Thursday, February 11, 2016
We all know that Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist, but what about Hillary Clinton and Martin O,Malley? Both Hillary and Martin say they are “Progressives” thereby trying to sanitize what they really are, “Socialists”.
First off, all three of the Democrat candidates are in favor of “income redistribution”, which is right out of the Karl Marx playbook. They all are in favor of government control of our health care, of increasing the government bureaucracy, and increasing government regulation of business and our personal lives - all tenets of the Marxist/Socialist philosophy. In fact, over 70 members of Congress (including Bernie Sanders) are members of the organization called the “Democratic Socialists of America”. Most all the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are members of the DSA (Google up Democratic Socialists of America to see for yourself).
Besides the principle of “wealth distribution”, the Democrat candidates promote the idea that what is yours is not yours, it belongs to the government. According to President Obama, if you own a business “you didn't build that”, and all the Democrat candidates buy into Obama's statement. As an example, Hillary on June/29/2004, made the statement, “We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”. Both Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley have made similar statements. That's Marxism/Socialism in practice.
Remember when, a few years ago, when Hillary said that it “takes a village” to raise a child, she was using that Marxist/Socialist principle of government intervention in the lives of its citizens, whether they wanted that interference or not. In a similar statement, Bernie Sanders said in 1969, “The revolution comes when.... a commune is started and people begin to trust each other”.
All three Democrat candidates are great enthusiasts for the “welfare state” by proposing expanding governments handouts to many of its citizens (mainly in hopes that those receiving the “freebies” will cast their votes for the Democrats). This all sounds benevolent and magnanimous, but by expanding the “nanny state” and spending trillions of dollars since 1965 on the “War on Poverty”, we have not put a sizable dent in poverty or of government subsistence. Today, almost 50% of the population receives some sort of government largesse. In fact, it has had the opposite effect of moving away from economic empowerment (a good thing) to economic enslavement and dependency (a bad thing). That is why some have designated the Democrat Party as the “fee stuff” party, and with good reason.
As stated before, the Democrats are running away from the term “socialist” (except of course, Bernie Sanders) because it has negative connotations in the minds of the public (the Democrats also seem to be trying to avoid the term liberal for similar reasons). Both Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley are calling themselves “Progressives”, which they feel is a much more positive term than Socialist. This is just a continuation of Obama's slogan of “Hope and Change, but for the American people, there is “no hope” and you're left with just change in your pocket. Winston Churchill once gave a definition of Socialism, he said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. Leave it to Winston to put the truth into a wise and pithy statement.
We did not become the preeminent country of the world by espousing socialist principles, we became #1 by our founders giving us a democratic republic on a foundation of free enterprise capitalism, and it has served us well for over 225 years.
Don't let these Democrat “snake oil” Democrat salesmen (candidates) try to convince you that transforming our system into the United States of Europe, is the right thing to do, in fact, you could say that there isn't a “Dimes worth of difference” between any of the Democrat candidates. They do not deserve your vote.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Hillary Robbem Clinton
No more unfit misfit has ever run for the Office of the President of the United States, than Hillary Robbem Clinton.
We’ve had a few more than our share of unfit misfits that have actually been seated in the Oval Office, thanks to a majority of misguided voters. Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama jump to mind, immediately. (*Pause to recover*)
I see that Madelyn NotSo Bright and Dick Durbin are supporting Hag Hillary’s ill-conceived run for the candidacy of the Delusional Dumbshit Democraps. That’s sufficient information for me to prove my point.
Any one of the stage-full of Republican candidates who are currently trying to tear themselves to shreds, would be quantum leaps better than Hillary. Try and try again as they might, to portray ‘Hag Hill’ as possessing a rich record of accomplishment in public service, her loyal slugs have been unable to unearth and document even one genuine, positive, legitimate accomplishment, Pretty sad, huh?
What manner of fools who proudly tag themselves as ‘Progessives’, does it take to rally ‘round a proven, untrustworthy liar who hasn’t a clue how to conduct herself in an interview, much less in public office? The only box she can check is that she thinks she is deserving because she’s been around Washington, D.C. for so long. If that’s a legitimate qualifier, then the Old Post Office building on Pennsylvania Avenue is equally, if not more deserving as a presidential candidate.MORT KUFF © 2-7-2016
Pardon my bragging a bit, however . . . .
. . . it isn’t every day that I can point to the cover of a national publication and say, “Hey, look at my stuff.”
“ALLEGRO” is the monthly publication for members of AFM Local 802 NYC Musicians Union. The Feb1016 edition is dedicated to African-American History Month and my drawing of Duke Ellington graces the cover. Inside, there is a 2-page spread of several more of my drawings and my article recounting my recollections of seeing & listening to the ‘Duke’, in person.
To access this on the internet, here’s the website address:
www.local802afm.org Click on ALLEGRO and then, Click on:
Mort Kuff’s Tribute to the Masters.
You could say that I’m excited about this. And, I am looking forward to the possibility of further show & tell of my pen portraits of favorite big band leaders and other musical heroes in future editions of this in-tune publication.
MORT KUFF Feb 5, email@example.com
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Whatever candidate you are supporting, the main thrust of that support should be - will that candidate support nominees for the Supreme Court who will interpret the law (as written in the Constitution), and not make the law?
Coming up during the next administration will be 3 or possibly 4 openings to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. If you elect, as president, someone who will appoint activist judges, who will tend to have a “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution, then you can expect to see a wholesale change to our society as we know it.
The Supreme Court, as it is currently made up, is broken into two groups - half liberal and half conservative, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote. Although, from recent decisions of the Supreme Court, some supposedly “conservative” judges like Chief Justice John Roberts, have voted for policies that tended to fall on the radical left (ex: Obamacare decision calling “fees” a tax). Chief Justice Roberts was a George W. Bush appointee who was considered a conservative nominee when confirmed, but seemed to have strayed from that designation when he ruled on the Obamacare question. That decision went against the prevailing opinion of legal constitutional scholars and the citizens at large.
If the Democrats retain the White House, you can expect potential nominees to make decisions, if confirmed, who will promote the far-left agenda as personified by the four liberal judges now sitting on the Supreme Court (i.e. Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg). That will give them the majority on the court.
Most all Republican candidates have promised that they will appoint and support Supreme Court nominees who will interpret the Constitution and who will not try to circumvent it by “legislating” from the bench. That must be taken into consideration when determining who you will vote for in November 2016. It is that cut and dry.
So, forget all the petty attacks by the candidates on each other, and try to visualize what our country will become if we have more (a majority) progressive (a/k/a liberal, Democrat) judges confirmed to the Supreme Court? Our society will be turned on its head, and not for the better.
This admonition goes for those who said they will not vote if their candidate does not get the Republican Party nomination. Doing that would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If that mind set prevails, and a Democrat is elected, you, who will sit out the election, will have no one to blame but yourselves if the prevailing opinion of the Supreme Court becomes a majority liberal court.
Elections do have consequences, so make it your mind to support who the Republicans, through the democratic process, choose as their nominee. Our country is at stake, so don't blow it by harboring petty differences and not getting out to vote.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, January 31, 2016
There is something terribly wrong with society today that defies decency.
It's been slowly evolving after World War ll with the Baby Boomers of
1946-1964. Followed by Generation X in 1965-1979 and blending into the
Millennials of Generation Y from 1980 to become the T and IG generation.
The "Trendy and Instant Gratification" generation, that's heading toward a
zero achievement legacy.
Prior to the aforementioned generations, despite a world wide depression
and a devastating war, there was a positive note, referred to as the Greatest
Generation by Tom Brokaw, because of its sacrifices and contribution to
society. It existed before the decline and rise of things, ironically all beginning
with the letter 'M'; music. morals, manners, movies, media, migrants, murder
Sometime, starting in the fifties, pop music lost its melodious sound and
became noise pollution, and lyrics transformed into pornographic expression
performed by sparsely, gaudily clad headliners and grubby looking groups
lacking professionally trained tonal structure in their vocal presentation.
Generation X began the era when morals became the sewage in a rural field
called Woodstock and the hippie pot hole at Haight-Ashbury corrupted the
impressionable. Before them, gay meant being happy, pot was something
used to cook things in and grass was a lawn to mow.
And before "T and IG," Human life mattered in any color.
Unlike the old southern plantations, residents of today's urban plantations
have lost their dignity under their rich progressive overseers, label them
victims and bestowing unwarranted entitlements to control them.
Manners are rare occurrences and total surprises when it happens. Of
course some people are still around who embody the Norman Rockwell
image of innocent and respectful America, but they are dwindling.
Hollywood is synonymous with movies and because its quality of production
and its resident life style, a more appropriate designation should be,
Hollysodom and Gomorrahwood.
The media is a tool for marketers to promote propaganda, telling us we
have to buy things we don't need or want, or have the money to pay for
them. A deception of theirs is, call a product new and improved by
repackaging it so you will think are getting the same amount to hide lesser
content, or excuse to raise the price. Case in point, 59 ounces in a half
gallon container of orange juice and periodically, shorting 20 to 30 sheets
less in a roll of toilet paper. Setting a ridiculous arbitrary high price for a
product and then advertising it at a lower price to make you think you
are getting a bargain, or "but wait, we will give you a second one for free; just
pay shipping and handling." Does a hundred dollar pillow ring a bell?
On the rise is undocumented illegal migrants crossing our borders, putting
a strain on our infrastructure and prison system. Many are criminals making
the headline for senseless murders.
I fear our country is regressing into nihilism and it might be a good idea to
seriously research plans on how to construct an ARK.
Conservative column from George Giftos
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Unfortunately, I'm getting that sinking feeling that it's “deja vu” 2012 all over again after listening to the Republican candidates for president. The rancor and vituperation between the G.O.P. candidates, as they try to get an upper hand in the various state primaries, are just what the Democrats ordered. I'm sure they are taking notes and recording sound bites in hopes of using those talking points in the coming general election, just like they did in 2012.
The Democrats most probably are getting very antsy about their leading candidate, Hillary Clinton, as the FBI is close to coming to a conclusion in its probe of Hillary Clinton for her use of a private server, against State Department rules, and her use of the office of Secretary of State in making decisions affecting donors to the Clinton Global Initiative (the Clinton Foundation). If the FBI sends a request to the Attorney General to present an indictment of Hillary, it's a whole new ballgame, and will throw the Democrats into a frenzy and will encourage the movers and shakers of the Democrats to then throw Hillary under the bus and to try come up with a new candidate (most probably NOT Bernie Sanders, who is an avowed Socialist, which would be a major hurdle to overcome - remember the Progressive (a/k/a Socialist) candidacy of George McGovern in 1972?).
From my prospective, as a Republican, I think most all the remaining G.O.P. candidates are much more preferable than any of the Democrat candidates, by far. With President Obama leaving office in January, 2017 with an approval rate now at or below 40%, this should be an up year for the Republicans, but as Republicans have shown before, as the headline of this editorial states, they are prone to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mitt Romney and the other candidates in the 2012 Republican primary trashed each other mercilessly and as a result Romney's candidacy was hurt by this negative onslaught by other Republicans and, unfortunately, by some tactical campaign errors by Romney himself. All the signs pointed to a G.O.P. win in 2012 because the G.O.P. won in a landslide off-year election in 2010, mainly over failed Obama policies and a sluggish economy, but alas, Obama won re-election.
Now 4 years later, the same electoral landscape is even worse than it was in 2012. Over 60% of the citizens think our country is on the “wrong track”, and the Democrat candidates are praising Obama's record and want to continue it if elected. It should be a no-brainer to vote against the Democrat candidate, but many in the G.O.P. have said that if their candidate does not win the nomination they won't vote and support the eventual Republican candidate. If that happens, the Republicans can kiss the election of 2016 goodbye, even with flawed Democrat candidates as the opposition. It could be that the G.O.P. might never recover power in the near future.
So folks, will the Republicans commit suicide and grab defeat from the jaws of victory, or will they unite behind one of our candidates to save the country from becoming the United States of Europe. Now, my friends, go out and vote for the G.O.P. , our lives depend on it.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann