Guest Bloggers can submit your original articles to Your article will be posted if it meets our standards.

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Is There a Republican War on Women?

The old saying goes, if you repeat a lie often enough, pretty soon people will tend to believe it. So it is with the so-called Republican “War on Women”.

That phony attack seemed to work well in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections as women (mostly single women) voted for Barack Hussein Obama by a good margin, which some have said was his margin of victory. His campaign used that ploy to generate fear in the minds of many women (low information voters) that Mitt Romney and the Republicans were going to pass laws that were going to harm women, and by voting for Obama it would protect them from the “evil” Republicans.

Since the economy was still “in the tank” (and still is), and our country failing to lead the way internationally, what better way to divert attention than to harp on emotional social issues by using the made up chant of the Republican “War on Women”.

It seems the Democrats are “priming the pump” for this years off-year elections by using the same technique of diverting attention away from the main issues that confront us as a country, and by using the recently decided Hobby Lobby case as a means of diverting that attention.

The Democrats were prepared to initiate the assault on the Republicans even before the Supreme Court decision was handed down. They had ads and fund-raising letters ready to to be distributed before the decision, which, I presume, they knew, or had the inkling, that the decision would be against their position.

The Supreme Court's decision in favor of Hobby Lobby was predicated on the law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, called the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”, which they found backed up the owners of Hobby Lobby in their refusal to pay for something they felt was morally wrong from their religious standpoint. In fact, Hobby Lobby was already supplying their employees 16 out of the 20 forms of birth control approved by the government. They only refused to supply the 4 methods that aborted a fertilized egg after conception which they considered abortion and therefore, violated their religious belief.

The claim that the court (and the Republicans) was interfering with a woman's right to use contraception was and is a “red herring”. Nothing of the sort was decided by the Supreme Court.

Even, so-called presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, jumped on the band-wagon to denounce the court's decision, even though the court used the RFRA (the Clinton measure) as the basis for it's decision.

It seems like the Democrats prefer to campaign on the phony “War on Women” trope through the elections this November. Their goal, as I stated before, is to scare up flagging election interest among their “coalition of the ascendent” of minorities, young people, single women and affluent cultural liberals.

The bottom line is that there is “NO” war on women by the Republicans (or Conservatives), the war is in the minds of the desperate Democrats (and liberals and Progressives) who want to gin up their base of voters at election time to stem the tide of an apparent Republican landslide in November. Don't buy into this “War on Women” nonsense.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Illegal immigrants / Undocumented alien / Immigrants

A consumer is a person who shops in a store and pays for the
merchandise with cash, check, bank or credit card. A thief is a
person shoplifting, or paying for the merchandise with a rubber
check, or stolen identity.

A citizen can be a person who makes an appointment with his
or her doctor in advance, and payment is usually made through
an insurance plan. A person who entered the country illegally
makes no appointment, but utilizes emergency rooms and it is
paid for with the citizen's taxes.

A law abiding person waits patiently on line for his or her turn.
The lawless one wants to cut in ahead of the patient ones.

Many a metaphor can be made, but a rose is a rose and no
matter how it's labeled, those entering our country unlawfully
 are and always will be felonious intruders. The word "immigrant"
 is not in this equation.

Conservative article from George Giftos

Malaysian Airline Missile Downing

Not to worry. The President has everything under control.
He will be asking Congress to appropriate 1 billion dollars
to prop up the OBAMA DOCTRINE, for replenishing paint, to
insure we have enough for RED LINING, in anticipation
of another coming threat by a hostile regime.

An event like this is a distraction favorable to the President,
because it tends to move criticism from him and the main
stream media away from focusing on his countless scandals.
He is a man of principle and fortunately for his steadfast
zombies, nothing will deter him from his number one priority
of fund raising.

Conservative article from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Who are the “Useful Idiots”?

That term has been attributed to Lenin, but whoever coined that phrase, it does have some relevance in today's political scene. The definition of the term “Useful Idiot” : is often used as a pejorative term for those who seem to unwittingly support a malignant cause through their naïve attempt to be a force for good. To me, that is the perfect definition of a liberal (a/k/a Progressive).

Who else but a liberal would attempt to takeover 1/6 of our economy with a health care plan, that nobody read before passage, and that has over 2,700 pages and thousands of new regulations to be enforced by the hated I.R.S., and then claim that it would not cost the taxpayer one red cent more, and that they could keep their present insurance plans and their present doctor (NOT!)? Those people are “useful idiots”.

Who else but a liberal would criticize a former president for running up the nations debt (when Bush left office, the deficit stood at $450 billion, which included the 2008 financial crash) while Obama, in his 5 1/2 years in office has raised the deficit four times, averaging approximately more than $1.0 trillion per year, to where our national debt is now around $17.5 trillion and rising. That is a “useful idiot”.

Who but a liberal, would criticize a venerated four-star General prior to initiating a “surge” in Iraq by claiming it wouldn't work and was a waste of men and money, but after it turned out to be the turning point in the stabilization of Iraq, as president, he (Obama) took credit for its success. Now that by pulling all our troops out of Iraq, the country is in turmoil and might be taken over by a vicious group of terrorists called ISIS, and then blame his predecessor. That is a “useful idiot”.

Who but a liberal would propose and institute an $800 billion “stimulus plan” to get the economy back on track and to keep the unemployment rate below 8%, but, as it turned out, it has made the economy worse and the unemployment rate is now over 6% (12% in real terms), and the worker participation rate of 63% (the lowest in decades). That is a “useful idiot”.

Who but a liberal will claim that there are “57” States of America, and who would say that the people of Austria spoke Austrian (they speak German), and that he was conceived by his parents after they participated in the march in Selma, Alabama (1965) when in fact he was born (Obama) four years earlier (1961). That is a “useful idiot”.

Who but a liberal would be given a pass by the “Lame Stream Media” about his past associations and dealings with other “useful idiots” from his hometown of Chicago including his mentor, the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist, Father Phleger, a radical Catholic priest, convicted felon Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, Van Jones an avowed communist, racial arsonist Jesse Jackson, disgraced convicted former Governor Blago, and Rashid Kahlidi a member of militant Muslim groups etc., while they go after with a vengeance conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann for petty verbal gaffes and black conservative men like Lt.Col. Allen West, Sen. Tim Scott, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas etc.. To me, they are “useful idiots” who are mean-spirited to boot.

Look at all the scandals that the Obama Administration is facing including, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the I.R.S. targeting of Conservative groups, the NSA spying on U.S. Citizens, the border crisis as we are being invaded by illegals crossing our borders with impunity etc. What would you call the president's spokespeople who defend his lies and inaction, with a straight face on national T.V., should they not be called “useful idiots”?

So yes, you could say I'm a conservative who abhors the policies of our present president, but even I (a biased observer) couldn't make these things up to point out the hypocrisy of Obama and the Democrats (liberals). The truth is the truth an no matter how you try to spin the truth, you can't change it.

The biggest danger to our great country is that we have too many “useful idiots” in important places and positions in our government. It is not the enemy from without that we should fear, it is the enemy from within (useful idiots) that we should fear.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 17, 2014

MORT's meanderings

There has to be a special place in Hell.
    There has to be a special place in Hell for Obama and his string-pullers.
In the annals of history there has been an endless string of evil, vile and demented  Kings, Potentates, Pharoahs, Dictators, Premiers, Emperors, Sovereigns, Chancellors and a Fuhrer, that have murdered and pillaged unmercifully - and who have struck abject terror and paralyzing fear  into the hearts of millions and millions of unfortunate victims of their evil, over the course of recorded history.
There have even been a few tyrannical maniacs who called themselves, 'President'  - but until Barack Hussein Obama came along - none of them has  been  a President of the United States of America.  Now that is no longer true.  Now, it has happened.   Our  nation and its people are currently suffering under the yoke of this diabolical Muslim miscreant and the regime that has been created for him by his string-pullers.
The names of those string-pullers remain largely unknown because recent generations of the Fourth Estate - the news media, the press, reporters and journalists - have been woefully derelict in doing their traditional duty. They are a bunch of lazy bastards.
Googling 'The Fourth Estate' turns up some enlightening quotes:  "In the United States, the media is often called the fourth branch of government (or Fourth Estate) because it monitors the political process in order to ensure that political players don't abuse the democratic process."  Also, " . . because it plays such an important role in the fortunes of political candidates and issues."  Also,  " The influence of the mass media affects politics in the United States greatly.  The public's point of view is changed by the way the news is reported  (or, is not reported)."
Regarding news that has been ignored, avoided and criminally underreported by less than curious 'investigative reporters' -  is who Obama's string-pullers are - where, why and how they operate - and why they haven't had the light of truth focused upon them?
Obama and his string-pullers who have inflicted their intentionally destructive policies upon our formerly free nation and its, "Liberty for All", have already secured their special place in Hell.  I've just checked with the Reservations Department in Hell - and they've assured me that there is still plenty of room in 'that special place', for the entire Obama Administration, including Czars, racists and Liberal/Progressive voters - plus, the 'complicit media'.      The good news:   There's room for them all.
MORT KUFF  ©  7-15-2014

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Did We Win the War on Poverty?

Back in 1964, then President Lyndon Johnson, initiated a government program and called it a “War on Poverty”. Since that time, up until today, we have spent approx. $16 trillion in pursuit of eliminating poverty in the United States. Has it been worth it or was it just another liberal feel-good social program that has failed miserably?

Well, let's look at what has happened in the 50 years since it's inception. The poverty rate in 1964 was approx. 14%, and in 2013 the poverty rate was approx. 14.3% (practically no change). Shouldn't we have expected a substantial reduction in poverty after spending approx. $16 trillion?

The major provisions of the “War on Poverty” were Medicare, Medicaid, Elementary and Secondary Education, and Head Start. It also included the now defunct Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). Critics of this poverty agenda have called the results of this program a liberal “feel-good social engineering program” whose major accomplishment was in wasting taxpayer money under the guise of helping the poor. Good intentions don't always result in good policy.

The main thrust of the “War on Poverty” was to help the poor and minorities get out from under the pangs of poverty by using federal tax dollars to give “handouts” to the poor, and subsidies for housing, in hopes of bringing many of the poor out of the cycle of poverty. One of it's major failures was the unintended consequences of unwed mother births which in the 1960's (before the “War on Poverty”) was around 6%, but since has increased to about 40% (the black unwed mother birthrate is approx. 70%). Critics claim that the provisions of the “War on Poverty” (that encouraged benefits to be paid only when there was no father in the house) were directly responsible for the breakup of families, especially in the black and minority communities. In some cases, three generations of a family have relied on government largesse, which has kept them just as poor and reliant of the government as they were before. The result is more poverty and a resulting increase in crime, with no relief in sight.

Both Medicare and Medicaid, both well-meaning and well-intentioned programs, are slowly going broke (the government paying out more than it is taking in), since the government can raise taxes on the citizens, the inevitable result is a constant increase in poverty payouts and a constant increase in taxes to pay for it.

Since Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41%, to more than $193 billion per year. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty, nor made the poor self-sufficient. Is it time to re-evaluate our approach in fighting poverty? Is the answer more government involvement? As Ronald Reagan once said, “The ten most damaging words in the English language are ,“I'm from the government, and I'm here to help” sort of sums up the consequences of the “War on Poverty”.

Remember what Albert Einstein said was the definition of insanity - “doing the same thing over again and expecting different results”. The paying out of approx. $16 trillion ($13 trillion federal, $3 trillion state) over the past 50 years should have resulted in a reduction of poverty, but it hasn't happened. Why should we keep spending our tax money on failed programs – it is like throwing money down a rat hole.

So the answer to our headline question is NO, we have not won the “War on Poverty”, and we need to re-evaluate what we have done and change it so we can get more bang for our buck (federal dollars). The unintended consequences of liberal feel-good programs is on display for all to see.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 10, 2014

SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby

The Supreme Court made another unpopular decision for Liberals,
attested by the scathing dissent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking
for the other three nay voters on the court.

Contraception is a private matter and not the financial responsibility
of everybody else on the planet.

If medically there is reason for birth control, I have a novel idea
that doesn't cost a penny, or involve insurance companies or medical
plans. It's called "ABSTAIN!"

Why should my tax dollars and health plan premiums go up for
someone's careless recreation that may cause unwanted pregnancies?
Does the liberal logic also mandate I must pay to protect homosexual
activity that could cause disease, for health reasons?

Curbing many facets in the Affordable Care Act hasn't gone far enough,
so I consider playing golf conducive to my mental health. Why is it
not covered by Obamacare, and why under Liberal logic, shouldn't my
employer pay for my membership in a country club?

Conservative commentary from George Giftos


Bombs come in different forms

A good way for people to digest and understand a thing or situation is
to illustrate it as an example:

The Ford Motor Company spent over $400,000,000.00 to start a new
division back in 1957, introducing a new model auto named the Edsel,
 named afterClara and Henry Ford's only son, who passed away in 1943
 from stomachcancer. The division folded only after 3 years, turning out
 to be the greatest automobile industry's failure.

Obamacare is President Obama's Edsel. To implement this new division
 of government is costing just short of a billion dollars and growing. The
Ford Co. spent its own money to create and promote the Edsel, but this
administration is wasting our money, the America tax payer's money to
pay for and promote what is turning out to become a bigger bomb than
the Edsel.

Unlike the Edsel, there won't be any Obamacare remnants left to end up
in eBay.

Conservative commentary from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share