On the December 16 Sean Hannity show, he once again attacked Speaker John Boehner. It was in a segment with former congressman Allen West. Hannity attacked Speaker Boehner for not consulting the so called conservative base of the Republican party. Hannity has a serious personal problem with John Boehner. Why do I say this? It is because at every opportunity Sean brings up Boehner as not doing what Hannity wants him to do. Speaking of Presidential politics, Sean Hannity repeatedly raised Speaker Boehner as an example of weak leadership, poor judgement and a refusal to adhere to conservative Republican party principles. One had to wonder why Sean Hannity thought that John Boehner was running for President? One wondered why he thought that speaker Boehner should be obeying the dictates of Senators Cruz and Lee? There was no opposition to Sean Hannity from LTC West or from Karl Rove. They were either silent (Rove) or totally agreed (West). This writer likes Congressman West, and I was disappointed by his obsequious head nodding to Hannity’s attacks on Speaker Boehner.
I remember how the conservative talk show hosts helped to win the 2012 election for President Obama. First, they talked about Obama every day while ignoring Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. This meant three hours of talk about President Obama from Rush Limbaugh, three hours from Sean Hannity, and three hours from Mark Levin. Second, they did not endorse Romney/Ryan until the very end, and then only with reservations and warnings. All three called Romney a RINO, which means a Republican In Name Only. They helped defeat the Republican candidates in 2012. Their constant rant against Romney in the primary season could not be withdrawn in the election cycle and was not forgotten by their millions of listeners.
So, now, we have all three attacking the Republicans, namely Speaker Boehner, because he will not conduct himself in obedient adherence to what Hannity, Limbaugh or Levin tell him. This infuriates Sean Hannity and he daily brings Speaker Boehner into every discussion. Tonight, at least, he did not call Speaker Boehner a coward or someone who acts cowardly. Hannity did that last week. Instead he called Speaker Boehner, weak, uninspiring, and incapable of enforcing the conservative Republican agenda on the House of Representatives.
Sean Hannity has a personal prejudice against Speaker John Boehner. Because of his persistent harping on his dislike for Boehner his feelings seem like irrational anger. Sean Hannity has to stop his relentless small-minded and highly personal attacks against John Boehner. He cannot hide his dislike for the speaker by using politics. He has a problem with Boehner. He daily reminds his viewers of his problem. One wonders if he thinks that we all agree with him or that he can bludgeon us into agreeing with him. He cannot, and should stop treating his viewers as though they are stupid.
Category: Obama
John Boehner is not a Coward
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/hannity-rips-cowardly-boehner-being-145947372.html
Mr. Hannity is a Gruber. He started the show with the obvious intention to attack Speaker Boehner. He then proceeded to tell each guest that Speaker Boehner was wrong to work toward a budget. Mr. Hannity said that he believed the House of Representatives could have gone with a Continuing Resolution (CR) which would put them into the New Year when they would have super majorities in both Houses. However, Mr. Hannity did not explain what Hannity would do about balking Democrats and rebellious Tea Party Conservatives. He also did not explain how putting off the budget deal would have better served the nation. He seemed to think that the only reason the Republicans had a majority was to defeat Democrats and thwart President Obama. It seemed to this writter that Mr. Hannity proposed a totally partisan answer to the budget without regard for Democrats. However, this writer thinks that a key message from the 2014 election was to get Congress working again and not to merely promote a Conservative Republican political agenda.
It is impossible for anyone to describe this episode of Hannity as “fair and balanced.” It was a small minded intolerant attack on the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was personal and Mr. Hannity made no apologies for the “mano y Mano” nature of his assault. But is it really fair to attack Speaker in this way? The speaker was not there to defend himself and as a public official he has very little recourse for an answer. For the Speaker of the House of Representatives to directly answer Mr. Hannity would be to give Hannity way too much respect. This is especially true since Sean Hannity acted so disrespectully toward John Boehner by never addresing his comments to the “Speaker”. Instead, he preferred to use the dismissive title “Boehner”. But in references to Rep. Pelosi, he called her by her first and last name.
Does anyone need to even honor Mr. Hannity’s insulting use of the word “coward” or “cowardly”? Such comments by Mr. Hannity should be rejected and this viewer thinks that an apology is required.
All the guests on Hannity were partisans and could be expected to agreed with Sean, and they did. The one guest to disagree was Mr. Karl Rove, who was cut off by what (I hope) was a hard commercial break and not Mr. Hannity’s control board?!
One last word from here; Mr. Hannity accused Speaker Boehner, who is third in line to the Presidency, of being a Gruber. This reference to thinking that you could fool the American people because they are stupid, is more true of Mr. Hannity than Speaker Boehner. Mr. Hannity seems to feel that he can come on the TV, attack the Speaker of the House of Representatives as a coward, as acting cowardly and of being a Gruber. Well, Hannity can do that but at the risk of infuriating his viewers and of tarnishing the reputation of the news network for which he works. He further hurts himself because its shows his personal and passionate dislike for Mr. John Boehner. At the least, Mr. Sean Hannity should stop such shameful treatment of Speaker. Maybe all future reporting on the Speaker should be handled by someone else.
Rand Paul and Paul Ryan
I still think the team of Romney and Ryan was a wonderful opportunity for America. As of now I think it could be Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I know a lot of people are angry at Congressman Ryan for budget matters. But the key is that he wanted to pass a budget in order to get control of spending back to the Congress. The Democrats have succeeded in using the Continuing Resolutions process to NOT pass a budget and thereby hand over complete control of spending to President Obama. That is why Obama was able to spend so much money. Now that we have a budget, imperfect though it be, the congress and budget committees can control and reign in the spending and President Obama no longer has a blank check to write. They have already corrected the mistake about military retirement pensions. They will do more. As for Rand Paul’s libertarian leanings, so what?! He doesn’t want war? Great. He believes in the rule of reason and law? Good. He thinks that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted? Fantastic. He thinks that government must be reduced in size and more actual power returned to State and Local governments. Bravo. He loves America and does not seek to fundamentally transform it into a socialist welfare state? Awesome. Let’s get behind the Republican candidate and not do the Gingrich, Santorum, even Ron Paul (Father to Rand) and fight till the convention and then go home to Va. Pa. and Tx. without giving wholehearted support to the candidate (Romney and Ryan.) I believe that we lost because those three groups fought too long, refused to donate to the candidate, refused to work for him, and stayed home on election day. I also blame Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin for seeking a so called PURE Conservative instead of supporting the best team we could field. Let’s not do it to ourselves again. By the way I like the sound of the two names, Rand Paul ( a R and a P ) and Paul Ryan (a P and a R ).
Why the Republicans Lost in 2012
Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election. They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner. They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day. The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them. Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks. So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time. The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate. Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had. It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe. Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh. Levin, the same. I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous. I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy. And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will. So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good, that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.
The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others. It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader. The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies. The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs. This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas. Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind. It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow. The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace. Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party. But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs. This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it. They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes. And all Democrats did as they were told to do. Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”. It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad. The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership. That decision was to be obeyed without question.
Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement. We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society? Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads. Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost. In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.
America today is facing an election for the House and Senate. Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate. However, it must be a debate about ideas. The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing. The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow. And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather. (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans. Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault. And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina? Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)
The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video. The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the National Security Council because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe. We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff. And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues. However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate. Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.
Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue. It should be a non issue. As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues. Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian? Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned. What is an African anyway? Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black. Is African a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? Is Africa a continent or a country? Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway? Is it a racial characteristic? Do we really want to say that it is? Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African. Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans. I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer. The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping. I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor. President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly. Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor. That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.
Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog. But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.
There is a lot a stake in our nation. We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win. But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch. Nor should it. Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent. A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.! I just hope you get the idea.) I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight and definitely not a brawl.
Christians are Being Persecuted
It amazes me that Senator Rand Paul is courageous enough to stand up and stand out attempting to stop persecution of Christians when the ELCA, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod are silent. Maybe America based Lutherans don’t care about the welfare or fate of other Christians. The silence of the Churches further weakens their moral authority in an age where it is almost non existent anyway. However, Senator Rand Paul, who is unrecognized by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and March Levin, is a brave, honest and outstanding political leader who is not beholding to the talk show pundits. Seems, Rush, Sean and Marc prefer Ted Cruz to anyone else. Yet, it has been rand Paul who had led the fight for fairness in government. I believe it was Rand Paul who not only was an inspiration for Ted Cruz’ speech, but also an advisor, mentor and supporter. Yet not a word of recognition by the major conservative radio hosts. I guess, Senator Rand Paul does not EXACTLY fit their definition of Republican or conservative. And that is their downfall they define too narrowly the people with whom they are willing to work.
Are all Liberals Prejudiced? One Wonders!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/boehner-to-tea-party-shut-yourself-down.html?cmpid=yhoo
“…one-sided, overwhelmingly white, aging, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, science-denying districts want.” A person does not need to read any further than this in order to see that the author is herself a narrow-minded, prejudiced bigot with an amazing amount of self-righteous confidence who claims to be analyzing. However, this article is full of one-sided, myopic stereotypes which discredit her supposed analysis and reveal it to be nothing more than a rant.
Only Obama Can Cause Default
http://visiontoamerica.com/16051/house-republicans-schedule-obama-impeachment-hearings/
Marc Levin broadcast Monday Oct 14th that only Obama can cause a default. According to Levin, the US Constitution charges the President with the responsibility to pay all the debts of the USA. It seems that Congress has the power of the purse but the President is the actual writer of the check. Levin stated that under Article One of the USA Constitution the President is required to prioritize the accounts payable to assure that the government does not default. Therefore, Levin stated, it is President Obama and Obama alone who decides whether the USA defaults. Furthermore, Levin said that there is enough money presently in the USA checking account with billions coming in daily plus the end of year payments which can easily fund payments to our creditors.
The President, however, is constantly stating that it is the House of Representatives who will cause the USA to default. Obama has broadcast again and again that Congress, namely, the House of Representatives, that is causing default and should be held responsible. Levin, however, said that the Congress is powerless over default because the Constitution specifically states that the payment of our accounts payable is solely the duty of the President. If the President refuses to pay the debts of the USA he is not carrying out his legal responsibilities, and he is not keeping his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the USA.
Levin made one power filled comment during his three hour program, namely, that the only job of the President of the USA is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the USA against its enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is it. Nothing else, at least in this matter of the credit of the USA, matters!
Marc Levin went on to say that he believes the Obama government is trying to usurp the power of the House of Representatives by insisting on seizing for the President the power of the purse and of passing laws and of raising taxes. These explicitly enumerated powers are given exclusively to the Congress by the Constitution. If the President tries to seize these powers for himself, he is acting against the Constitution and his oath of office and should be indicted by the House of Representatives by articles of impeachment.
Levin’s comments are very informative. Unlike the above citied news article which accuses Obama of all sorts of egregious behavior, the Levin argument is based solely on the Constitution and the potential accusation that the President is not upholding, defending and protecting the Constitution.
Additionally, the present actions of Obama put him in the position of antagonist and enemy of the House of Representatives and by his many statements that the House is hostage to the so-called Tea Party adherents, who Obama claims are to be rejected, the President positions himself to illegally seize the powers of the House for himself, thereby abolishing the House and becoming a ruler. This kind of ruler would not be checked or balanced by the House of Representative and would be ruling by presidential directive also called a dictate. Obama would then be a dictator.
This writer is not putting this before you because I have any desire impeach Obama. However, if Marc Levin’s interpretations are correct, and if future days play out a scenario such as he envisions, I also would strongly state that the House is required by the Constitution to present articles of impeachment against such a seizure of power by the President.
Listen to Obama and He Tells You What He is Doing
http://news.yahoo.com/emerging-senate-proposal-focus-budget-battle-140124033–politics.html
When Obama complains about the House of Representatives he is telling you what HE is doing and not necessarily what the House is doing.
He starts his radio talk by saying that the lack of communication does not need to be this way. Translation in reality: Please ignore that I have repeatedly refused and still refuse to negotiate with the people’s elected representative. Instead, blame them because they have insistently asked me to have a conversation with them which I have insistently refused to do.
Then Obama goes on to say that the demands of the people’s elected representatives is extortion and he will not bow to their demands. Translation in reality: I will not allow them to do what is their constitutional duty unless they agree in advance to give me what I want. Please ignore my repeated threat of veto and ignore my Senate spokesman Harry Reid’s refusal to allow the House to pass legislation. Instead blame the Republicans in the House who are hostages some bogeyman called the Tea Party Movement.
Lastly, Obama prefers to deal with his democrat party majority in the Senate for a budget resolution. That is because he is confident that Harry Reid will continue to force every bill sent over by the House is Dead on Arrival. That is if Harry even allows the House bills to be entered into the Senate agenda and not thrown into the garbage as soon as the papers arrive.
Not it does not have to be this way. As Obama says, the branches of Government should not be antagonists and shout each other. Translation: Please ignore that I constantly used negative names for the House leaders and elected representatives. Ignore that I always blame them and former President Bush for all the problems I have created. Ignore that I have run up a seven trillion dollars deficit in four years. Forget that I bribed Senators Nelson and Landrieu with federal funds in order to get Obama Care to pass. And forget that on every vote in the Senate all, that is 100 percent, of the Democrat Senators always vote for Obama, against the House in order to stop all legislation from being enacted.
So the lesson learned is that we should listen to Obama. But not to look at those he accuses. Rather, to take his accusations and look directly at him because his accusations tell us what HE is doing.
Killing Gaddafi Produced Terrorism
http://news.yahoo.com/libya-car-bomb-hits-swedish-consulate-benghazi-103128741.html
The murder of Gaddafi, the Libyan President by forces useful to NATO produced terrorism and not the democracy and peace that Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron promised.
At the time of the illegal criminal aggression by NATO against Libya, the promise made by Obama and the rest of the crew was that they were only providing “cover” for the rebel groups. The British, French and Americans had convinced the Russian and the Chinese that they should not veto the Security Council resolution on Libya because the intentions of the NATO European military alliance were to “level the playing field” and give the French sponsored and British supported rebels a change against the legal central government in Tripoli.
France was once an imperialist colonial empire that fought against Vietnamese independence in the 1950’s. The French had a very bloody war with Algeria in the 1960’s, trying to keep that North African nation occupied as a French colony.
The British colonial empire is well-known. It was subjugated a third of the world, keeping the Indian nation a colony until 1949. During the empire period the British were feared as a brutal colonial empire that used government forces to kill any nationalist’s who opposed British rulership. Remember, America fought two wars against British imperial control in 1775 and again in 1812. Britain also helped the Confederates during our civil war.
Ignoring both the French and British past as dominator of weaker counties, the USA under Barack Obama joined them in an unprovoked attack against the sovereign State of Libya itself a member of the United Nations. At the time the Libyan government of Gaddafi was recognized by 101 countries as the legal government. The attack, marketed as merely giving air cover to rebel groups, was factually illegal criminal aggression by the NATO military alliance. Such aggression had been condemned by the Nuremberg War trials as War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.
So what do we see today. We see Libya no more a democracy than it was under Gaddafi. Rather, the French sponsored and British supported ruling elite is a government not able to control various internal militias, it also cannot control terrorist groups such as the ones attacking the USA and Swedish embassy. We see that the thousands of refugees displaced to southern Europe have remained in those countries. And we see that the economy and standard of living among Libyan citizens has decreased.
All that was accomplished was to replaced a stable and legal government with a European puppet regime on the “dole” to France. We merely made matters in North Africa worse and invited increased turmoil and fostered more terrorism.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-blackmailing-russia-over-syria-lavrov-105610311.html This refrain by the USA is correctly criticized by the Russians. Since the days of Obama Arab Spring speech in Egypt, all we have seen in the Middle East is an onward march by Muslim extremists backs by the CIA and NATO and now he wants the UN to do it for him. From the beginning of his regime, Obama has played the Noble Peace prize while he has pursues wars in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Surprizing, he has left intact the hereditary monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Arab Emirates.
Oil in all of these places or ease for the transport of oil is the underlying corporate play. And Obama, who started at 900 thousands in personal wealth is approaching 12 millions. How does he get it. Through the “blind” trust set up for him by Warren Buffet, a frequent guest at the White House. Warren Buffet who does not want the pipeline because it hurts his profits from the Burlington Northern Railroad. Warren Buffet and friends who want to close coal nines in Kentucky and West Virginia, in favor of their oil and gas interests in Texas and the Dakotas.
At The Russia Foreign minister said, the Americans are fixated on Regime change. He says that all the former imperialist and colonial powers of England and France want is for regime change. All USA wants is regime change. How to get it? He says the three unholy partners say, use force. They want military intervention, bombs, missiles, troops on the ground under UN mandate. So it is the USA that cries and continues to cry, attack, attack. We are definitely the war mongers in this case.
Previous articles on this blog has enumerated the case in favor of Libyan ruler Gaddafi. Why, because he was the internationally recognized leader of the Libya, like the king of Saudi Arabia is. I made the case in favor of Mubarak. Why, because like the sultan of Arab Emirates, he was the UN recognized leader of his nation. I make the same case for Assad. Why, because if an international oil company wants to tap into the Syria oil, they must sign a contract with the leader of the Syrian people, Assad.
Some cynics will say this is politics Chicago style, because of Obama’s Chicago roots. I call it arrogance and gangsterism when the USA wants to go around the world and pick and choose what governments it will play with and which ones have to be changed before we will play. Oh, and leave your ball with us when you leave the same, Obama says, because we like YOUR ball and would rather play with it than with you.
In fairness to Obama, some will say that he is a novice playing in a big boys game. They will point to the long Imperial colonial history of both France and England. They will recall the bloody wars France fought in Vietnam and Algeria in order to force their imperial colonial will on the native people of those countries. They will recall that England and France were the colonial powers responsible for the boundaries that are the mid-east today- boundaries that favor English and French corporate interests at great cost to the average persons in those countries. They will tell you that where French and English people reside today in Africa, the locals are the servants and the white or half white elites are the rulers and beneficiaries of the local resources. So, they will tell you it is not big bad Obama but those nasty imperialists.
But Obama is more than willing to play along with the French and English bullies. Why, one can only wonder why the USA wants to join with them in order to advance their selfish corporate interests at the expense of the everyday citizens of those nations. It can only be that Obama talks the talk of peace, peace, but secretly pushes his friends to cry war, war. Sadly, the Russian Lavrov is again being shown that it is not only Hilary Clinton that lied to him, it is not only John Kerry who lied to him, it is the big boy in the white house who lied to him.
It is embarrassing, as a USA citizen to think that the world is seeing daily evidence that the USA cannot be trusted because its political leaders are liars.
Progressive Politics 