.
And should he, in the end, be the one to win the nomination I’m here to tell
you that there’s no way on God’s green Earth that I will vote for him come the
general election. Because, quite frankly,
I see little difference between him and the likely Democrat candidate.
After the last election I had some pretty high hopes
that those whom we had put in charge were actually going to make good on at
least some of the promises that were made.
But once again I have been played for a fool by these RINOs, and I’m now
done with them. In this next election
I’ll vote for whom I think is the most conservative in the primary and the one
that I could actually bring myself to vote for in the general election. And if he, or she, is not the one who wins
the nomination then I will do what I have cussed out so many others for doing. I will stay home on Election Day. Sad that it has now come to that!
I’m pretty sure that, unless you’ve been living
under some rock for the past couple of months, you are by now quite familiar
with the name, Marilyn Mosby. But, just
in case your abode has been under said rock, let me enlighten you. Ms. Mosby is the Baltimore City State’s
Attorney who was essentially catapulted to national prominence when she decided
back in early May to prosecute six police officers for the death of scumbag
Freddie Gray. Gray, who possessed a
rather lengthy rap sheet and who also happened to be black, died while in
police custody. And it was during her
little speech at the time that Ms. Mosby proceeded to use her family of Boston
police officers to, I assume, shield herself against her many critics who said
she could not fairly prosecute the case.
It was then, during a bit of theatrics on the part
of Ms. Mosby, that she was heard to say, “To the rank-and-file officers of the
Baltimore City Police Department, please know that these accusations of these
six officers are not an indictment on the entire force.” And she went on to say, “I come from five
generations of law enforcement. My father was an officer. My mother was an
officer. Several of my aunts and uncles.”
But while what she said at the time may have been factually correct, I
suppose, her words paint only a very partial picture when it comes those
dedicated public servant family members whom she makes mention of. Because all were far from being what any of us
would consider as being worthy of public trust, much less as being upstanding
members of the local community.
So anyway, first out of the gate when looking over
Ms. Mosby’s rather questionable law enforcement lineage, we have none other
than her mother, Linda Thompson. Linda,
or so it would seem, was far from being what anyone could call a model police
officer. Over the course of her 20 years
on the force Linda had nine disciplinary actions against her. There are documents that show she violated
the “substance abuse policy” in 2006, when she tested positive for
cocaine. And in 2003, she was suspended
for “using profane language toward a superior” and for her “refusal to leave a
restricted area.” And then are still other
records that show she was suspended for two separate incidents in 1996 for not
“reporting for duty” and “neglect of duty” -- among other charges.
And it was in 1990 that Boston Police Internal
Affairs launched an investigation into various charges, which one police source
stated indicated that she had lost her police weapon. After it was after a hearing on that issue
that Linda was suspended in 1993 for it.
But dear old mom was far from being the only member of Ms. Mobley’s
immediate family that had trouble staying within the law while at the same time
being a member of law enforcement. Because
next we have Mosby’s father, Alan James, who also had his share of issues. Alan was fired from the Boston Police
Department in 1991 on the same day he was acquitted by a jury for assault and
robbery. According to an article in the
Boston Globe at the time, the police commissioner fired him for "conduct
unbecoming an officer.”
And then there’s Preston Thompson, who is Linda
Thompson’s brother and Mosby’s uncle, and he too has apparently had some
problems when it came to drugs. It seems
that Preston was fired in 2001 for using cocaine. His record says he was on disability when he
was charged with “substance abuse policy – two counts,” “conformance to laws -
two counts” and “conduct - two counts.”
According to Boston police policy, you get fired after the second time
you test positive for drugs. However,
Preston wasn’t going to go down without a fight, because it was shortly
thereafter that he filed a lawsuit against the Boston Police Department (BPD)
challenging the termination. I mean
after all, what could they have possibly been thinking in firing such a
sterling public servant.
And in sounding like he was more than just a little too
familiar with ways to get around this drug issue, it was in a court document
that he asserted that hair drug tests don't prove you ingested the cocaine only
that it could get on you in what were described as being any number of ways,
including "vapors." The
lawsuit also alleged that “BPD hair testing process had a disparate impact on
African Americans.” The plaintiffs added that “hair color, racial and/or
‘cultural’ factors, biased the results of a hair drug test, due to the
differences in the melanin content, structure and cosmetic treatment of black
and African hair versus brown and blonde hair.”
In other words, the fact that he was black was enough to accuse those
involved in his firing of viewing these drug results in what was a racist
manner.
But that’s not all, we have one more member of Ms.
Mosby’s family. And that would be none
other than Preston's brother, Harry Thompson.
It seems that Harry was also fired from the Boston Police Department.
That uncle of Marilyn Mosby was terminated back in 1991 after a hearing for
three charges from the same event – “conduct unbecoming an officer,”
“inaccurate reports” and “unreasonable judgment.” Sources familiar with the BPD
police say that violating these rules alone generally doesn’t get you fired. So what else was it that might have been
going on? Frankly, judging by the behavior
and less than sterling character of the other aforementioned members of Ms.
Mosby’s family, it could be just about anything. And yet Mosby continues to use her police
officer family as being some sort of a badge of honor.
It was in an an interview with the Communist News
Network, aka CNN, that she said, "I come from five generations of police
officers, so law enforcement is instilled." Look, there are a few crooked cops on every
police force. But I gotta tell ya, to
find so many and in a single family has got to be some kind of a record. And I thought it more than a little odd that
Ms. Mosby would actually make such a point of having come from generations of
police officers knowing that the fact that most of them were corrupt would
eventually come to light. Or maybe she
didn’t care if such information were to ever make its way into the public eye. But now that it has I find it strange that she
would keep repeating it as if it somehow provides her with some level of credibility. Because it does just the opposite.
I would appear that we now have another gung-ho
supporter of that insane policy which allows an increasing number of our
cities, over 200 at last count, to declare themselves ‘sanctuary cities’. These being locales which Barry allows to
leave unenforced federal immigration laws, while at the same time feeling
justified in exposing their citizens to what has become an increasing level of
violence posed by those who have absolutely no business being able to walk our
city streets.
And it is on his campaign website that the most
recent of those to come out in support of this questionable policy, Democrat
presidential candidate Marty O’Malley, declared on Tuesday that, if elected, he
would unilaterally grant amnesty to millions more illegal immigrations, push
for unlimited immigration, and permanently disenfranchise American voters who
seek to curb our current extreme immigration policies. I’m not quite sure I should make of this.
And also part of Marty’s official presidential
platform is a promise to completely dismantle interior immigration enforcement
and to actually encourage state and local governments to defy federal
immigration law. Am I the only one who
thinks that is a rather odd pledge to hear coming from a man running to be the
office that is, according to our Constitution, responsible for ensuring that
ALL of the nation’s laws, not just the ones that he agrees with, are
“faithfully executed.”
States, so it would seem, are only autonomous
insofar as they refuse to obey laws liberals don’t like. Such as, many states
and localities have set policies that limit their cooperation with immigration
authorities. The intention of these policies is, or so we are being repeatedly
told, to protect residents’ rights and build trust between law enforcement and
immigrant communities. But as far as
protecting residents, I’m thinking there isn’t much we can point to as being an
actual success story.
We’re told that many sheriffs and law enforcement
officers strongly support these idiotic policies because they allow local
enforcement to more effectively promote public safety. Now perhaps if you’re sheriff like the one
they have in San Francisco who has his own criminal record, you might actually
support such insanity. But if you’re one
who genuinely cares more about keeping law abiding people safe and less about
politics, I doubt you’re someone who supports this cockamamie policy.
Marty said that as president he will also strongly
oppose Congressional efforts that disrespect the autonomy of states and
localities by coercing them, through the withholding of federal funding or
other mechanisms, to rescind these policies.
Now to my way of thinking there’s a word for that sort of thing, it called
blackmail, or am I misinterpreting what’s being said here. And is that really the sort of behavior that
we should expect, or that we deserve, from our president?
It’s on this point that Marty agrees with RINO
presidential candidate Marco Rubio, which should tell you all you need to know
about Rubio. Rubio, by the way, still
advocates for his failed Gang of Eight bill which also would have given
sanctuary cities ironclad funding guarantees, allowing them to harbor dangerous
illegal aliens who go on to shed more American blood and commit more
crimes. Which may be one reason that Marco
seems to be slipping rather badly in most of the recent polls I’ve seen.
Last Friday, Marty defended sanctuary cities, in
Spanish. Nothing should be done about the shooting death of a young white woman
at the hands of a five-times deported Mexican illegal alien who told police he
chose to live in San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city. He wrote in a
statement. “It’s lamentable that the senseless and tragic act of violence that
occurred in San Francisco is prompting a rush to judgment and finger pointing:
we can and should do better.” In others
words, shut up and bury Kathryn Steinle without protest.
Marty’s commitment to preserving sanctuary cities
while opening the floodgates of Third World immigration and shutting down
detention centers all but ensure that that Americans will continue to face an
increasing level of risk of being murdered, raped, and robbed by illegal
immigrants who are allowed into the country.
Personally, I’m just not seeing how advocating such an insane policy can
be, or should be, seen as being any sort of a resume enhancer for president,
but then I’m not a liberal.
And please excuse me if I sound a bit too much like
a liberal here, in other words cold, callous and uncaring, but I truly do hope
that the next innocent victim who falls prey to one these illegal scumbags also
just so happens to be the son or daughter of one of those imbecilic liberals
like Marty who remain quite vocale in their support of these so-called
sanctuaries for those in this country illegally. And is it only me who sees this sort of
policy as being rather selective?
Why is it that if some cities are free to ignore
immigration laws, other cities, or even states for that matter, can’t ignore
federal gun laws? Why can’t they simply
declare themselves as being ‘sanctuary cities’ when it comes to whether or not
they wish to enforce current federal gun laws?
As it is, there are many gun laws already on the books, like so many of
our immigration laws, that go unenforced, while at the same time we hear from
so many on the left that what we need are even more laws.
