Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

I think it is time to ask a very dangerous question.  I do not do this lightly, but I believe it is time.  The question is this.  Is it un-American, even treasonous, to pass laws based on religious belief?  As I said, this is not an easy question to ask, and it is probably even harder to answer.

We are seeing a lot of state legislatures around the country trying to pass legislation that would basically make it legal to discriminate against another group of people.  The purported basis for these laws is called “religious freedom.”  I say that the real reason for these laws is bigotry!

This attack on the Constitution is not just in the deep south either.  We have seen legislation in states like Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas, and even Hawaii.  We have entered a stage in our history where people want their religious beliefs to become the “law of the land.”  Isn’t that being un-American?  Isn’t that attacking the Constitution?

Not far from where I live there was a controversy a few years ago at a veteran’s cemetery.  The controversy centered around the so-called “Christian Flag” flying from the flagpole at the cemetery.  Many people wanted it taken down, but the Cult wanted it displayed.  There were even threats of violence against anyone who disagreed with it being there.

A co-worker at the time asked me what I thought about the issue since I am a veteran.  I told him I was against the flag.  Not because of any religious implications, but because those of us who served, served the U.S. Flag and not a foreign flag.  Since this flag was not the U.S. Flag, it should be brought down.  I also considered the flag a slap in the face to the veterans buried there who were not Christian.

In Arizona, a law was passed that made it legal for business to discriminate against gay couples.  In their law, if a baker claimed “strong religious belief” that baker did not have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.  Fortunately, the bill was vetoed by the Governor.

Recently in Oklahoma, a similar bill was introduced.  State Sen. Joseph Silk, the Republican chief sponsor of the bill, said:  “gay people don’t have a right to be served in every single store.” He then added:  “People need to have the ability to refuse service if it violates their religious convictions.”  Now if this sounds familiar, remember these were the same arguments used to justify the Jim Crowe laws prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.

As I wrote the other day, a wing-nut in California has submitted a ballot initiative there that would make being homosexual, or at least engaging in homosexual conduct, punishable by “a bullet to the back of the head.”  Under this extreme law if you sell magazines considered to be homosexual in nature, you would face a $1 million fine and possibly be exiled from the state for life.

In Alabama where the gay marriage issue is complete mess, GOP State Rep. Jim Hill has introduced legislation that would allow judges and religious leaders not only to opt out of performing marriages that defy their religious beliefs, but also to choose not to recognize them — for the sake of “religious liberty.”

There is a very real possible side effect to this bill known as the Freedom of Religion in Marriage Protection Act.  Although intended to stop same-sex marriage it could also pave the way for probate judges not to grant marriage licenses (or divorces) to couples of different religious backgrounds.  Wouldn’t this law also allow a Catholic judge, for example, to refuse to marry a Hindu, Muslim or Jewish couple?

Senator Inhofe the other day brought a snowball onto the floor of the Senate to prove that climate change was a hoax.  That was bad enough, but he then went on to “quote scripture” to support his claim.  We have had several members of Congress quote from scripture on the floor of both chambers.  Yet when an elected member of congress used a Koran for his swearing-in ceremony, the right-wing went bonkers.

Contradictions like these have always made me ask if we are a nation based on the belief that “all men are created equal” or are we a nation based on the belief that “all men we accept are created equal?”

We are constantly hearing terms like “Christian In Name Only” and “Republican In Name Only” and “Communist Left.”  These are nothing more than code words to say that the person being referred to is not a “Real American” because they are not “Real Christians” and only “Real Christians” are “Real Americans.”  Of course, the side caveat to that is left out.  Only “Real White Christians” are “Real Americans.”

The First Amendment gives us the “freedom of religion.”  That means that every citizen can believe or not believe in whatever religion he chooses.  That does not give them the right to discriminate against someone with a different religious belief, because that would be infringing on that other person’s right to their religious beliefs.

These are all very disturbing signs to me.  If you look throughout history, countries formed either monarchies or dictatorships based on the premise that one group was better than another group.  That is not what America was founded to be.  It was founded to be a country where everyone could live in peace with equal rights.  In other words, it was founded to be a secular country.

God did not become part of our national politics until the 1900s.  “In God We Trust” was not on our money until the 1920s.  The term “under God” in our pledge of allegiance did not appear until the 1950s.  I have heard outcries from the Cult that military chapels don’t have crosses on them.  They claim this is a new phenomenon.  It isn’t.  When I entered the service in 1970, there were no crosses on military chapels because they were used by just about every denomination, even non-Christian.

It would be just as much a violation of the “freedom of religion” clause for the government to force religious leaders like Priests, Preachers, Mullahs, Rabbis or any other  minister to perform same-sex marriage in their churches if it goes against their religious beliefs.  That is their right under the constitution.  However, that right does not include Civil Servants charged with performing non-religious marriage ceremonies.

If laws like these are allowed to be introduced, passed, signed, and stand what group of people will be next to be “legally discriminated” against?  If you think these laws are “absolutely wonderful” how will you feel when your group comes under fire?  Bigotry and ignorance never rest.  They are always on the hunt for another victim.  Which means that no one is safe from their arrows.

I served the United States of America, under the Flag of the United States of America.  When the call for help came across the radios I was monitoring, I never asked that person what nationality, race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation they were.  I simply put the mechanisms in place to save their lives.  I believe that America is based on equality for all of its citizens.

You have probably figured out my response to that question.  I believe that any elected government official, regardless of political affiliation, who legislates religious beliefs into law, regardless of which religion is being used, is violating the Constitution of the United Sates.  As a result, that official is guilty of violating his Oath Of Office and should be impeached.

Let your arrows fly.

Read Full Post »

Speaker John Boehner allowed a vote on a clean bill to fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year.  Miracle of miracles, it passed rather convincingly.  All of the pundits have accused Boehner of “caving into the President” instead of telling you the truth.  The truth is that the whole fiasco over the President’s Executive Order on immigration did not have to happen.  The truth is that if John Boehner actually did his job two years ago, we would have seen the bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill that the Senate sent to the House passed.

Republicans want you to believe that the President overreached his power.  They don’t tell you that their St. Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to over 5 million undocumented immigrants through an executive order.  They want you to believe that the President isn’t serious about “deporting” undocumented immigrants.  They don’t tell you that this administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than the three previous administrations before it combined.

They want to tell you that the border with Mexico is a sieve allowing millions of people to simply “walk across” the border.  They don’t tell you that under this administration the resources including manpower has quadrupled from previous administrations.

The Senate’s Immigration Reform Bill would have addressed many of these issues and more.  For example, under this bill we would have E-Verify in place so employers could ensure they were not hiring undocumented immigrants.  It would have placed severe penalties on employers who willing hired undocumented immigrants.  It would have even allowed our enforcement resources to focus on felons trying to come into the country rather than families already here.

There are a whole lot of other things in the bill that would have made immigration reform something that would benefit America.  Hell, even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favored passage of the bill.  But no, John Boehner wouldn’t, and still won’t even bring it up for discussion.

All of this is caused by two factors.  The first is that John Boehner is too afraid of the wacko based wing in his own party.  The other is something called the Hastert Rule.  Speaker Dennis Hastert decided that he would only bring up bills to the floor of the House if he had a majority of the majority favoring the bill.  It was under his leadership that this “rule” first came into being.  Every Republican Speaker since has followed this insanity.

The real purpose of the Hastert Rule is to shield the Speaker from any criticism within his own party.  By going along with this idiocy, the Speaker just merely has to say “the majority of my caucus was not in favor of it” to avoid any responsibility for not doing his job.  John Boehner has relied on this “rule” since he became Speaker and we have had over four years of gridlock as a result.

It is almost like John Boehner is using this “rule” to justify his lack of leadership.  As a result, instead of governing like a Speaker of the House is expected to do, he hides behind a fictitious “rule” to keep his position.  As a result, the employees of the Federal Government face fiscal crisis after fiscal crisis.  They face government shutdown after government shutdown.  The paychecks they depend on to pay their mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, and health insurance are all at the mercy of a lousy Speaker of the House.

If everyone really wants this mess to go away, if they want to see the Executive Order on immigration go away, all John Boehner needs to do is dump the Hastert Rule and allow discussion and a vote on the Senate’s Immigration Reform Bill.  The coalition that passed the clean DHS funding bill would pass the Immigration Reform Bill.  This law would override the President’s Executive Order.  In fact, it would have made it unnecessary in the first place.

The only way to truly govern is to build bi-partisan consensus on legislation that will benefit the country.  It is not blocking the other party in Congress out and only passing bills that the “majority of the majority” favor.  If John Boehner really wants to govern, as he says, he should dump the Hastert Rule and start to govern.

Build consensus on legislation, bring it to the floor for debate, and hold a vote on it.  If it passes with amendments, sit down with the Senate and hammer out a compromise to get it passed by both Houses.  That is governing.  It is also something that seems foreign to John Boehner, so I am not holding my breath for him to act.

Read Full Post »

We keep hearing the right-wing use the term “American Exceptionalism” anytime they want to criticize something.  When the AP History curriculum was unveiled, they cried that it didn’t offer enough history about “American Exceptionalism.”  Whenever they get the chance to use the term, they jump on it.  But, what does American Exceptionalism really mean?

Is it supposed to mean that Americans are an exceptional people?  Is it supposed to mean that America is an exceptional place?  When they use the term are they saying that all Americans are exceptional regardless of race, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation?  Maybe they think that America can do no wrong and that is why it is exceptional.

Actually, “American Exceptionalism” is just another meaningless term that gets thrown around to make people feel good about the country.  It has no definition because it doesn’t exist.  In order to be truly exceptional, a country needs to learn from their past faults and correct them.  Have we really done that?

If you listened to Bibi yesterday, you could easily come away with the idea that he doesn’t think America is so exceptional.  Basically, he told us that we are not smart enough to understand how to negotiate with an enemy.  He even told us we were naïve about trusting other countries.  That doesn’t sound like he thinks very highly of “American Exceptionalism.”

In order to better understand this false term, we need to look at some of the less than exceptional things we did as a nation.

We are a country that held slaves.  Our Founding Fathers owned people in order to farm their plantations, serve in the house as maids and other servants, and complete general duties they were too lazy to do for themselves.  I never understood the economics of slavery, but they seemed to think it was cheaper to own slaves than to pay others to do the work for them.  As a matter of fact we were one of the last Western Nations to abolished slavery.

After slavery was abolished, discrimination was institutionalized through what became known as the Jim Crowe laws.  These laws made it legal to discriminate against people because of the color of their skin.  During World Wars I and II we drafted African-Americans into the army but segregated them from the regular, or white, troops.

When I was in school during the 1950s, we read a lot about World War II.  The Bataan Death March was very prevalent in our history books.  That was an atrocious, brutal violation of the Geneva Convention which the Japanese had not signed because they believed that they were exceptional.

On the other hand, there was very little mention of the “Trail of Tears” we forced upon Native Americans.  President Jackson decided that Native Americans were not welcome on the East Coast.  So, he rounded them all up and deported them to the Oklahoma Territory.  Thousands of Native Americans died along the trail.  Our history books said very little about that.

Although our history books talked about the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany, it did not talk about the genocide that America committed against Native American Tribes once we began expanding westward.  Our history books talked about Native Americans as “savages” who needed to be “tamed.”  They talked about the Indian Wars and how the Indians slaughtered hundreds of settlers.  They failed to mention that America slaughtered thousands of Indians in the name of progress.  It wasn’t until after I graduated from High School that I read about the atrocity at Wounded Knee.

Things like the AP History curriculum allows for discussions about these issues and others in our past.  What is wrong with that?  Look, America has done some wonderful things both at home and abroad.  But, we have done some horrible things both at home and abroad, too.

Our government was involved in overthrowing other governments, like the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s, because we were afraid they may get closer to the Soviet Union than us.  How is that exceptional?  Iran wasn’t the only country this happened in either.  We supported brutal dictatorships in Latin and South America that killed thousands of their own people.  How is that exceptional?

How is it exceptional when too many of our children attend underfunded and dilapidated public schools while states keep slashing education funds?  How is it exceptional to allow corporations to get rich, while paying their workers wages at or below the poverty line while refusing to raise the minimum wage?  How is it exceptional that too many people including low-income families, the elderly, veterans, and the disabled are forced to live in poverty and not have enough to eat while cutting food stamp funding?  How is it exceptional when it is necessary to put labels on people so we can differentiate between groups?

How is it exceptional when women get paid less for doing the same job as a man?  How is it exceptional when there are laws restricting voting rights?  How is it exceptional when legislatures pass laws that allow discrimination against our fellow citizens?  How is it exceptional when there are laws to ban people of the same-sex from getting married thus getting the same rights to inheritance, health insurance coverage as other married people?

We have heard other nations talk about their exceptionalism or superiority in the past.  Alexander the Great’s Empire, the Egyptian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany all claimed to be superior to everyone else.  All claimed to be a “master race” of some kind.  Or, they claimed that God, or the gods, was on their side.  Now we are hearing how “God Blessed America.”  Is that why we are supposed to be exceptional?

Only when we recognize that we are all part of one race, the human race, when we recognize that religion is a personal belief and allow each other their own beliefs, when we recognize that all humans deserve the same civil rights as everyone else regardless of race, religion, sex, nationality, or sexual orientation, can we then maybe claim to be exceptional.

When I hear someone talk about “American Exceptionalism,” I only hear them claim that we, America, is better than everyone else.  That sounds too much like all the other nations and empires of the past.  They all ended up the same way.  Just a few pages in the history books.  Once America becomes exceptional at home, the world may then see us as exceptional as well.

Read Full Post »

I just don’t know what the right-wing is thinking.  Or, if they are thinking at all.  We have seen the right-wing go completely off the rails.  This isn’t really anything new, the right-wing goes off the rails quite a lot.  But, things seem to be getting worse rather than better.

The other day at CPAC Gov. Scott Walker said he is ready to take on ISIS as President because he “took on 100,000 union protesters” in Wisconsin.  He also said that Ronald Reagan firing the air traffic controllers who went on strike in the 1980s was “the greatest foreign policy decision in my lifetime.”

I am sure that all workers out there who belong to the dwindling unions are very happy to hear how they are the same as ISIS or that fighting them has something to do with foreign policy.  How could we have ever let unions form in this country since, as Gov. Walker seems to think, they are foreigners trying to damage America?

We also heard all of the so-called “front-runners” for the Republican nomination compare themselves to St. Ronald Reagan.  However, if Ronald Reagan gave a speech at CPAC today, he would be booed out of the place.  All of these wackos seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not interested in a balanced budget.  He ran very high deficits.

They all seem to forget that Ronald Reagan did not fight against abortion as these radicals have.  Yes, he professed his belief in god, but he was willing to let the Roe v. Wade decision stand.  In many ways, Ronald Reagan was a lot more of a “social liberal” than they seem to remember.  Even some of his past policy advisors agree Ronald Reagan would not stand a chance at CPAC.

Everyone at CPAC railed against ISIS and Sharia Law.  The all espoused how ISIS must be eliminated, and they all seem to think it will be easy, and outlaw Sharia Law everywhere.  Hell, last November, Georgia even had an anti-Sharia law initiative on the ballot.

Yes, the right-wing has gone off the rails again.  The Tea Party and their allies in the Conservative Christian Cult are trying to start another “crusades” against Islam throughout the world.  All the while they are quietly trying to set up their own version of a “theocracy” right here in America.  According to their “agenda” if you are not Christian, you should not have any rights.

In California, this has been taken to one of the most extreme measures you can think of.  See, in 1911, California changed their constitution to allow ballot initiatives.  All you need to do is pay $200 to file your initiative, then get signatures from 5% of the total votes in the last gubernatorial election.

Well, one lawyer in California ponied up his $200 and submitted a really dangerous initiative.  He calls it “The Sodomite Suppression Act.”  Yes, it is exactly what you think it is.  He wants to outlaw all forms of same-sex sex.  But, outlawing it is not enough for this wacko.  His bill says “that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

It also says:

No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

His “law” makes it illegal for a “sodomite” to hold public office or even work for a government agency.  There is a lot of other stupid stuff in it, but one that really stands out, if you aren’t sick enough already, says:

The state has an affirmative duty to defend and enforce this law as written, and every member of the public has standing to seek its enforcement and obtain reimbursement for all costs and attorney’s fees in so doing, and further, should the state persist in inaction over 1 year after due notice, the general public is empowered and deputized to execute all the provisions hereunder extra-judicially, immune from any charge and indemnified by the state against any and all liability.

And why does he think this is so important?  Because he believes that if this law is not passed, we are all doomed to follow in the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.  His justification for this idiocy says:

Seeing that it is better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath against us for the folly of tolerating-wickedness in our midst, the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God…..

He even stipulates that this law must be posted in “all public schools.”

ISIS is a barbaric and cruel group of wackos trying to establish their personal beliefs on a region of the world.  We all know that.  They are dangerous and most people think something needs to be done about them.  The debate is over what and how this “something” should be.

Okay, even if I agree with that, can someone please explain to me how this “initiative” is any different from ISIS and their policies?  Can someone please explain to me how “executing” gays in this country is any different from ISIS killing non-Muslims in Iraq?  The simple answer is you cannot explain the differences because there are none.  Both groups are “terrorists,” as far as I am concerned.

This initiative is just another step in the “theocracy” that the Conservative Christian Cult wants to unleash on America.  The only difference it this goofball isn’t trying to sugar-coat it.  If this type of hate continues, the word “sodomite” will be replaced with “Muslim” or “non-White” or “non-Christian.

I wonder which speaker at CPAC will be the first to say anything against this “initiative.”  I am rather wondering which one will be the first to endorse it.

Read Full Post »

Tomorrow Benjamin Netanyahu will give his speech to a joint session of Congress.  We have heard a lot of talk about the speech.  Boehner, who invited him, is defending his actions even thought he broke protocol in his invitation.  Democrats are furious about the speech with some threatening to boycott it.  Netanyahu’s opponents, and even some Israeli hawks are against the speech.

One has to wonder exactly what John Boehner is trying to accomplish with his invitation.  Some believe he is trying to help Netanyahu win his election that is being held in two weeks.  Some believe that he is just trying to “embarrass” the President.  Others believe it is an attempt to derail the nuclear talks with Iran.

After reading everything from both sides of the spectrum, I have come to the conclusion that John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because he does want him to win the election in two weeks.  This is important to Boehner and the Republicans because they have one very real fear in common with Netanyahu.  They all fear peace.

I believe that if Netanyahu would actually negotiate with the Palestinians, recognize the Palestinian State, and stop throwing up settlements in the Palestinian territory we might actually see peace break out in the region.  Not only that, but if the Palestinian State was recognized, many of the arguments that other Arab countries in the region have against Israel may also fade away.

Allowing the Palestinians their own self-run state would let Israel stop looking like an aggressor.  It would allow Israel and the Palestinians to work together to maintain peace between the two states and even help the economy of both countries to grow.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu has shown no inclination of accepting the Palestinians right to their own state.  That continues to cause a bigger rift between the two parties and allows the radicals on the Palestinian side to fight against Israel by arguing that Israel is the aggressor.  Whether or not that is a valid argument it works to recruit more fighters to the radical side.

Of course the biggest fear for both the Republicans and Netanyahu is that the nuclear talks with Iran may actually come to a positive end.  The Republicans and Netanyahu claim that any deal with Iran will only mean they will be able to build their bomb.

I would not support any deal with Iran without very strong verification policies in place.  We do have to remember that Iran in the past claimed it wanted to wipe Israel off the map.  But, the Soviet Union also promised to “bury” us too.  It was only through diplomacy with Russia that things finally calmed down, even before the fall of the Soviet Union.

One only needs to remember Netanyahu’s speech at the U.N. with his hastily drawn bomb showing how Iran was so close to building an atomic bomb.  I wonder if he will bring it out for this speech as well.  I am certain he will argue that Iran cannot be trusted.  He will argue that any deal with Iran is against the interests of Israel.  I am also sure that the Republican side will erupt in applause when he does.

You would think that “peace in the middle east” would be a good thing.  You would think that everyone would consider that if all sides agree on creating peace that the radicals would lose their poster points for recruiting.  But since Netanyahu and the Republicans share an absolute hate towards Islam, they don’t want peace in the region.  If there is peace, you don’t have any justification to “wipe out” your enemies.

I am not stupid.  I know that reaching a point of peace in the middle east is not going to be easy.  I also know that steadfastly arguing against any diplomacy that may take a step in that direction is stupid.  Hawks all around the world believe that diplomacy is a form of appeasement.  That is ridiculous.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been as much of an impediment to peace in the region as the radical Palestinians have.  If he wasn’t, we would be seeing talks between Israel and the Palestinians.  He refuses to negotiate with them.  Israel has the right to exist as a country.  I believe that the Palestinian State also has a right to exist.  Mutual recognition of the rights of each state would go a long way towards creating an environment where peace is possible.

However, Netanyahu does not want peace.  If he gets it, he may lose power.  That is something that he is unwilling to risk.  So, he accepted the invitation from Boehner in order to help Republicans stop peace in its tracks.  Republicans don’t want peace either.  They don’t want anything to get in their way of a New Crusades against Islam.

That, I believe is the real reason John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress.  We have already seen too many times that foreign wars take the spotlight off how much you are trying to screw your own people over.  This is just another case of the “tail wagging the dog.”

Read Full Post »

At precisely 0000 hours (midnight) tomorrow night, the Department of Homeland Security is going to run out of money unless Republicans can get their “stuff” together.  The Republicans who want you to believe that they are the only ones interested in protecting our country from terrorists, are about to let the one department charged with protecting us from terrorists run out of money.

I am not overly concerned about terrorists running amuck in the country, however.  We all know that about 200,000 members of the various agencies under DHS will continue working.  They are considered “essential” personnel.  However, they will be working for an IOU from the government instead of actually being paid.

This tragedy is all tied to immigration reform.  Our immigration laws are archaic at best and need to be reformed.  Two years ago the Senate passed a bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill and sent it to the House.  It has been languishing in John Boehner’s desk drawer ever since.  This was truly a bi-partisan bill.  Even 14 Republican Senators voted for the bill, and several Republicans were involved in its creation.  Should have been an easy task for Boehner to pass it in the House.

But, once again John Boehner proved that he is only interested in having the title of “Speaker of the House” rather than acting like one.  His bellicose comments about immigration reform are just another example of his unwillingness to “govern”.  He is too afraid of the Tea Party wackos in his caucus to try to pass any meaningful legislation.

After over a year of Boehner derailing a vote on the Immigration Reform Bill, the President issued an Executive Order detailing some changes in the deportation policies.  The Republicans went bonkers, as expected.  Whether or not you think the President’s actions was an overreach or not, I do not think so, is irrelevant.  Something has to be done about our Immigration Laws.

The President’s Executive Order does not make it easier for people to cross the border.  It simply lays out a plan for those already here with U.S. Citizen relations to remain without fear of deportation.  It also gives them a pathway to seek “legitimacy” as the Republicans would say.  It is not amnesty as Republicans are telling everyone.

As a result of this “fight” the Republican House passed a funding bill last year that put the DHS on the spot.  They funded every department of the government except DHS for a full year.  They funded DHS only through tomorrow and the Senate went along.  Then they passed a bill funding DHS but only if the Executive Order was withdrawn.

Naturally, the Senate Democrats filibustered the bill in that chamber.  So, now Mitch McConnell wants to pass a clean DHS funding bill and introduce a bill that would withdraw the Executive Order.  But that puts John Boehner in a corner.  He still has to contend with his wacko fringe group.  And, since he is loath to actually lead and fight the wackos, the idea of a clean bill passing the House is up-in-the-air.

The only way Boehner will be able to pass a clean DHS funding bill in the House is to use the Democrats to get the votes needed.  Although he did use them a few times in the past, that is also something that Boehner is loath to do.  He is afraid that if he goes to the Democrats to pass a clean funding bill, he will face another coup in his caucus.

All of this nonsense was avoidable.  If John Boehner had allowed a debate and vote on the bi-partisan Senate Bill, it would have passed the House.  I am sure there would have been amendments added by the fringe group, but those would have been worked out in a joint committee between the House and Senate.  There would have been no need for the President to issue his Executive Order in the first place.

With the Immigration Reform Bill actual law instead of collecting dust in Boehner’s desk drawer, we would not be in this situation right now.  The other day Boehner said about the DHS funding bill they sent to the Senate: “We did our job, now it is time for the Senate to do theirs.  This will pass if the Democrats stop saying “no” to everything.”

That is really rich coming from a man who has been sitting on the “fix” to all of this for two years!  John Boehner is the worst Speaker of the House in my lifetime.  He makes Newt Gingrich look like a reasonable man.  However, the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court added fuel to this flaming issue.

This is the kind of thing that happens when money is allowed to control politics.  These fringe wackos that Boehner is afraid of are financed by the likes of the Koch Brothers and others.  Their money has polluted and corrupted our political process to the point of stagnation.

Even still, it is John Boehner’s job to “govern” in the name of the People of the United States.  Something that, apparently, he is loath to do as well.  This whole dilemma was manufactured because John Boehner is more interested in holding the title rather than being the Speaker of the House.

There is no other reason for us to be in the predicament we are in over DHS funding.  Even big business and the Chamber of Commerce favor the Senate passed Immigration Reform Bill.  To stop this mess, all John Boehner needs to do is dust off the Senate Bill and bring it to floor of the House.  But he won’t.

I don’t use this word lightly, but John Boehner is basically a coward.  That is why we are waiting to see if there will be a partial government shutdown come midnight tomorrow night.

Read Full Post »

Poor Bill O’Reilly just can’t seem to keep out of the spotlight.  Only in this case it is the wrong spotlight.  As we discussed before, O’Reilly appears to have “embellished” his time in Argentina covering the Falklands War.  Instead of answering any questions put to him, he has gone off on everyone who dares think the story may be true.

During a phone interview with New York Times reporter Emily Steel he told her that if he didn’t think her story was “fair” “I am coming after you with everything I have.  You can take it as a threat.”  Again, rather than speaking about the issue, O’Reilly fell back into his bully mantra.

Now, there seems to be another problem with O’Reilly’s account of something he wrote in his supposedly non-fictional book about “Killing Kennedy.”  See in his book “Killing Kennedy” we was present when George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of assassin Lee Harvey Oswald committed suicide in his daughter’s home in Florida in 1977.  Then while promoting his book on Fox and Friends, he repeated the claim.

“I was about to knock on the door where [de Mohrenschildt] was, his daughter’s house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun,”

Unfortunately, there is a problem with this wonderful tale as well.  According to two of his colleagues at WFAA TV station in Dallas, TX, where O’Reilly was working at the time, he was not in Florida, but in Dallas, TX!  Hmmm.  Tracy Rowlett and Byron Harris, O’Reilly’s WFAA colleagues at the time, both say the embattled host was with them at WFAA’s Dallas headquarters when de Mohrenschildt died.

On top of that, the police report of the incident does not mention O’Reilly being there.  Nor does The Associated Press report of the incident, which only says de Mohrenschildt was in the house with two maids at the time, neither of whom heard the gunshot.  If O’Reilly was present he must have been interviewed by the police as a witness!  So why isn’t he even mentioned in their reports?

Besides, if O’Reilly was really at the scene when de Mohrenschildt died, wouldn’t he have done a “stand up” and broke the story for his station?  As the half-governor would say “you betcha!”  There was no stand up about the story.  Nor, did WFAA even break the story.  The story was actually broken by the Dallas Morning News.

Then there is the story of Gaeton Fonzi, an investigative reporter who has written extensively on the Kennedy assassination.  Fonzi has who is now deceased, writes in his autobiography that he received a call from O’Reilly shortly after the suicide, asking for confirmation it had happened.  In his autobiography Fonzi wrote:

About 6:30 that evening I received a call from Bill O’Reilly, a friend who was then a television reporter in Dallas. “Funny thing happened,” he said. “We just aired a story that came over the wire about a Dutch journalist saying the Assassinations Committee has finally located de Mohrenschildt in South Florida. Now de Mohrenschildt’s attorney, a guy named Pat Russel, he calls and says de Mohrenschildt committed suicide this afternoon. Is that true?”

Why on earth would a journalist who was supposedly “about to knock on the door” when he heard the gunshot have to call another journalist to ask if the story of de Mohrenschildt’s suicide is true?  I guess it is because he was never there!

So far, there has been no response from O’Reilly or Fox News about this latest “embellishment” of the facts.  I can’t wait to hear O’Reilly tell his audience that this is another left-wing media attack on him.  I wonder if he will tell his two former colleagues that “he will go after them,” too?

But, if you think that Roger Ailes who runs Fox News Network will do anything to O’Reilly, you are living in another fantasy world, too.  All of this only proves that O’Reilly is a serial liar.  That is not something that Ailes is too concerned about either.

It has always been humorous to me that Fox News tells America that their “news” is “fair and balanced.”  Yet, when things like this come up, they just pretend that it is nothing more than a personal attack by the “left-wing media”.  In truth, Ailes and O’Reilly are flip sides of the same coin.  They both attack, threaten, and openly bully anyone who disagrees with their warped view of the “truth” and the world.

That is why O’Reilly won’t face any problems at Fox News over his serial lying.  He works for a network that makes its money doing the same thing all of the time.  Unless there is a backlash against the advertisers for O’Reilly’s show, nothing will be done, and O’Reilly will keep making stuff up as he goes along.

Unfortunately, for America, too many people will continue to listen to his bullshit as pure truth.  As the Wicked Witch of the West said, “what a world!”

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 276 other followers