Taking a page from Obama’s playbook, Al Jazeera America (and how is that for an oxymoron?) has banned such words as “extremist,” “Islamist” and “jihad” from its broadcasts, suggesting it may soon be an all-music network.

In explaining the rationale for all this pandering to terrorists, an AJA executive said, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I didn’t catch the fellow’s name, but it might have been Michael Moore, Bill Maher or Josh Earnest.

Speaking of the sleazy, slick-haired Maher, he has declared Chris Kyle, the legendary American Sniper, a psychopath. But Bill Maher, who has never failed to live up to his initials, has always been something of a joke. But for someone who bills himself as comedian, he’s never been a funny one.

The Republicans in Congress are already giving those of us who had high hopes after the 2014 midterms a migraine. For one thing, the House couldn’t even vote to ban abortions after 20 weeks. That’s because they got hung up on exceptions for rape and incest. A certain number of Republicans demanded that in order to qualify for the exception, the crime had to be reported to the police.

I understand their skepticism. I even share it. But if I had been in Congress, I would have voted for the ban and worried about the details later. However, I would have insisted that in conjunction with any abortion, the sperm donor be identified and confirmed with a DNA test in order that they be compelled to pay for the procedure, and so their names could be placed on a master list with severe penalties, including prison time and vasectomies, for repeat offenders.

Anyone who thinks it’s unfair to refer to Democrats as communists should complain to John Bachtell. He’s the chairman of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA, who recently announced that his people are eager to work with the DNC to advance the modern communist agenda in order to achieve common goals.

Down deep, Barack Obama envies the likes of Vladimir Putin and the Saudi royals, who can kill, flog or jail, their political enemies. Obama, on the other hand, has to settle for vetoing their legislation, calling them names and sending his campaign team to Israel to help defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in his upcoming election.

While advocating in favor of lifting our boycott of Cuba, Rand Paul has parroted Obama’s explanation for the new policy, contending that after trying to bring about change for 50 years, it was time to try something new. What the two idiots fail to acknowledge is that it is only recently, thanks to falling oil prices, that the two nations, Russia and Venezuela, that have been paying Cuba’s bills are no longer able to prop her up economically. That means that after 50 years, Cuba was finally vulnerable to U.S. pressure, and we might have been in a position to bring about greater freedom for her people. But Obama passed up the opportunity by granting the Castros everything they wanted in exchange for nothing. Not too surprisingly, that is exactly the type of deal that John Kerry appears to be negotiating with Iran.

At the moment, I have no idea if the Senate will allow Loretta Lynch to succeed Eric Holder as the Attorney General, but things aren’t looking good. Not when in spite of the fact that Lynch is Holder’s first choice for the job and has already testified that she believes that Obama had the constitutional right to grant legal status to five million illegal aliens, we hear that Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsay Graham (South Carolina) and Jeff Flake (Arizona), intend to confirm her.

What damn good is a Republican majority in the Senate if these loons are going to vote with the Democrats for another radical A.G.?

Thanks to Jeb Bush’s early announcement that he plans to make a run for the 2016 nomination, the campaign is already in full gallop, meaning that his various competitors are already slinging mud. I just don’t get it. If I favor, say, Scott Walker, how am I going to feel about Rand Paul or Ted Cruz attacking him? Wouldn’t it make more sense for all the candidates to be civil to one another, and save their sniping for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats?

Why create animosity either between oneself and one’s fellow candidates – those you will eventually want campaigning on your behalf if you are the nominee – or between you and those who may favor someone else in these early days?

Even if your opponent eventually decides to let bygones be bygones, the voter will have every right to ask him: “Are you lying now or were you lying when you said the nominee had the morals of a Clinton and the table manners of a skunk?”

If you insist on telling lies about your Republican opponent, why not say something along the lines of “Joe Blow is an honest patriot. He loves his wife, his children and his dog, and he would make a great president”? It is probably no truer than the insults on the tip of your tongue, but it casts you in a much better light.

Ronald Reagan, who knew a little something about winning elections, proposed an 11th Commandment, which stated that Republicans should not speak ill of other Republicans. But he, of course, was referring to politicians, not to pundits. That’s why I feel free to voice my objections to schmucks like Senators Hatch, Graham and Flake, who appear all too ready to roll over for Mrs. Lynch.

In case you haven’t noticed, the same folks who brought on the economic collapse of 2008 are at it again. It seems that the idiots in government and at the banks are pushing to grant home loans to those lacking a reasonable down payment and a less than stellar credit rating. That housing bubble looming on the horizon is not – I repeat – not a mirage.

Finally, although I think that RNC chairman Reince Priebus has come up with some nifty notions for 2016, such as fewer debates, no liberal moderators and an earlier convention, I believe he would do well to drop the hammer on Iowa. It makes absolutely no sense that Iowa has dibs on the first primary in the nation. If they persist, you tell them that they can have the caucus a week from next Tuesday if they like, but half of their delegates will be denied votes at the convention. That is how other states are disciplined when they try to change their primary dates.

For one thing, Iowa doesn’t even have a proper primary. They have a caucus. For another, it requires all the candidates to waste an enormous amount of time and money crisscrossing a small state that is in no way representative of America, demographically or any other way, in the general election.

What’s more, since 1976, it’s hardly been a bellwether. In four of the 10 caucuses, the winner was an incumbent president and three times had no opposition. As for the other six, twice the winner in Iowa went on to get the GOP nomination; four times, however – George H.W. Bush in ‘80, Bob Dole in '88, Mike Huckabee in '08, Rick Santorum in '12 – Iowa merely gave false hope to an also-ran who merely wound up sapping the energy and the resources of the eventual standard bearer.

And whatever you do, don’t get me started on New Hampshire!