Thursday, January 29, 2015

Liberalism vis-a-vis Liberalism

Believe it or not, there are some nice and decent Liberals. Somewhat
like the pre-war, depression types who thought it shameful to depend
on the government to support them..Their pride, independence, work
ethic and integrity dictated whether to accept relief or not.

My parents and many of their friends were among them whom I describe.
Unfortunately today, too many of them are naive and their subjective
reasoning is under the influence of individuals such as the likes of
Professor Jonathan Gruber, our demagogic President and the radical
liberals of self-serving Sharptonian profiteering, rabble rouser hustlers
in their community. Backed by the very divisive Congressional black
caucus, who won't allow facts to get in the way of the truth, by taking
advantage of their ignorance.

Example of this was revealed by the demon-strations in Ferguson, Mo.
I believe in the first amendment if it's used properly for demonstrating
and free speech; but it becomes problematic when it's used to promote
lies.It is problematic when it is used by the demonstrators to destroy their
town and threaten the safety and well being of others. It is problematic
when you see many of the signs held by the demonstrators, were clearly
professionally manufactured in preparation by big money instigators, to
advance their agendas and not spontaneous, but planned chaos.

Much of the hard work and progress made since the sixties on civil rights,
has been contaminated and set back by the Obama administration as if
spike strips were laid across the road to politically maneuver Ferguson
and Staten Island into the racist column so the President's and AG's
rhetoric could throw law enforcement under a steam roller.

Their administration has been mostly responsible for causing the divide
by yelling fire when their was no fire, and the Attorney General is planning
a mock investigation, and the President will use all his resources to end
racism, commenting, "Racism will take time to fix!" I agree, When you
break something, it takes time to repair to its original state.

His solution is to alter how Police departments operate instead of addressing
the real cause.The breakup or lack of black families, disproportionate black
criminality in proportion to white/black population, teenage pregnancies in
the black community and other self induced short comings.

Police harassment usually occur because of the profiles the young thugs
build of themselves, and those profile must be used by law enforcement to
stop criminal activity.

From all we know about the President, his so called solutions are mostly
politically driven and doomed to failure.

I propose he issue a directive for a national program to be added to the
curriculum of all elementary and middle schools, that will teach students how
to avoid getting into trouble and how to behave if confronted by a policeman,
or anyone in authority. Make it mandatory for all teachers to attend seminars
to conform to the program without deviation when teaching the material in the
program. It is a start and not a cure all. In time, other programs should be
developed to show how adults should behave and the importance of a whole
family environment.

Contributed by George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 25, 2015

The Liberal's Phony “Wars”

To listen to liberals, you'd think they are a violent people as they have declared “war” on poverty, the Republicans, who they claim are conducting a “War on Women”, the rich and successful, and the loosely organized Tea Party, who campaign for less government in our lives. In addition, just recently, during this past year, they have declared “war” on the police. Truth doesn't matter to them, it's the message that counts in their eyes and how it will benefit them politically in the ballot box.

Back in the 60's, the liberals wanted to eradicate poverty, so they declared a “War on Poverty”. Sounded good to many people, but what have been the results after we've spent over $7 trillion since 1965 to accomplish this “worthwhile” goal of eradicating poverty? Have we eliminated poverty, or have some unintended consequences made the “war” less than a success? I think we've found out that throwing money at a problem, especially when it is run by the government, is just a waste of money and, in many cases, the ruination of families who have been caught up in the programs that were supposed to help them, but the opposite has occurred, much to the chagrin of the “do-gooders”. Government “freebies” (handouts instead of handups) have had a disastrous effect on families, especially on black families and the poor in general.

During the elections in 2012 and 2014, the liberals (Democrats) brought forth the scenario that the “evil” Republicans were engaged in a “War on Women”, claiming that their policies were trying to deprive women of their right to abortion, getting contraceptives, and of paying women less than men. The fact that these claims were not supported by the facts didn't matter, it was the “phony” charge that counted, especially with a compliant liberal media carrying their water (message). Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, must be smiling as he resides in hell to see how well his propaganda tactics have worked, even 70 years after his demise..

Another “war” espoused by the liberals was the claim that the conservatives (Republicans) were the party of the rich and successful, which, in fact, the “fat cats” of Wall Street (many big corporations) gave more money to the Democrats than they did to the Republicans. How many $40,000 a plate fund raising dinners did Obama attend to raise money for the Democrats? Talk about hypocrites - the Democrats were the poster children for political misinformation and deceit.

During this past year, the “war” against police were initiated by left-wing groups (sponsored by Communists, labor unions, and Muslims) to rile up the black community by blaming some rare police killings of black men as being an epidemic (out of all the killings of blacks, 1% was committed by police actions while 92% of blacks were killed by other blacks). The “racial arsonists” (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Messiah himself, Barack Hussein Obama) “stirred the pot” of racial unrest which had a big affect on the subsequent riots, arson, and protests, and eventually in the killing of police officers by ambush and assassinations. These left-wing anarchists got their pound of flesh by causing mayhem and then blaming it on the police who's main job was protecting the very people who were accusing them of wantonly killing “unarmed” black men.

All these examples of liberal “wars” are phony and designed to undermine our society. In addition to the “racial hustlers” mentioned before, a significant number of Communists and Muslim agitators were behind these so-called “spontaneous” demonstrations around the country. To prove that charge of organized mayhem, within minutes of the “grand jury” verdict in Ferguson, Missouri, there were pre-printed, professionally produced signs held by the protestors as they gathered to protest the “war” on the police. Very spontaneous, eh?

So, yes, it is quite obvious that all these “wars” pushed by the left-wing (liberal) groups are phony and are politically motivated and should be shunned by all honest, law abiding citizens in all the various communities that make up our great country.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Conservatism Is Calling

This is a Video which was featured on The Blaze, Breitbart, National Review Online and the World News Daily.
The Youtube Video has Music by Audiomachine, the song is "Lost Generation".

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, January 18, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

Obama:  America’s No.1 Anti-Semantic
Elections have consequences, as evidenced by the election and re-election of one Barack Hussein Obama, for whom the English language is regarded as just so much silly putty under his total control, to re-shape, re-form and to do with as he wishes.  He has changed his name several times over the course of his career and so, changing the language is a piece of cake.
He alone, is permitted to form it into amorphous configurations according to his whim – and only he retains the omnipotent power to assign meanings and definitions.  In other words, our common, everyday usage, our Americanized-English, is no longer ours to use freely for the unambiguous expression of our thoughts and ideas.  The language has been confiscated, illegally commandeered and nationalized as the exclusive property of Dear Leader, to use in expressing his own interpretation and his own definitions of our linguistics.  His newly-minted definitions of traditional words & terms are contorted to suit his momentary PR needs.
Hence, we have the flagrant misuse use of the word ‘sequestration’ to mean that, if a set of impossible conditions were not met according to the recommendations of an Obama-appointed commission of well-meaning, former Government types, all with questionable expertise in the matters they were tasked to consider – the mandated consequence would be to cut in half, the budget for our military.   Of course, that is precisely what happened, precisely as it was engineered.
In the case of the Navy, it was nothing short of ‘Sea-Castration’.  In the case of the Army, Air Force and Coast Guard, it was nothing less than a crude but totally effective, ‘Emasculation’ of our national defense capability.   Obama won his battle of definitions, while our Armed Forces lost the basic tools without which, they were rendered helpless to carry out their assigned duty to protect and defend our sovereignty as a nation. Our first line of defense has been neutralized and we have been intentionally made vulnerable by the Commander-in-Chief.
In the tyrannical Obama Administration, words are morphed into turds.  Anti-Semanticism runs rampant in our Nation’s Capital.  And to date, no technology exists that permits even the most skilled academics, to polish a turd sufficiently that it may be acceptable in normal Society – much less the oppressive, Socialist society in which we are currently attempting to survive as a species.   May God have mercy on our Americanized-English language.

MORT KUFF     © 12-31-2014

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Do Women Earn Less Than Men?

Since the 1950's and '60's, and the rise of “feminism”, we've been told that businesses discriminate against women by paying them only 77¢ of what men earn in the marketplace. Is that charge true? Let's look at the facts.

At one time, most women were not employed in the workforce, to any great degree, as most were mainly housewives (homemakers), with some gaining employment as teachers, nurses, and store clerks. Since the 1950's, women have made their mark in the business world, and even today, now make up approximately 55% of the matriculating college students. So, what about that figure of 77¢, is it still valid today? The answer is a resounding “NO”, and here are some reasons why that figure of 77¢ is grossly misused by feminist groups and by those with a decidedly liberal bent who profess that there is a “war on women” as practiced by the Republicans (this charge always seems to pop up around election time, looking to influence the woman's vote).

Economists have come up with an answer as to why you can't equate the pay of women and men without some insight as to why some women might earn less than men. One stubborn fact of the labor market argues against the idea, that women doing comparable work, make less than men. They (the economists) claim that there is a gender-hours gap, a close cousin of the gender-wage gap. The numbers showing that women make less than men don't take into account the actual number of hours worked. And it turns out that women work fewer hours, on average, than men.

The Labor Department defines full-time work as 35 hours or more, and the “or more” is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female workers. More than 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week, are men. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap to a considerable degree is a gender-hours gap. The main reason that women are unlikely to be the richer sex (in terms of wage income) is obvious - children. Today, childless 20 something women do earn as much or even more than their male peers. But, they are most likely to cut back their work hours after they have kids, giving men the hours and income advantage.

Another fact as to why some women don't make as much as men, is the fact that women make up 2/3 of America's part-time workforce, a fact concurred to by the Federal Reserve, which found that college educated women who were wives were opting out by mid-career, especially those with wealthy husbands.

This is not just a phenomenon by working American women, but women worldwide who make up the large majority of the part-time workforce, and surveys suggest that women, on the whole, want it that way.

Another aspect as to some wage difference between what men and women make in total income is the fact that today over 40% of American children are now being born to unmarried women (it's even over 70% for black women).

So when you hear some of the feminist groups complain that women make less than men, you must look at the whole picture and not just be misguided by emotional facts that a man's paycheck is bigger than a woman's paycheck, as there might be reasons other than wage discrimination at work here, and that women are getting the short end of the stick. In most cases, it is not true and just a ploy by militant woman's advocates to gain acceptance by “low information” women, and to stir up the political pot.

If women were just as qualified as a man to do a job and a company could be able to pay less to woman, why would they hire a man for more money? That's why the claim that women are paid less just doesn't make sense.

So the answer to the headline question is “NO”, women, in general, do not earn less than men.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share