ACTION

                                      SWAMP THING LUIS GUTIERREZ DOUBLES DOWN

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who represents the 4th Congressional district a gerrymandered snake-shaped district designed to protect his vitriolic incumbency, has doubled down on his criticism o  DHS head Gen. John Kelly as being unfit to wear his uniform for opposing the illegal and unconstitutional DACA program rejected by a Congress in which Gutierrez sat:

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D) responded to Gen. John Kelly [Ret.], after the White House chief of staff dismissed the Chicagoan's first round of criticisms.

Gutierrez said Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, is "a politician, OK, not a general."

"What could be more mean and more vicious than to say 'you've got six months to pack up...and leave the United States'?" Gutierrez asked of Kelly.

"I don't see [him wearing] a uniform," Gutierrez told the Washington Post.

Ann we don’t see Rep. Gutierrez ever wearing a uniform, unlike Gen’ Kelly’s son Robert who gave his life for his country in Afghanistan fighting to protect America and the freedom of Muslims seeking liberation from the depraved tyranny of the Taliban:

Robert Kelly, 29, was killed in a roadside bomb blast in 2010 during a foot patrol in Afghanistan's Helmand province.

Like his son, who gave his life for others who did not look like him or shared many of his beliefs, Gen. Kelly served with and commanded and witnessed the sacrifice of soldiers of all races, ethnicities and genders. He is nor a bigot, but a patriot who deserved better for seeking enforcement of the nation’s laws and Constitution than what Rep. Gutierrez gave him:

The Washington Examiner reported that U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat, took personal aim at Kelly because Kelly once reportedly spoke favorably about the program. House members reported in July that Kelly told Latino lawmakers in a closed-door meeting that he was supportive of the program, but pointed out that it was probably illegal….

“General Kelly is a hypocrite who is a disgrace to the uniform he used to wear,” the congressman said in a statement.

"General Kelly, when he was the head of Homeland Security, lied straight to the faces of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus about preventing the mass deportation of DREAMers," Gutierrez also said. "He has no honor and should be drummed out of the White House along with the white supremacists and those enabling the president's actions by ‘just following orders.'"

It is Rep. Gutierrez who has no honor as well as no respect fo American citizenship,  the nation’s laws and the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Gutierrez has long supported open borders and even supported expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to illegal parents:

For Democrats such as Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., amnesty and the political benefits stemming from it are inevitable. They are quite willing to use children to exploit the inherent compassion of the American people if it means ensuring the political future of the Democratic Party through the gratitude of millions of illegal aliens allowed to come here and stay.

Gutierrez recently told a La Raza conference that it was only a "down payment" that President Obama gave the Latino community with his Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program that halted the deportation of 600,000 of "our people":

"Now it is time for the president in the United States ... (to) free the mom and dads of the DREAMers and to go further — be broad and expansive and generous."

Unlike Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Gen. John Kelly has long  his country honorably: Gutierrez is a career politician living on the taxpayer’s dime while, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, using his office to personally enrich himself:

In Chicago, where a decade long building boom has reshaped neighborhoods, politicians have come to rely on real estate interests to donate to their campaigns. But the Democratic congressman's financial relationship with some contributors goes beyond campaign cash, according to records and interviews.

In half a dozen deals with campaign supporters since 2002, Gutierrez has made about $421,000 by investing his money in real estate deals and exiting a short time later. The congressman says he made a profit in five of those deals but lost a small amount of money on the sixth. …

Gutierrez has bought and sold properties with five campaign donors, including convicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko….

The demise of DACA wouldl be a deserved end to a magnet for illegal immigration based on an unconstitutional executive order by President Barack Hussein Obama who was frustrated that Congress failed to pass it as legislation named the DREAM Act. As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer observed on Fox News’ Special Report at the time:

 You can have executive orders that implement already existing laws. What Obama has done in the DREAM Act, which is exactly what you've talked about. Essentially he passed a law by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn't pass, that is unbelievably unconstitutional. It's as if a Republican ran and said I don't like the capital gains tax, Congress rejects an abolition of that tax and then he orders the IRS not to collect it. People would be up in arms and would be impeaching. He's doing that over and over again on immigration

Even President Obama said he didn’t have the authority to do what he eventually did – enact the Congressionally rejected DREAM Act through executive order:

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Was President Obama also a dishonorable hypocrite for saying the executive order on DACA had no legitimacy in the law or Constitution? Thankfully, unlike Gutierrez, we still have Americans like John Kelly and his son Robert willing to serve their country honorably even to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications

MEGYN KELLY RETURNS - UNDRESSED TO IMPRESS

                                                                                     By

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

Former Fox News star and now NBC darling Megyn Kelly has a new show starting June 4 on the peacock network, appropriately nicknamed considering the prima donna status of its new centerfold, er, centerpiece of  NBC. Fpr her first show, she interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin at an international economic forum in St. Petersburg. NBC released a publicity photo of her sitting with Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  Her attire seemed somewhat inappropriate for a past victim of sexual harassment and a self-proclaimed opponent of sexism in politics and the workplace. As Kristinn Taylor noted at Gateway Pundit:

NBC News starlet Megyn Kelly dressed like a hooker for her interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin that is scheduled to air on Sunday. A publicity photo shows Kelly interviewing Putin while wearing a low-cut, off the shoulder blue velvet dress that is slit to mid-thigh, accented by black open-toe shoes with stiletto heels.

Kelly has posed, no pun intended, as a champion of empowered women an opponent of a culture which objectifies women in and out of the workplace.  Yet, like Hillary Clinton, who rode her husband’s coattails to political prominence, Kelly has shown no reluctance to put her feminist mindset aside for the sake of her career. Some may know of her claims of harassment from former Fox News chief Roger Ailes, but maybe not that she kept it hidden from public view until shescould use it to sell her book, “Settle For More”. As Kate Scanlon wrote last November on The Blaze:

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly said Tuesday that she did not come forward sooner with allegations that former Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes sexually harassed her because it would have been a “suicide mission” for her career.

During an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about her new book, “Settle for More,” Kelly said that in the beginning of her career at Fox News Ailes tried to kiss her three times in his office and that when she rejected his advances “he asked me when my contract was up”…

Kelly called Ailes’ actions “disturbing” but said she didn’t immediately come forward because “realistically, that would have been a suicide mission for me and my career.”

“I wasn’t Megyn Kelly of today. I had no power, and he was on the cover of industry magazines as the most powerful man in news,” she said. “There was no one to go to.”

 Well, the Megyn Kelly of today remains the same opportunist she was then. Certainly the first GOP presidential debate on August 6, 2016 was an opportunity she wouldn’t let pass her by. Her question, directed at Donald Trump was incendiary and provocative and, in retrospect, a bit hypocritical:  

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women.

You've called women you don't like "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."

(LAUGHTER)

Your Twitter account...

TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

(LAUGHTER)

KELLY: No, it wasn't.

(APPLAUSE)

Your Twitter account...

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: Thank you.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O'Donnell.

TRUMP: Yes, I'm sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

Kelly’s concern about demeaning women and insisting they be treated with respect doesn’t jive with an interview with Howard Stern, famous for asking women guests “are those real”, in 2010, when she was also not the Megyn Kelly she is today.  Then, one supposes, it was okay to talk about breast and penis size with the world’s most famous pervert.

Then there is the famous GQ photo shoot for that magazine’s December, 2010 issue in which the rising Fox News star poses provocatively in lingerie, an odd occurrence for someone who would later pompously condemn the objectification of women, except when used to advance her career. Trump would bring this up after the deabate. As Politico reported:

Donald Trump continued his onslaught on Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Thursday, retweeting a follower who criticized a photo shoot she did for GQ Magazine.

“And this is the bimbo that’s asking presidential questions?”, the tweet said. It included two photos of Kelly posing provocatively and the following text: “Criticizes Trump for objectifying women ... Poses like this in GQ Magazine.”

A fare question one would think. After that debate viewers noticed the change in Kelly’s persona from the wholesome girl-next-door look to one more appropriate for a more sophisticated image. As journalist Peter Barry Chowka observed:

Throughout 2016, Kelly had been increasingly criticized but not only for her apparent hostility to Trump. She appeared to be focusing and reporting increasingly and obsessively on herself and changing her appearance and persona from a smart, girl-next-door type to a cold and calculating feminist icon-wannabe. In a July 19, 2016 article at Breitbart, Matthew Boyle quotes a “top Fox News host:”

“If Fox wants to become the ‘all about Megyn Network,’ that’s fine. We stand with Roger [Ailes]. And real anger has emerged that the so-called Megyn incident [alleged sexual harassment by Ailes] happened 10 years ago. The consensus among the hosts and contributors is: ‘Why didn’t she say anything then? Really, the same woman that posed half naked in GQ? The same woman on Howard Stern saying what?’”

While Kelly was attacking Trump, she ignored the resurrection of talk about Hillary Clinton being an enabler of her husband’s extra-marital activities at the same time the anti-Trump media was hyping the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump engaged in dirty talk about women. Newt Gingrich confronted Kelly about her double standard in a segment on “The Kelly File”: 

The exchange, as reported by the New York Times, went as follows, with Kelly arguing that Trump’s dirty talk in a trailer was worse than Bill Clinton’s turning of the Arkansas governor’s mansion and the Oval Office into a personal Playboy penthouse:

“You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy,” he told Ms. Kelly.

Ms. Kelly: “Me? Really?”

Mr. Gingrich: “That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.”

Ms. Kelly: “You know what Mr. Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex, but I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office and I think the American voters would like to know …”

Mr. Gingrich then began to talk about how Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, would return to the White House “because you, after all, are worried about sexual predators,” an apparent allusion to Mr. Clinton’s affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“Listen, it’s not about me. It’s about the women and men of America,” Ms. Kelly replied. She said polls showed that voters were concerned about the allegations against Mr. Trump and believed they were an issue.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Gingrich turned to baiting Ms. Kelly.

“Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?” Mr. Gingrich said, adding: “I just want to hear you use the words, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’ I dare you. Say, ‘Bill Clinton, sexual predator.’”

Kelly did not call and has not called Bill Clinton what he in fact was, a sexual predator, insisting instead that the Clinton assaults on women had been covered by her and others and wishing Gingrich well on attending to his “anger issues.”

Kelly, in a sparring contest with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway essentially called Juanita Broaddrick, who along with other Bill Clinton victims, had resurfaced during the 2015 campaign, a liar: 

Megyn Kelly claimed that Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick denied any rape in a 1998 affidavit. Close, but no cigar, Megyn. The story is a little more complicated than that. It was not that her story was false as Megyn Kelly implied. Like many rape victims, Broaddrick felt no one would believe her and she simply wanted to put it behind her and not be forced to relive it, particularly in any legal setting: she resisted interviews, fearing no one would believe her charge against a popular President. …

Broaddrick feared the retaliation of Team Clinton as well as the glare of a disbelieving media. Thus she signed an affidavit denying the rape, again trying to avoid being forced to relive the horrible experience. But she told Starr and his office the affidavit was false. Starr didn’t pursue the rape story not because it was false, but because it was not part of his obstruction of justice investigation.

At the Trump press conference, Broaddrick, tired of being accused of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and afraid that her attacker would once again occupy the White House with the woman who orchestrated the attacks on Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions”, repeated her accusation:

“Actions speak louder than words,” Broaddrick said. “Mr. Trump may have said some bad words but Bill Clinton raped me and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don’t think there’s any comparison.”

Megyn Kelly may or may not succeed in her new endeavor, but she is sure to be sufficiently provocative in her appearance as she was in her GQ shoot and Putin interview. As for the war on women and their objectification, she will say and do whatever is needed to advance her career.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publicatin

Hi Everyone, 

I could use some help here. Does the President still hope to get a full repeal of Obamacare during this Congressional session? Or, more likely, will he be satisfied just to get the revised AHCA (only) bill passed? 

Tonight, at the 100 day rally in Harrisburg, President Trump asked Pennsylvania Congressmen Mike Kelly and Tom Marino to help him get a healthcare bill passed very, very soon.  Presumably, he was referring to the revised AHCA bill.  The bill altered with Rand Paul's help for the approval of the Freedom Caucus. Paul Ryan says he wants to get AHCA passed as soon as he has the votes. 

But, Trump said "repeal & replace" at least three times at the rally.  So, I might presume that the President wants to eliminate Obamacare in large chunks.  Revised AHCA, being the biggest chunk, eliminating the five Obamacare Mandates up front.  Or, is it the case that the President still hopes to achieve a full repeal of Obamacare during this session?   

What do you make of this slight contradiction? What have you heard?

Thanks, Charlie Gaudin
(Jackson, Mississippi)

            Former Astronaut Mark Kelly and NRA VP  & CEO Wayne LaPierre

                     Battle at U.S. Senate Hearing over Gun Control

Legitimate gun owners and supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment have good reason to be outraged by Mark Kelly’s publicity trick to further gun control efforts in America. According to published Fox News reports, the former astronaut and husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a shooting victim 2 years ago in Tucson, Arizona purchased an AR-15-style rifle and a 45.-caliber handgun.

This comes on the heels of his highly publicized efforts in both Congress as well as in Colorado to assault the U.S. Constitutional rights of legal gun owners to own weapons. In fact, his comments which he posted on Facebook, according to published reports seem disingenuous, when he states that people could easily buy similar guns at gun shows or over the internet without background checks.

The fact is, Kelly did actually do exactly what other law-abiding citizens in Arizona or any other state in the union have done beforehand. The Diamondback Police Supply gun shop where he reportedly purchased the weapons from, followed state law and had him undergo the mandatory background check.

Well, surprise, surprise he passed without any hiccups. So what was his point?

Many supporters of gun rights have weighed in on his open display of reactionary theater, by correctly pointing out that his entire stunt accomplished was to bring attention to his and his wife’s newly formed gun control organization named, Americans for Responsible Solutions.

It appears that the organization’s leader, Kelly, was actually seeking to create irresponsible reactions from fellow gun control sympathizers who would somehow rise up in hysteria and join up or gin up more donations to his national gun control cause.

What Kelly does not seem to want to accept, is that as tragic and woefully unfortunate the mass shooting of his wife and others on that horrendous day in the Tucson area shopping center, it was not performed by law abiding citizens going on a rampage.

Her attempted assassination was due to largely in part to relaxed mental health laws dealing with mentally unbalanced and severely disturbed individuals that the mental health system in Arizona and other states have not be responsible for.

Kelly, instead resorted to the quick, the easy, and the attention-headline grabbing techniques which are assured to raise the ire of mainstream media liberal heads. The goal of course is to place greater pressure on states like Colorado, which was recently caught up in a monumental gun control pitched battle in their democrat controlled state legislature. That highly restrictive gun control legislation has now been signed into law.  What states are next to fall victim?

( click to read more )