‘HANOI JANE’: WHEN SAYING YOU’RE SORRY JUST ISN’T ENOUGH…

It may have taken place over 40 years ago, but to many of us it seems like only yesterday, an act seen by many as being nothing less than an act of treason.  And while I didn’t spend any time in Vietnam myself, I had friends who did, some of whom never came home.  And now for this pathetic bitch to actually think that simply saying I’m sorry, even after all these years, will somehow change the opinion that so many still have of her, borders on being delusional.

But be that as it may, it was late on just this past Friday that ‘Hanoi Jane’ Fonda chose to issue what’s been referred to by many as an apology for her rather infamous visit to North Vietnam back in 1972.   That specific moment in time that earned for her the rather dubious moniker, “Hanoi Jane”, something that has stuck with her ever since.  Fonda was said to have called it a “huge mistake” during a speech given at an arts center in Frederick, Maryland.

She made her comments in response to those who were there to protest against her appearance.  She said, “But those people out there… I’m a lightning rod,” Fonda told the audience.  She said, “This famous person goes and does something that looks like I’m against the troops, which wasn’t true, but it looked that way, and I’m a convenient target. So I understand.”  I guess I don’t quite understand how it is that she could actually make the claim that she’s not against our troops.

While Fonda may have issued what has been termed an apology for her traitorous behavior, it was at the same time that she also said that she still considers her trip to the communist state at war with the U.S. a “great experience.”  Those of us old enough to remember, it was while on that trip that she took publicity shots manning an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down American planes and publicly criticized the war effort against North Vietnam.

The protesters gathered outside the arts center, many of whom were Vietnam veterans, did not forget Fonda’s anti-war effort and carried signs that bore the phrase, “Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never.” One of those protesters, Mr. Bob Hartman, a Vietnam Army veteran, said, “She encouraged North Vietnam to pull away from the negotiations table.”  He added, “She got Americans killed… and she went to Vietnam to advance her husband’s career.”

Fonda focused most of her speech the topic of which was said to be gender politics, she encouraged those in attendance to not raise boys to become “emotionally illiterate” by emphasizing masculinity.  Talk about someone being “emotionally illiterate”, this bitch is “emotionally bankrupt!”  Because it’s according to people like ‘Hanoi Jane’ that it’s by no means that we should actually allow boys to grow up being boys, we must instead raise a population of wussies.

This is the twisted way that people like ‘Hanoi Jane’ think.  Because, or so their theory apparently goes, if we would only choose to raise our boys more like the way we raise our girls, or at least in such a way that results in boys being more in touch with their feminine side, then, it would seem to follow, that we’ll more likely have fewer men who would be willing to take our country into war.  In other words we’d have more men like John Kerry-Heinz or Barry Obummer.  Sound like a plan?  

HOW YOU CAN TELL IF YOU’RE A SCUMBAG DEMOCRAT…

For those of you out there who may be having some level of difficulty in trying to figure out your political identity, it is my fervent hope that I may provide to you some level of assistance in that regard.  So what follows here are those things that I consider as being some of the more important issues of the day, and what I view as being the typical Democrat position on those particular issues.  So if you find yourself in agreement with any of what follows, then you, my friend, ‘might be’ a Democrat:

Abortion:  Democrats are generally ‘for’ abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is, like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination, an affliction or, as Barry himself has called it, a mistake or a disease.  And therefore it is something that needs to be treated, and paid for by the government.

Animals:  Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights that humans do.  They are to be protected from any harm and allowed to over populate their environment thus increasing the odds that they will die a slow and agonizing death.

Capital Punishment:  This one is pretty much a no-brainer.  You see, because Democrats view themselves as being genetically compassionate, they are adamantly opposed to capital punishment no manner how heinous is the crime that has been committed.  And usually the more heinous the crime the more sympathy is garnered by the perpetrator and is used as proof that such a person is the victim of a bad childhood.  However, Democrats are quite willing to make an exception to this opinion, if the victim of the crime committed was a close friend or part of their family.

The Children:  Democrats claim to love children, but only as a group.  They find individual children, even their own, as being pretty much of a pain in the butt, and view an unborn child as being nothing more than a useless clump of cells. "We do it for the children" is always the slogan used by Democrats, whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado.  The annoyance of individual children can always be easily appeased by the hiring of illegal aliens for house nannies.

Crime:  Democrats have this rather naïve, simplistic and idealistic view that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay, and always in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.

Drugs:  Democrats have no qualms about using and form of illicit drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is actually really cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter altogether. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs to be very highly regulated and strictly controlled.

Education:  Democrats are all in favor of universal government provided education, aka indoctrination.  And in order to make it ‘fair’, all educational institutions must be equally bad, and as recent statistics would seem to make very clear, they have been very successful in that endeavor.  However, there is a very important caveat, because while the majority of in the general population are forced to contend with public education, politicians, such as Barry “Almighty”, send their children off to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared for college.

Environment:  Democrats see the "environment" as nothing more than another means to control the masses. Even though the majority of those who comprise the masses, don’t seem to be buying into the propaganda.  But that has had little impact on the energy with which Democrats continue to push their "Global Warming" agenda.  So if you believe that ‘climate change’ or, in the latest lingo, ‘climate disruption’ is real, then the person looking back at you in the mirror is most likely a Democrat. 

Government Spending:  Democrats make absolutely no excuses when it comes to massive government spending.  It is somehow the responsibility of the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means.  And such an endeavor requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow.  Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and even a bit more.

Individual Liberty:  While Democrats are great believers in the ‘concept’ of Liberty, they also seem to be of the opinion that individual humans need to be restrained and, of course, that’s only for their own good. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that hasn't yet been tested by some government agency.  Democrats firmly believe that every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the supposed ‘superior’ knowledge possessed by some faceless government bureaucrat.

Military:  Democrats view the military, as well as national defense, as being not much more than a huge money pit.  Because, to them, the money spent on making sure that we are able to defend our nation, could be much better spent on any number of the social welfare programs that Democrats are so much in favor of.  Democrats also view the military as being one big Petri Dish, of sorts, and those who serve as being lab rats, there for the sole purpose of providing to the Democrats with a means by which they are able to conduct all manner of social experiment. 

Privacy:  Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone.

Private Property:  Democrats believe that there is no such thing as ‘private property’, that all property should be shared equally amongst all the people with enough left for the animals to ensure their welfare.  To insure the proper usage, the government, of course, must be the sole custodian of said property. What you think is yours, is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners who lose the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for other than what it was originally purchased for, as if it never belonged to the so-called property owner in the first place.

Racial Issues:  Democrats believe that all "minority" races are victims, deemed to be "disadvantaged" and in desperate need of government help.  They see minorities as nothing more than voting blocks, that are essentially available for purchase at what is seen as bargain prices, with the expenses incurred being covered by the rest of us non-minorities. 

Religion:  Democrats think religion is cool but only if it’s some "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, African witch doctors or, what appears to be their religion of choice, Islam. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists, or, essentially, the faith of Christianity as a 

whole.

Sex:  Democrats support and fully endorse all manner of sexual activity, no matter how perverse and/or disgusting it might be and with absolutely no age restrictions thought to be necessary.  Any discussion that has as its topic the morality of the Democrat Party would be a relatively short one.  Because when it comes to anything that can be even remotely identified as being ‘sexual activity’, it would seem that Democrats have but one very simple rule: If it feels good, do it!  The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals.

Smoking:  Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only materials acceptable for smoking are marijuana or perhaps crack cocaine. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, it’s generally accepted as being rude behavior to refuse it.

War:  While Democrats view themselves as the "Peace Party", what they really are, are the “Hate America Party” or “The Blame America First” party.  They are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion, but, of course, only during Republican administrations.  If it’s the Democrats who happen to be in charge, well then, such activities are viewed as being OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed".

Wealth:  Democrats believe in the concept of "wealth redistribution" even if they happen to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential.

So there you have it, the finding of your political identity made easy.  If you find yourself in agreement with one or more of these positions said to held by Democrats, not only ‘could’ you be a Democrat, you most certainly ARE a Democrat.  And as such you can consider yourself being responsible for the current state of our country.  The Democrat Party has become a wholly destructive force in this country. Even though you may not intend to, if you vote for any Democrat, you contribute to that damage.

HANK JOHNSON…CAN HE REALLY BE THAT STUPID???

Ya know, it just never ceases to amaze me how it is that we can have so many Democrats who seem to know so little about so much.  And really, do they really know so little or it all nothing more than some sinister charade?  Take Hank Johnson, as a for instance.  Every time this moron opens his mouth he appears to be one of the biggest morons on the entire planet.  And if is really as stupid as he comes across as, why would those in his district keep sending him back to Congress?  Is it simply because he’s black?  Are we to believe race now trumps intelligence?

And what brings this guy once more to my attention is the fact that once again we have old Hank, sporting what looks like a new goatee which must be his attempt to make him look more scholarly, saying something that makes the whole scholarly thing a waste of time.  Because it was just recently that he could be found on the floor of the House declaring, “don't think that regulations are hurting you.” Hank would go to relate federal regulations in America to being in kindergarten.  So it was from the House floor that Johnson explained his feelings about federal regulations in America.

Hank said, “I'll take note of the fact that when I went to kindergarten we had a set of rules up on the board. Everywhere you go, you're going to have a set of rules. The rules of the federal government, which are vast and broad - foreign policy, domestic policy, space, cyberspace.”  And he went on to say, “I mean, this country that we live in is not a great country because it chose simplicity as its motto.”  But rules are one thing, the smothering number of regulations being pumped out by government on nearly a daily basis go way behind being merely “a set of rules.” 

Then this genius went on to say, “We have a lot of rules we have to live by and those are the things that help make America a great country and guess what, ladies and gentlemen? It's you and your family members and friends who populate this federal government.”  For one thing those same regulations which Hank seems to be such a big fan of do far more harm than good.  If Hank was being honest, that trait seen by most Democrats as being more of a character flaw, he would see how they do little more than to smother entrepreneurial spirit and therefore stifle economic growth. 

And then Hank went on to say, “You are the ones who are the rule makers. They want to try to turn you into people who are trying to do something to hurt others when the only thing you're trying to do is do your job that will help others be able to live lives and create a better America for ourselves and most importantly, our children.”  And he added, “So don't get it twisted. Don't think that regulations are hurting you. Regulations are causing what benefits you are taking advantage of now.”  So all of these thousands of regulations create benefits how, exactly?

What Johnson was arguing against, in his own inimitable way, was the Regulatory Accountability Act.  The measure mandates federal agencies give advance notice of proposed rules that would could cause a major increase in consumer prices or would have an economic impact of more than $100 million among other items. The measure passed the House this past Tuesday.  Barry “Almighty”, another big fan of regulations, has, of course, threatened to veto the bill if it passes the Senate and reaches his desk.  Because if there is one thing Democrats love, it’s creating more regulations.

Look, I’ve talked about this imbecile before, and it seems like every time he opens his mouth, as is the case with the vast majority of Democrats, he makes it quite clear just how accurate that old adage is that says, “It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”  The fact is, the mountain of new regulations added since Barry was first elected cost the private sector economy more than $150 Billion, and millions of jobs, so when old Hank says regulations aren’t hurting us, he’s simply lying. And worse than that, he ‘knows’ he’s lying.

But let’s face it, Hank’s not really fooling anyone.  At least, not those who are smart enough not to vote for Democrats.  I’m quite sure those folks in his district believe the drivel this guy comes up with because, after all, they were stupid enough to vote for his stupid ass.  The sole purpose behind the creating of tens of thousands of regulations over the course of the last six years has been to increase both the reach and the power of the federal government.  Our government has now grown much too powerful and Democrats like Hank see that as being a very good thing.    

WHEN IT COMES TO THE 114TH CONGRESS, I’M KEEPING MY EXPECTATIONS VERY LOW…

Ya know, I see it all as being quite sad that I must force myself to keep my expectations low when it comes to our new Republican majority in Congress, and our two less than impressive leaders.  And while we are told that yesterday a step was taken in the right direction as the Republican-led House voted to overturn Barry “Almighty's” immigration actions from last November, we must still be wary.  We’re told that this bill will begin the process of unravelling a directive from 2012 protecting immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.  It has now been forwarded to the Senate where we’re told it faces a rather uncertain fate.  Now why do you suppose that would be now that we have 54 Republicans in the Senate?  

But in getting back to what was done in the House yesterday, there was a vote taken that came in at 236-191 to approve legislation which funds the Homeland Security Department through the rest of the budget year to the tune of $40 Billion.  But as part of that bill, Republicans added provisions to gut Barry's immigration directives.  Despite deep Democratic opposition, the House voted 237-190 on an amendment to undo the actions that Barry announced in November that provide temporary deportation relief, and offer work permits, to some 4 million illegal immigrants.  But I’m now hearing a number of rumors that seem to indicate that what we have here is less a genuine attempt to stop Barry than it is an example of political maneuvering.

There was also another amendment that was added which, or so we were told, would cancel Barry's 2012 policy that's granted work permits and stays of deportation to more than 600,000 immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally as kids. That measure passed more narrowly, 218-209, because, sadly, we had more than two dozen Republicans who chose to join with the Democrats in their opposition.  Republicans say Barry's moves amounted to an unconstitutional overreach that must be stopped.  And so it was then that right from there on floor of the House that Speaker Boehner said, “Let me thank all my colleagues who have worked to put this bill together. Today I rise – and the House rises – to support and defend our Constitution.”

And in playing his part to the hilt, Boehner went on to say, “We do not take this action lightly, but simply there is no alternative. This is not a dispute between the parties, or even between the branches of our government. This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.”  And he went on to say, “I appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since I’m one of them. But what we are dealing with is a president who has ignored the people, has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements.”  He said, “In fact, on at least 22 occasions, he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done.”  All very grand rhetoric, but did he really mean any of it?

Boehner went on to say, “To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law is one thing …. he taught it as well. But now his actions suggest he’s forgotten what these words even mean.”  And he continued, saying, “Enough is enough. By their votes last November, the people made clear they want more accountability from this president. And by our votes here today, we will heed their will, and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”  As proof that such a bill has become a necessity, Boehner went on to mention the 22 times that Barry claimed to have no authority to do what he did.  But was it all nothing more than a lie?

What follows here are the 22 times, cited by Boehner, that Barry claimed that he had no right to do what he did.  Now you would think that these very same 22 occurrences would provide more than enough motivation for our Republican majority to leave no stone unturned in its effort to prevent this president from wreaking anymore havoc than he has already done.  But I fear they lack the stomach for a fight.  By going through with that which he himself said 22 times, Barry has essentially thrown down the gauntlet, and the question that now waits for an answer is, will the Republicans in Congress have the courage to pick it up and beat Barry over the head with it?  I guess we wait and see.  I hope we’re not in for yet another disappointment.

What Barry said, and when:

March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President...”

May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”

May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.”

July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”

October 14, 2010: “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there.”

October 25, 2010: “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. … I can't just make the laws up by myself.”

March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”

April 20, 2011: “I can't solve this problem by myself. … I can't do it by myself.”

April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works”

May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”

July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”

September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”

October 16, 2012: “We're … a nation of laws. … And I've done everything that I can on my own.”

January 30, 2013: “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law.”

January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”

February 14, 2013: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”

July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”

September 17, 2013: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”

November 25, 2013: “The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”

March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”

August 6, 2014: “I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”

Look, I am not so naïve as to take at face value that which occurred in House yesterday.  To do so would be very foolish to say the least.  The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  I’ll not, nor should anyone else, be appeased by mere words, no matter how convincingly they may be uttered.  We have not yet arrived at that point where we can actually trust our leaders, they will bear watching over the coming months, and very closely.  So while this recent bill may seem to be what is needed, close attention must be paid to what, I am quite sure, is some very fine print.  We must demand that real action be taken, and in very short order, if this country is to survive.  But I worry about the priorities of our leaders.

BILL DEBLASIO, THE “BIG APPLE’S” RESIDENT COMMUNIST DUMBASS…

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat by party affiliation and a hard core communist by political philosophy, said on Monday that giving identification cards to illegal aliens allows them to feel like citizens and enjoy some of the same benefits as actual citizens.  The only problem with that rather warped sentiment is that these people are not citizens no matter how perversely those like de Blasio may choose to try to define the term.  What they are, are criminals because they have made a conscious decision to break our laws by remaining in this country illegally.

It was in a recent National Public Radio (NPR) website article that old Bill was quoted as saying, "We don't want any of our fellow New Yorkers to feel like second-class citizens.”  And he went on to say, “We don't want them to feel left out.”  But again, these people are not second class citizens, they’re not even third class citizens, for that matter, because they’re not actual citizens.  And that fact is not going to change simply because this boob, de Blasio, has decided to provide them all with what he’s calling an ID card.  These illegals will not, as if by magic, be turned into citizens. 

In addition, de Blasio apparently promised much more than simply the handing out of these ‘ID’ cards if illegal aliens will only come forward and sign up.  Because among other things being promised is, apparently, a free, one-year membership to 33 cultural institutions.  I guess I just don’t understand how it is that the liberal mind works.  I mean what possible sense does it make to provide to those who are very clearly in this country illegally, a method by which they can simply assume many of the privileges normally reserved for those who are bona fide U.S. citizens?  

But it would seem that not everybody is as enamored with this whole “ID” card scheme as is our favorite communist mayor.  Because there are some liberal, pro-amnesty advocates are leery about the cards. Johanna Miller, for instance, of the New York Civil Liberties Union is one of them.  It’s also according to NPR that Miller said, "The success of this program depends almost entirely on having a diverse pool of cardholders.”  And, apparently, she went on to say, “If the card becomes a scarlet letter for undocumented people, then it fails.” 

De Blasio was sworn in as mayor back on January 1, 2014.  And it was the New York Times reporting back in February 2014 which made the point that it was during his first State of the City address that de Blasio promised New York would become the largest city to offer ‘ID’ cards to illegal aliens, making it much easier for them to open bank accounts, lease apartments or borrow library books.  The Times said at the time that de Blasio got the biggest applause during his speech when he mentioned his idiotic plan for ID cards for illegal aliens. 

According to the Times, de Blasio said, “To all of my fellow New Yorkers who are undocumented, I say: New York City is your home, too.”  To which he added, “And we will not force any of our residents to live their lives in the shadows.”  Ya know, I get so freaking tired of listening to all of this bleeding-heart liberal tripe whenever we talk about these people who, quite frankly, do not belong here.  Has anyone ever heard how it is that Mexico provides ‘ID’ cards to those who are in that country illegally?  Nope, that’s because if you’re caught being in Mexico illegally, you’re thrown into a Mexican prison.

JOHN KERRY-HEINZ…ONCE A TRAITOR, ALWAYS A TRAITOR…

For those of you who still, for whatever bizarre reason, choose to maintain some level of confidence that John Kerry Heinz actually possesses the necessary skill set, as well as the intelligence, to adequately perform the assigned duties associated with his current job, what I am about to present to you is, what I like to think, one more example, on what has become a growing list of many, of why it is that I choose to disagree with your assessment of him.

And it is in so doing that I must take us all back to a speech that our esteemed secretary of state delivered at the "3rd Annual Transformational Trends Policy Forum" in Washington, D.C., an event which took place on Nov. 17 of last year.  It was during this speech, one which, for the most part, made very little sense, that he made a rather idiotic claim, even for him. His claim was that “terror will ultimately be rejected because it is at odds with…Islam.”

And it was in this very same speech that Kerry-Heinz also said that those "recruiting for ISIL aren’t looking for people who are devout and knowledgeable about the tenets of Islam,” but that the fight against ISIL “depends on the ability of respected figures from every branch of Islam to help potential recruits understand that ISIL is against everything that faith teaches and in favor of everything that it abhors.”  Yes, he actually did say that.

Here are few more of the rather choice excerpts from Kerry-Heinz’s speech:

“And although the center of our activities is Iraq--and Syria, to some degree--ISIL's influence is by no means confined to one part of the world. Its recruits, tragically--surprisingly to some--can come from any country. They can be male or female, of any ethnicity, and with or without spiritual convictions. Last year, two young men left Great Britain to join ISIL. Among the books that they ordered before departing was 'Islam for Dummies' and 'The Qu'ran for Dummies.' So let's be honest: Those recruiting for ISIL aren't looking for people who are devout and knowledgeable about the tenets of Islam. 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.”

*

“To extend its influence, the leaders of ISIL have called on followers to, "explode volcanoes of jihad," and they've asked them to do that in every country. Last month I visited Canada, where two terrorist attacks occurred a few days apart, one of which was directed at the nation's parliament. Last week a terrorist group in Egypt proclaimed fealty to ISIL.

ISIL insists that its acts of murder, torture, slavery, rape, and desecration are in response to the commands of God -- a claim that is, to use an old Boston expression, garbage. Much depends on the ability of respected figures from every branch of Islam to help potential recruits understand that ISIL is against everything that faith teaches and in favor of everything that it abhors.”

*

“We believe that the destructive summons to terror will ultimately be rejected because it is at odds with the values of the vast majority of the region's people and at odds with the dominant religion--Islam--of that region.”

So there you have it.  Now I ask you, who is it that still thinks, after having listened to my latest bit of evidence, that John Kerry-Heinz is actually up to the task at hand.  Who among is willing to say that our foreign policy is anything but a complete disaster?  Granted, it was already in pretty sad shape by the time he arrived on the scene, and at the behest of his boss he has proceeded to make it all very much worse, to the point where the damage done may be irreparable.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN…ANOTHER PROUD LEFTIST…

So it is once again that we are hearing from another one of those stellar individuals who comprise the congressional delegation sent off to Washington to represent the People’s Republic of Maryland in Congress.  Keep in mind some of the more notable members of this pathetic assortment of committed leftists that includes Barbara Mikulski, Steny Hoyer, Elijah Cummings and Donna Edwards to name but a few.  A group that, I dare say, is about as far to the left as you possibly get and yet seem to have no trouble getting themselves re-elected.

But it’s in this specific instance that we’ll be focusing on yet another member of this less than stellar little group of hateful, anti-American malcontents, that being none other than Rep. Chris Van Hollen.  Mr. Van Hollen has demonstrated, more times than I care to count, his hatred for this country and his desire to do whatever is necessary to bankrupt it.  He makes that very clear when he recently said that he wants taxpayers to fund community college education, “because the costs of community college are a barrier to many people.”

It was during an appearance on CSPAN’s Newsmakers Sunday, that this boob, Van Hollen, was asked about Barry “Almighty’s” recently announced plan that would provide free education for those that want to attend community colleges. A big supporter of Barry “Almighty”, Van Hollen made it very clear that he is very much in favor of Barry’s plan, regardless of the cost to taxpayers.  He responded by saying, “I hope we will do that, because the costs of community college are a barrier to many people getting that training, getting those skills”

Newsmakers host Steve Scully said, “Congressman, as you know, the president Friday in Knoxville Tennessee -- proposing a new plan that would provide free education for those who want to attend community colleges. Is there any appetite in Congress to support this plan that would be funded 75 percent by the federal government and 25 percent by the states?”  To which Van Hollen very enthusiastically replied, “Well, I certainly hope so.” After all, like most Democrats, Mr. Van Hollen loves to spend other people’s money, the more the better.  

Van Hollen went on to say, “Because we know one of the things that can lead to higher paychecks over a lifetime is getting the education, the skills, and the training that people need.”  This hapless boob continued, saying, “I hope we will do that, because the costs of community college are a barrier to many people getting that training, getting those skills.” Look, I’m all in favor of people of getting an education, hence the reason that I worked and saved so that my daughter could go to college without going massively into debt. 

So why is it then that Barry, Mr. Van Hollen and his fellow Democrats, see it as being appropriate that I should also be made to cover the cost of making sure that their constituents are also able to attend college?  And what makes these people above having to actually work for it, as I did?  And why is it, exactly, that they should be provided with what is essentially free education, the cost if which is to be covered by those trying to put their own kids through college.  Barry likes to talk about ‘fairness’ but, where’s the fairness in this?     

2016…WE MAY BE DEAD BEFORE WE EVEN START…

Apparently many of those Republicans who are now on the verge of throwing their hats into the ring that is the 2016 presidential campaign, seem to be of the opinion that presenting themselves as conservatives is just not the proper tack to take.  Mitt Romney, for instance, recently told friends that he believes poverty must be part of the discussion as he mulls running for the White House just four years after Democrats attacked him for being out of touch with the lives of average Americans.  Apparently such a heinous act is excusable if you happen to be Democrat.

And then there’s Ohio Gov. John Kasich who is, dare I say, another one of those who many refer to as being a RINO, and is also said to possess presidential aspirations.  Rumor had it that he was going to use his inaugural address today to reiterate his policy of helping "people in the shadows."  “People in the shadows?” I didn’t hear his speech so I have no idea if he actually went through with it.  But I do know that it was during his inauguration speech that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker vowed to give students a quality education, "regardless of background or birthright."

And then we have former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who, upon launching his new political action committee, Right to Rise, just this month, described his potential campaign in a style that could easily be described as being one in the populist mold.  Bush said, "Millions of our fellow citizens across the broad middle class feel as if the American dream is now out of their reach; that our politics are petty and broken; that opportunities are elusive; and that the playing field is no longer fair or level."  While some of that may be true, Bush seems to ignore, or gloss over, why that might be.

And I think it quite fair to say that Bush’s characterization of the economic and social challenges that we are made to face here in these United States didn’t sound all that much different from what we hear from the presumed Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton, as well as other bona fide progressives who may yet become contenders, such as the senior senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.  Add to that the fact that Bush is a strong supporter of both Common Core and amnesty, and it becomes understandable why so many are somewhat lukewarm in offering up their support.

"You talk to any pollster, on the Democratic side or the Republican side, they’re in complete agreement on the idea that there has to be an economic populist message," said Matthew Dowd, a top strategist for former president George W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns. "Then it comes down to 'Are there credible solutions and is there a credible candidate?'"  Now I may not be the ‘expert’ that Mr. Dowd is, or thinks he is, but I’m thinking not much of that makes any sense.  What’s needed is a ‘conservative’ message that stands in stark contrast to the blather we hear from Democrats.

Bush appears ready to combat his potential Democrat rivals in the coming 2016 contest when it comes to those policy issues that they have long considered as being their own in past elections: poverty, income equality, economic prosperity, and middle-class wage stagnation.  And I have no problem with him wanting to take on those issues but only as long as his proposed solutions are real conservative solutions.  If what he will come to propose is nothing different than what’s being advocated by his liberal Democrat opponents, then why should anyone vote for him? 

We’re told that there are 45 million Americans now living at or below the poverty line, according to recent census estimates, which says that the average family income is under $52,000.  As proof of wage stagnation, the median is 8 percent lower than it was in 2007, adjusted for inflation, and 11 percent below 2000.  Those policies which have long been touted by progressives as being the solution to all of these problems have only succeeded in only making things much worse.  So why would we simply want more of the same?  We need a different approach, a conservative approach!

"Since the late 1970s, wages for the bottom 70 percent of earners have been essentially stagnant, and between 2009 and 2013, real ­wages fell for the entire bottom 90 percent of the wage distribution," Lawrence Mishel of the liberal Economic Policy Institute wrote in a paper published this month.  And it’s Bush’s website that reads, "Too many of the poor have lost hope that a path to a better life is within their grasp."  And let’s not forget who created the policies that caused this loss of hope, the same hope that we were told we could all believe in, if only we voted for Barry.

So what we appear to be seeing play out here is what I think is the perfect example of that little proverb that says, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Because if the Republicans insist upon running another RINO in 2016, the likes of a Bob Dole, a John McCain, a Mitt Romney or like, albeit to a lesser degree, I would say, a George Bush, they will most certainly guarantee that another election will most certainly be lost, and the country simply cannot afford that.  The last time a Republican won decisively was when Reagan won.

Reagan presented to the American electorate what he saw as being conservative solutions to what progressive policies had brought about.  And while many will argue that this is a different time than when Reagan won, but Reagan was forced to clean up what was the incredible mess left behind by Jimmy Carter.  Remember the gas lines, the 16 percent inflation, the 22 percent interest rates, and the 70 percent marginal tax rates under Carter?  And Reagan’s conservative solutions turned things around and resulted in the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. 

ELIZABETH WARREN TAKES HYPOCRISY TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL…

It should come as no surprise to hear that Elizabeth Warren has become the darling of the hardcore left, with a growing number now in favor of her providing Hitlery Clinton with a little competition.  However the hypocrisy of Warren is becoming more and more a matter of record. The very same woman who said of the hate-the-rich Occupy Wall Street movement, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do,” is not only wealthy beyond the dreams of most Americans, but is part of the very 1% that the Occupy Movement so venomously vilifies.

So, you may ask, just how rich is she who is, if you can believe it, is the senior senator, and potential 2016 candidate, from Massachusetts?  Well, her net worth is reported to be somewhere between $3.7 million and $10 million, and that’s with leaving out her three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., which is reportedly worth another 1.9 million.  Her average net worth is said to be in the vicinity of $8.75 million.  And yet she is able to feel quite justified in spewing all manner of idiotic rhetoric while at the same time actually denying the fact that she is very, very, wealthy.

We’re told that most of Warren’s wealth is invested with TIAA-CREF; she and her husband, yes this weirdo fund someone to marry her, each have $1 million in the TIAA-CREF Traditional fund, which guarantees your principal will never be affected, you are guaranteed a minimum interest rate, and your income stream will never die.  She also received an advance of $525,000 to write her book, ‘A Fighting Chance’. She and her husband earned $981,000 in 2009 and $955,000 in 2010.  She was paid $430,000 as a Harvard professor in 2010 and part of 2011.

This is the same Elizabeth Warren who once told MSNBC’s ‘Low Rents’ O’Donnell, “I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.” She apparently forgot that she owned between $100,001 and $250,000 of IBM stock. Her spokesmoron Kyle Sullivan later lamely claimed, “Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she’ll get rid of the one stock she does own.”  Throw the bullshit flag up on that one!

And let’s not forget that she is the same hapless dingbat who snapped back in September 2011, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.”  This is the same woman who said while supporting Senator Mark Udall, “Republicans believe this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers.”  Actually, if you were to insert ‘Democrats’ in place of ‘Republicans’ in Ms. Warren’s statement it would be much, much, closer to the truth.  In looking at the most recent election it’s easy to see who the rich supported.

There is an ongoing myth perpetuated by both the Democrat Party, and their many allies in the state-controlled media, that it is the Democrat Party only that is the protector of the so-called “little guy.”  But as Ronald Regan once asked, and I’m paraphrasing here, “How is it that a political party that can be for bigger and bigger government, claim to be for the little guy?”  Let’s face it, the Democrat Party excels at very little more than the creating of more and more “little guys” and then getting them addicted to government.    

EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS…A MATTER OF PERCEPTION…

At some point, if they haven’t already, wouldn’t you think that most Americans would simply start ignoring that which amounts to be the same kind of toxic propaganda that this administration has been steadily pumping out for years?  What we have here is the equivalent of raw political sewage, and those involved intend to keep on pumping it for as long as a majority of the American people will tolerate it.

What we saw at the end of December was the continuation of the same, rather disturbing, trend that we have seen for some time now where the number of Americans, 16 and older, who chose not to participate in the labor force continues to grow.  In December that number grew to a record 92,898,000, 456,000 more than did not participate in November, making the labor force participation rate a rather anemic 62.7 percent.

The labor force participation had also been 62.7 percent back in September, but prior to that it had not been that low since back in February 1978, or during the time America were subjected to that other Democrat economic genius, Jimmy “The Terrorists’ Best Friend” Carter.  Apparently, it’s only Democrats, and the socialist policies they are so captivated and intrigued by, who are able to bring about such abysmal economic numbers.

In looking back at December, we see that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population stood at 249,027,000.  Now of that 249,027,000, 156,129,000, or 62.7 percent, participated in the labor force by either having a job or by actively seeking one out in the last four weeks.  Of the 156,129,000 who did participate in the labor force, 147,442,000 had a job.

And that left 8,688,000 also of that same 156,129,000, who did not have a job but were said to be actively looking for one, and it’s those 8,688,000 who make up the unemployed. They equaled 5.6 percent of the labor force—or an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, which was down from the 5.8 percent unemployment rate in November.  So as you can plainly see, this percentage of the supposedly unemployed has very little basis in fact.

Because, while at the same time we’re being told that the level of labor force participation declined, we were also being told that, through the miracle of some pretty creative number crunching, it was also in December that the unemployment rate declined to 5.6 percent and that payroll jobs were said to have increased by 252,000.  I can only assume that those who work to come up with these numbers, must think the rest of us are pretty stupid.

Barry’s ‘Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors’, some boob by the name of Jason Furman, said in a statement, “Today’s solid employment report caps off a strong year for the U.S. labor market, which achieved a number of important milestones in 2014.”  This propaganda statement went on to say, “Total job growth last year was the strongest since 1999, while the unemployment rate fell at the fastest pace in three decades.”

Furman continued on with this special brand of drivel by saying that, “Although nominal wages fell in December, inflation-adjusted wages have generally been rising, and job growth has picked up in sectors that traditionally provide good, middle-class jobs.”  This is all part of creating the ongoing illusion that our economy is somehow be made stronger, that some economic recovery continues, when nothing could be further from the truth.

And then we have John Boehner who, as to be expected since he’s never been one to be left out of a good propaganda story, appeared to be quite eagerly throw his support behind this nonsense, was said to have reacted to the labor news by touting the jobs bills the new Republican Congress have been pushing, including the Keystone pipeline.  His comments, whether he intended to or not, add credibility to numbers that are completely bogus.

Boehner said, “It’s always welcome news when more Americans find work.” And he went on to say, “Yet while the economy is showing some signs of improvement, far too many middle-class families are struggling to bridge the gap between rising costs and stubbornly flat paychecks.”  But again, his comments bear little resemblance to what is going on in this country.  What he should be doing it to point out that these numbers are just a fallacy.

And, oddly enough, it was also courtesy of these same employment numbers, that we were made aware that Barry’s war on women seems to be progressing rather nicely with a record 55,807,000 women, an increase of 612,000 over the previous month, not participating in the labor force in December.  What that means is that 55,807,000 women in the United States did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the past four weeks.

The labor participation rate for women hit a record low for this year of 56.6 percent, which also matches the 56.6 percent seen in September 1988, a 26-year low.  The number of employed women decreased from 69,247,000 in November to 69,042,000 in December, a decline of 205,000.  And yet, as if by magic, we’re told that the unemployment rate for women somehow managed to decline from 5.7 percent in November to 5.3 in December.

Like with so many other issues with this president and this administration, everything is about creating the proper perception.  And the facts must never be allowed to get in the way, regardless of the issue.  Whatever lie must be told, tell it, whatever numbers must be fudged, fudge them.  What’s most important is to create the proper perception in the minds of the American people.  Results are not important, it’s all about perception.

BOEHNER ON…BOEHNER…

Feeling empowered and fighting back a bit after successfully turning back a challenge to his House leadership position, Speaker John Boehner attempted to make the case that he remains an outsider to the conventions of Congress.  And in so doing Boehner said, "During my years here when I voted, I had the eighth-most conservative voting record in the Congress, and it does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish."  Voting is one thing, leading is something entirely different, and on the latter he has been a squish.  

Boehner, who won his third term as speaker this week, told reporters on Thursday that, "But what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment.”  He went on to say, "I’m the most anti-establishment Speaker we’ve ever had."  In talking about his record, Boehner said, "Who was the guy who got rid of earmarks? Me. Who's the guy who believes in regular order? Me."  Adding, "Who believes in allowing more members to participate in the process from both sides of the aisle? Me."

While 25 of his House colleagues demonstrated the necessary courage to vote against him, Boehner pointed to the climate of dislike from a public that is furious with the ongoing congressional gridlock and what some view as the economic demise of the middle class. He said, "The American people are very frustrated. They are frustrated in a struggling economy."  Adding, "This frustration that's out there, they need to take it out on somebody. They take it out on the president; they take it out on me. It comes with the territory."

Boehner has served Ohio's 8th Congressional District since 1991, and has been described as having taken a rather dim view of those who chose to oppose his leadership run.  And while some have described recent actions taken to demote his detractors as revenge, others say his new-found boldness is welcomed and timely as the new GOP-led Congress asserts its power.  But conservative Iowa lawmaker Steve King, who voted against Boehner, decried his perceived retribution. 

King said, "If you cannot vote your conscience … then it’s clearly a dysfunctional system here."   But according to The Washington Examiner there was at least one conservative newbie who was only too happy to explain her vote for Boehner.  It was Utah Rep. Mia Love who said, "There were no qualified or notable campaigns for speaker within the Republican Party other than John Boehner."  So if I’m understanding her correctly, is she saying that Boehner won by default?

Anyway, Ms. Love, who I was a pretty big fan of, went on to say, "Casting a vote for a candidate who has not actively campaigned and does not have the support to be speaker is an indirect vote for Nancy Pelosi, and I will not vote for Nancy Pelosi."  Look, she can try to justify her vote however she wishes, but I have to admit that because of her decision to support Boehner she has already be a source of some disappointment.  She billed herself as being a conservative and yet she seemed to have little difficulty voting for Boehner.

Frankly, I have a rather difficult time respecting those who find it necessary, or even appropriate, to blow their own horn.  And Boehner, and his supporters, can claim he’s a conservative till the cows come home, but his actions over the course of the last 4 years, and the fact the deficit has been allowed to grow by over $4 Trillion on his watch as Speaker, make his claims ring rather hollow.  It’s because of his refusal to stand up to Barry that has many folks referring to him as being spineless and a bit of a squish.

BOEHNER IS NOT A LEADER…

I think most of us would agree that even on his best day, John Boehner is simply not up to task of being Speaker of the House.  It has become quite obvious, even painfully so, over the course of the last 4 years that Boehner is completely devoid of those traits one typically looks for in a ‘leader’.  Perhaps in a different time, a more prosperous time, a time less dangerous or a time when we had someone in the Oval Office who could be trusted to operate from within the confines of our Constitution, then Boehner might be acceptable as Speaker.  But not today, not in these times and most definitely not when we have Barry “Almighty” in the Oval Office.

And it was very shortly after his successful re-election as Speaker, that Boehner once again made it quite clear that is no leader, and is nothing more than a fraud able to one again maneuver himself in a leadership ‘position’.  And make no mistake, there is a very real difference.  After all, it was shortly after the vote that had him being re-elected that we heard how it was that he intended to mete out a little payback to those who chose not to support his re-election.  Now, apparently, contrary to those initial reports, Boehner is sending signals that he plans to be magnanimous in his victory.  But rumor also has it those supposed signals are nothing more than bullshit.

If we can believe what we are now being told, Boehner has told committee chairmen, such as Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Oversight and Government Reform, that they can make their own decisions regarding who is to be named to head those subcommittees under their jurisdiction.  There are indications Rep. Richard Nugent of Florida may yet get to serve again on the Rules Committee.  Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey may wind up chairing subcommittees.  And it was all three of Republicans who voted ‘not’ to re-elect the speaker.  I think it is a little too early to believe much of what we’re hearing, we must wait and see.

It was on Wednesday of this week that Boehner told reporters, "We had a situation yesterday where we had to constitute the Rules Committee but because of some of the activities on the floor, two of our members weren't put back on the committee immediately."  He then went on to say, "I have not had a chance to talk to them, I have not had a chance to talk to our members. But this morning, I told the members the same thing I'm saying here. We're going to have a family conversation, which we had this morning, about bringing our team together."  As I said, we must be in no hurry to believe what we’re being told, we must wait to see what actions are taken.

Boehner is said to be under considerable pressure from those who make up his ‘leadership’ team, including California Rep. Devin Nunes, to discipline those who have denigrated him as a "Republican-in-name-only" or who voted against him for speaker.  Is this guy serious?  And it was this Nunes character, who just so happens to be the newly appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who said, "We need to know why people voted against the speaker yesterday."  Now personally, I would have thought that that would have been fairly obvious, even to this sanctimonious boob, Nunes!  I guess I don’t see the point he’s trying to make here.    

And someone else who appears to be eager to make disparaging remarks about those who comprised the anti-Boehner bloc, is none other than Rep. Peter King of New York, yet another well-known RINO.  It was King who said, "I believe if you take on the leader and you lose, you face the consequences."  Personally, I happen to be of the opinion that such an attitude is rather juvenile, and therefore it doesn’t really surprise me to hear who it was that made such idiotic comments.  The choice here is a relatively easy one, either we move beyond this political bullshit and focus on Barry, or we fight among ourselves allowing him to do what he pleases.

But on the positive side there are signs that the speaker's critics are interested in working with him.  Rep. Ted Yoho, one of those who went up against Boehner said, "There is no fight."  And he went on to say, "For the next two years, our goal right now is to come together with leadership, bring in good legislation, work with leadership so that we can overcome some of the grievances we had."  And Nugent, on Wednesday, described the speaker as a "true conservative."  Observers say that Boehner could always revisit the issue of retribution. For now, both because of temperament and expediency, he is disinclined to mete out punishment.  But we’ll see.

I guess what really has me worried, is that ever since Barry arrived on the scene, the role of Speaker has become increasingly important to our being able to ensure the survival of our Republic.  And as you may recall it was during the first two years of Barry Barry’s presidency that Nancy Pelosi reduced the position of Speaker to what was essentially nothing more than a rubberstamp for anything that Barry wanted.  And while hopes were high when Boehner assumed the job in January 2011, it didn’t take long to recognize that even with a new sheriff in town, not much was going to change. Sadly, Boehner has proven to be pretty much of a failure.