Sunday, May 1, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

The word ‘Terrorism’ is banned from use by the Public Relations geniuses in the State Department. There are other ‘unacceptable’ words that have been banned by the deniers in our Federal Government.  This president won’t  utter the words, ‘Militant or Radical Islam’.  His very own Teleprompter is prohibited from showing them.  WHY?

What is wrong with these Obama-banned words that we are told, are now ‘unacceptable’ words?  Why are they banned?  Who gave Obama the right to exercise his personal control over the universal English language that this nation and the Western world use to communicate freely just as they have for hundreds and hundreds of years?  Who gave him the authority to redefine words as he has done continually since the day he falsely swore to ‘protect and defend we the people and The Constitution of The United States of America? The fact that he has the unusual faculty of being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth does not confer upon him the right to diddle with our spoken language.
As a native born, legal & legitimate citizen who has worn the uniform in defense of this country during wartime – none of which this president can claim and actually prove, I do   believe that I have far more right than he does, to ban the use of words that I consider to be ‘unacceptable words’ or ‘undeserved titles’.  So, here’s a partial list of the words I have herewith, banned from use:
President.  Commander-in-Chief.  Secretary of State.  Ambassador.  Homeland Security. Democrat. Liberal. Progressive. Reid.  Pelosi.  Schumer. Hillary. Clinton. EPA.  TSI. Michelle. Madame Supreme Court Justice.  IRS. NSA. All female Department and U. S. Agency heads. (Yes, I said it.)  The names of all Muslim advisors in this administration – every single one.   The names of Jessie Jackson, Louis Ferry-can and Al Sharptongue. Black lives matter.  Infidel. Mastermind.  Workplace violence.  All Obama sicko-phants whether in or out of Congress. Entitlement.  Foreign Aid.  Immigrant.  These aren’t all but, they’re a start.
                                                                                 MORT KUFF  © 11-23-2015





Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Trickle Up Poverty

When Ronald Reagan ran for president, his opponents scoffed at his proposal to lower taxes, calling the possible results as “Trickle Down Economics” (a/k/a Reaganomics). They said it was a worthless economic policy. Was it?

In theory, TDE is an economic system where there is no significant barrier to accumulation of wealth by individuals. If the rich do well, benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of the people. Lower taxes on high income or capital gains will benefit not only the rich but everybody on the lower income rungs, as the theory is supposed to work. Reagan's critics had to “eat crow” as the economy boomed after the Reagan tax cuts kicked in. The resulting prosperity lasted more than 25 years. Yes, the rich got richer, but so did the poor and middle-class, “a rising tide lifted all boats”, as Jack Kennedy once opined. The economy was booming during the late 80's and 90's as a result of Reagan's “Trickle Down Economics”.

As envy took hold among a certain section of the population, mainly by liberal Democrats, who thought that by lowering taxes would decrease government revenue, (but during Reagan's two terms, government revenue practically doubled). The clamor for higher tax rates resonated across the national scene, pushed by the Democrats. They claimed it was unfair that rich people got richer and as a result they felt that some of those extra riches should be confiscated by the government by raising taxes on the wealthy. For the last 20 years, drip by drip and inch by inch, the Democrats have pushed for successful people to pay more taxes into the federal treasury to help fund the money losing social programs instituted by the liberal politicians looking to shore their low-information and poor voting base. Since both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both champion the Marxist/Socialist economic philosophy, part of their campaign proposals include “income redistribution”, which is one of the planks of socialist theory (take from the rich to give to the poor).

During this period of when Reagan's tax cuts kicked in (1983 to 2007), America's net worth climbed from $25 trillion to $57 trillion. In fact, more wealth was created in the U.S. during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years. This period was called by many economists “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet”. Besides cutting taxes, Reagan lifted price controls on oil and natural gas, cut regulations, took on the unions, and advocated for free trade. All this booming economy came to an abrupt halt in 2008, mainly as a consequence of wrongful public policy (the housing mortgage meltdown).

The old adage of “people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it” (this was a George Santayana quote) is something the Democrats haven't learned, as they want to punish success through taxing and regulating the producers over and above what is fair and equitable. In economics, there comes a “point of diminishing returns” which generally comes about when you take the incentive away from businesses and entrepreneurs by over taxing and over regulating them. After all, the top 10% of income earners now pay 70% of all income taxes, and they are vilified by the liberal left as not paying their “fair share”. Compare that “fairness” with the fact that 47% of income earners pay no federal income tax ( is that fair?). For example, a few years back the government, in their abject stupidity, instituted a “luxury tax” on products that wealthy people normally bought such as yachts, expensive cars etc. that cost $30,000 or more. The result of this action caused the wealthy people to curtail or stop their purchase of these luxury goods, thereby putting some of the producing companies of these luxury products out of business and the resulting layoff of thousands of workers, who were not wealthy. This oppressive tax was finally repealed after a short period of time. Was that a lesson to be learned by the Democrats, apparently not?

The policies put forth by the Democrats today is tantamount to reversing the theory of “Trickle Down Economics” which worked so well for so many years, and now they want to change it to “Trickle Up Poverty” as that will be the result if the tax and spend Democrats get control of the government after the November elections.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann





Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Do we want Hillary to be a role model for our Daughters?


I've been closely following relevant commentaries aired in pertinence to the use of the unsecured
server used exclusively by Hillary Clinton to communicate Government business via email.

I am extremely perplexed by those coming from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
She emphatically claims there was no classified or secret communications transmitted at any time,
in any of the scrubbed emails she hid from investigation, jeopardizing the country's security by
bypassing government secured methods for her convenience.

If we are to believe this, she is implying she did not deal in any kind of classified or secret
documents through her personal server and email account. If this assertion is incorrect and in
fact there was, I'd like to know how she conducted secret State Department communications.
Through carrier pigeon? There must have been classified business conducted between her
department and other departments in government, as well as our embassies around the world.

Was Benghazi security compromised, that led to the ultimate death of Ambassador J.
Christopher Stevens and the four American heroes?

If the fix is on and the DOJ does not follow FBI recommendation for indictment, even if that's
where their investigation takes them, will the media continue to protect Hillary Clinton?

A bone of contention sticking to my craw is Hillary trying to garner sympathy by trying to
compare her 11 hours in the congressional house hearings on Benghazi with the 13 hours
of pure hell her incompetence created for those who gave their life protecting American
interests, and her lying about the circumstances leading up to it.

Wall Street made their down payment to protect their investment on her presidential run
 in speaker fees and foundation contributions. Do we really want somebody like her to
spearhead our security, protection and economy? Do we want our daughters to hold
her as a role model?

Conservative column from George Giftos








Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Are You Being Paid What Your Worth?


Most working people would probably say “NO”, but they would have trouble defining what their worth really is. A good definition of what is the right pay for a worker is: “You don't get paid for the time you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the time you work”. In other words, is your production worth it to the employer, company, or organization to pay you the amount they pay you?

Many people today feel that they should be paid for the job classification, regardless of what they contribute to it. Equal pay for equal work, has been the rallying cry for years by the “militant feminists” when they petition for getting more pay for women. They never mention that an “Equal Pay Act” was passed in 1963 which was intended to not have wage discrimination between males and females. Equal pay determination is easy if two people are doing the same work or similar work, but the objectivity blurs when you try to compare dissimilar jobs. How do you compare a teacher with a truck driver, or a sales clerk with a carpenter etc., etc., as other factors also enter into the determination of what a person should be paid?

Due to physical differences in men and women, there will always be some disparagement in how men and women are compensated. Men, overall, are physically stronger than women, so therefore they are more prone to be attracted to jobs that many women shy away from such as, firemen, combat military, manual labor etc. That's also true with women, who tend to be attracted to certain jobs that men mostly won't do such as, nurses, elementary school teachers, checkout clerks etc. That's not to say men and women don't crossover to work at the jobs mostly held by the opposite sex, but in the main, stereotypical job selection by men and women hold up as stated.

The “political football” of raising the minimum wage, as seems to be a big push in “progressive” quarters today, is an area where the government gets involved when it really shouldn't. To have the government set an arbitrary base minimum wage for hourly workers with little, if any, consideration as to how that wage can be compared to production, as needed by the employer, generally brings “unintended consequences”. It generally means, mostly in the unskilled teenage group and seniors supplementing their retirement income, that there will be fewer jobs available, thereby causing higher unemployment for those on the lower rung of the pay and skill ladder. By raising the minimum wage, you will also cause a demand for an upward adjustment by other workers immediately above the newly set minimum wage plateau. Think of all the entry level positions that might be lost around the country, if we price these workers out of the market by artificially raising employees wages without any thought of the economic hardship placed on the employer? That increase might seem beneficial for the worker, but if his employer has difficulty meeting that increase, that entry level, low-skilled worker might be laid off or have his work week cut back. That's an example of the “unintended consequences” of trying to be generous and magnanimous to workers without regard to the value that the worker brings to the job. Is it better for the worker to be employed at $8.00 per hour or unemployed at $15 per hour? It's as simple as that.

Some people use Europe as an example of putting into place higher minimum wages, but when you see that the unemployment rate, in most European countries is greater than that of ours, it should give some pause for thought that artificially determining what someone should receive as pay determined by some government bureaucrats, might not be in the best interests of the worker or for the country's economy.

The demagogues, of course, will vilify all those who oppose a spike up in the minimum wage, but pure simple economic logic, will win out in a serious debate as to its merit, but emotion seems to always trump logic, most of the time, so the pressure on the feckless politicians to raise the minimum wage will be forever present.

In conclusion, politicians should let the”free market” determine the pay of the workers (except in instances of coercion, fraud, or exploitation) because the “unintended consequences” of arbitrarily setting pay scales, is more detrimental to the worker than letting the productivity of the worker determine his worth in the marketplace.

Remember, you don't get paid for the hour you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the hour you work

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmamm






Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 17, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

How many Armies, Navies, Air Forces,
Nukes & Missiles does it take to be stupid?
There are 125 nations in the world today that have varying degrees of military might comprised of Armies, Navies, Air Forces, missiles & Nuke capabilities. At least a dozen of these nations have significant quantities of men and hardware to conduct war and the capacity to snuff out the lives of millions and millions of the World’s population.  How many of these nations do you think have, ‘RULES of ENGAGEMENT’?  
Care to hazard a guess? Just one Folks, just one!  You guessed it.  Purportedly, the most powerful nation on Earth, The United States of America.
Now, what is the military all about?  Why do nations have Armies and Navies and Air Forces?  Why is that? Nations with peaceful people have militaries in order to defend themselves against nations dominated by lunatics who maintain super-sized militaries to do their will and exert control over the populations of other nations.
So, why in the hell is it that the United States is the only nation on the entire Globe that suffers from ‘Terminal Political Correctness’ and imposes utterly stupid ‘Rules of Engagement’ on its military. We have a President and Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, who hasn’t a clue about when or how to use the military but, is so paranoid + Narcissistic that he has fired more than 200 Senior Generals and Admirals because they had the temerity to offer their expertise in military matters that didn’t jibe with his cowardly, lead-from-behind ideology.  Under no circumstances will he ever stand and fight an enemy.  And if that enemy happens to be Islam, ‘fuggetaboutit’ !!
To put it only slightly facetiously:  President Barack Hussein Obama’s Rules of Engagement mandate that a soldier has to be shot dead, before he can return fire on an enemy, for fear of injuring a nearby ‘innocent’ civilian. Yes, it is that painfully stupid.
This Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces, without benefit of having served a single day in any military organization, on his own and contrary to all the unified voices of battle-hardened military advisors - has shoved these Rules of Engagement down the throats of our men and women in uniform thus, putting their lives in danger, imminent danger 24/7, as they faithfully and courageously carry out their duties, on hostile foreign soil.  Nothing approaching this callous & reckless stupidity has ever been seen to come directly from the office of a United States President. Obama is a traitor who should have his citizenship revoked, all future benefits negated and he ought to be banned for life, from ever again setting foot on USA soil.
         MORT KUFF   © 4-15-2016








Judge Jeanine Blasts Hillary Clinton in Opening Statement.





Bookmark and Share