Thursday, December 1, 2016

House Breakers are Breaking the Law

The national election has revealed a portion of our society has a
Third World Nation mentality, unable to cope with disappointment
in a civil way, bolstered by elitists and members of an entertainment
industry, whose members skirt reality and their personal behavior
scornfully defies tradition. I don't want to dignify them by equating
them to animals.

Republicans won and the people have spoken, but the losers are
unwilling to suck it up, that the country no longer approves of a system
that finds our Constitution, a document holding our Judeo-Christian
beliefs and way of life incompatible with their shenanigans. Red states
sucked up the past eight years without violence, so if liberals have a
legitimate case, present it in 2020.

One of the high points of disagreement was on immigration. These
delusionary humanitarians can't see the negatives of a chaotic open
border policy and the consequences it will create. It is an insult to
my parents and others who followed the law, who emigrated here and
assimilated with the customs of their new home, while maintaining
and being proud of the good things from their heritage; but not losing
the reason why they are here and not staying where they were.

There is no such person as an undocumented immigrant or citizen.
This is an oxymoron term invented by the media to brain wash the
public into accepting people who ignore America's law. In fact, they
can be described as uncontrolled illegal intruders who penetrate our
country without our permission, many of whom are criminals that
liberal officials provide them protection under an unofficial status
called Sanctuary City; but they do not offer protection to their victims,
most notably Kate Steinle.

I am called a racist and unfeeling, because I don't want anyone
breaking into my house. The United States is my home and I have
a right to protect it.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Are Enormous Speaking Fees and Huge Donations Really Camouflaged Bribes?

We all know that taking money by a politician or a government official from someone in order to get a favorable government action, is a felony and is called a bribe. Well, suppose the payment of money is in the form of an enormous speaking fee to a spouse or a generous donation to a certain charitable foundation that a particular politician or government official runs or has an interest in, should that be considered a bribe or a “quid pro quo”? Does that sound like a situation that the Clinton's are involved in?

Suppose Hillary Clinton was elected president, how then would she be able to to deal with foreign countries, foreign leaders or oligarchs that have contributed millions of dollars to her spouse, Bill Clinton, and to the Clinton Foundation? Do you think that those countries that have donated millions of dollars to Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton after her stint as Secretary of State), and the Clinton Foundation, did so out of the goodness of their hearts or do you think they expected something positive in return for their largess? Is the Pope Catholic? Of course.

If you think about this unholy alliance between donor and donee, many of whom are banned by law from donating to a politician or government official directly, could this be called a clever dodge of the law by circumventing the law already on the books? By paying a large speaking fee to a spouse or donating a huge sum to a charitable foundation, that is operated by the politician or government official, and then getting special favors, could that be called a bribe? Any astute and fair minded person would say that this just doesn't smell right.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton, over the past 15 years have gone from being broke (which they claimed they were in 2001) to now be worth over $150 million. In addition, the Clinton Foundation is estimated to have around $2 billion in working capital , of which it has been estimated that the Foundation donates about 10% to charities in the U.S. and around the world. How did they make all the money, did they start a successful business, did they sell a product or idea, or did they inherit all those millions of dollars? The answer, of course, is that they sold “access” to the government which they had ties to and money to spend. Many people have claimed that the Clinton Foundation is just a Bill and Hillary “slush fund” used to pay big salaries to cronies, to pay for travel around the world and a host of other non-charitable expenses, while the Clinton's have claimed a million dollar charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation on their income tax return. That's like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other pocket.

Could you believe that anyone, who is so well connected in policy positions within the government (or being an ex-president as Bill Clinton is) would be worth from $200,000 to $800,000 for a 30 minute speech to various companies and countries within and outside of the United States? What words of wisdom could they possibly have to tell these companies and countries other than deal with me and something good will happen to you. Shouldn't that be called a bribe or a “quid pro quo”? You make the call.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 24, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

Thank Hillary for her dis-service.
Whenever I wear my NAVY cap, invariably someone will address me and say, “Thank you for your service.”  I’m always gratified and always respond, “Thank you; it was my duty and it was my honor.”
After an overly long career of documented dis-service to the legal profession and to those who chose her to represent them in her many positions and elected offices, I believe that Hillary should be recognized publicly for her abysmal record of dis-service to her former clients, constituents and to all the citizens of the United States.
As a young devotee of Saul Alinsky and his message of social revolution as espoused in his infamous book, “Rules for Radicals”, Hillary set her sights on doing things the wrong way, playing fast and loose with the truth, learning and applying all the short cuts to power and wealth and on honing her skills as a left wing, ‘radical’ politico.
Her record as an unprincipled lawyer; an unabashed suck-up to connected people starting with Bill Clinton; and her adventures in collusion as First Lady to ‘Bill’ when he was Governor of Arkansas then, as First Lady to ‘Slick Willie’ when he became President of the United States, is an indelible dark stain on the concept of ‘ethical public service’.
Following her unbecoming behavior as ‘First Lady’ during the Clinton years in the White House, she captivated the Liberal Democrats of New Yawk with her wit and charm and so, they elected her to represent them in the U.S. Senate. After her dynamic service in that deliberative body that included the highlight legislative achievement of re-naming a U.S. Post Office, she somehow imagined herself as qualified to run for the Presidency.  She was flattened by the Chicago street thug and Community Organizer, the half-black / mostly Muslim activist who became the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.
In his infinite wisdom upon becoming the President, Obama anointed Hillary as Secretary of State. Her record of corruption and pay-for-play in which she compromised this nation in every conceivable way, shape and form by her misguided and ill-conceived diplomatic bungling, is a textbook on how not to serve as the nation’s chief diplomat. Her resounding defeat in her recent attempt to gain the Presidency is unprecedented in the history of this nation’s elections. It proved the fallacy that, ‘It was her turn”. And, it capped her utterly disgusting career of public dis-service.                                         
        MORT KUFF  © 11-13-2016

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 20, 2016

What a Disgrace!

Out of all the government agencies over the years, the military and the F.B.I. were considered the most responsible and honest in the U.S. government bureaucracy. Since the election of Obama, that perception of honesty and integrity has sort of eluded the once noble F.B.I. after this latest debacle about Hillary's use of a private e-mail server and the F.B.I.'s decision not to recommend an indictment.

F.B.I. Director James Comey, had a reputation for honesty and integrity, but it seems that he got caught up in the Clinton's “web of deceit”, and sold out for political purposes.

As an example, right after the 4th of July weekend, James Comey gave a review of the testimony and evidence of the questioning of Hillary Clinton by the F.B.I. (Director Comey did not attend the questioning) and his decision to indict or not to indict Hillary Clinton for “gross negligence” in using a private e-mail server in the conduct of her business as Secretary of State.

For the 1st 13 minutes of a 15 minute presentation, Comey laid out a forceful array reasons (including lying and obstruction of justice) why Hillary Clinton was guilty of violation of federal statutes. During the last 2 minutes, be did a complete 180 degree turn and said that he would not make a recommendation to indict her. It looked like the “fix was in” and that he “folded like a cheap camera” for blatant political purposes. Is that too harsh a criticism of Director Comey's decision?

Let's review as to what happened leading up to Director Comey's decision.

It has been verified and admitted to by Hillary Clinton, that as Secretary of State, Clinton used a private e-mail server (and 13 phones, not one like she first claimed) in conducting her business as Secretary of State, contrary to agency and government rules and regulations. In fact, when she was sworn in as Secretary of State, she signed a paper agreeing to use the the secured government e-mail server for conducting government business. She ignored what she signed and immediately, upon assuming her duties, used a private server and thereafter repeatedly lied about it, even after her stint as Secretary of State. Did she violate the law, contrary to what Comey determined, and therefore should have faced charges of “gross negligence” (a felony)?

Here's the law that pertained to her actions of using a private e-mail server in conducting her business as Secretary of State, contrary to agency rules and regulations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 (b)

“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroy the same, shall be fined under this title, or imprisonment of not more than 3 years , or both: and SHALL FORFEIT HIS OFFICE AND BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OFFICE AND BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES”.

Isn't that what Hillary was guilty of? How could the F.B.I. Director Comey come to any other conclusion other than by recommending an indictment of Hillary Clinton?

Just prior to Comey's announcement, there was a suspicious meeting between Hillary's husband, Bill, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Comey's boss) on a tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. For what reason was this meeting for? Immediately after that meeting, Director Comey made that bizarre decision. All circumstantial evidence points to that the “fix was in”.

Subsequently, it has been revealed that even President Obama (using a pseudonym) communicated with Secretary Clinton on her private unsecured e-mail server, thereby making him an accessory to the crimes Hillary was being investigated for. By proceeding with an indictment, he would most likely be called upon to testify about communicating with his Secretary of State on an illegal private server. He couldn't let that happen as it would tarnish more, his already flawed legacy. It looks like Director Comey was given the “word” - don't recommend indictment or all hell would break loose and you will be the one responsible for a candidate for president having to quit the race.

The feasible conclusion is, the F.B.I. compromised it's fine reputation by letting politics determine policy. Shame on the F.B.I. and Director Comey. What a disgrace!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Another First Amendment Visit

Abuse of the First Amendment has been the subject of many of my writings in the past, and the need to look into honing its interpretation and application, where one side retrofits it to their devices and denies it to its opponent. It has become evident a neo liberal motion has invaded the democrat party, denying its protection to any one not in sync with their socialist agenda.

Under their code of political correctness, to express an opinion contrary to theirs is racist, misogynistic and bigoted.

The right to demonstrate against anything you feel harmful to your quality of life is one of the cornerstones of the First Amendment. No where in the First Amendment, or any other government document does it allow harm or destruction of anyone’s body or property as a freedom to express oneself. A majority of demonstrations we are being subjected to are fraudulent and motivated by organizations hostile to our American values and way of life. Example of this is the millennials taking to the streets, because their “Free Stuff” party lost a legitimate election, motivated to action by the leftist influences of professors who cut their teeth in the radical sixties.

Missing in the crowds were those who stayed home to use their brain in finding solutions to any discourse, while those rioting in the streets are the brain dead, resorting to violence for changes that can never be permanent.

The naïve are easily maneuvered by the anarchists infiltrating their ranks, who believe their efforts are humanitarian and keeping our borders closed is not humane. They don’t see the danger of undesirables among good people filtering through to create havoc, as is happening in Europe. Their plight is survival, but it is not bigotry to be cautious and deny entry for anyone who follows the tenets of a religion advocating Sharia law that is contrary to our laws, that negates the rights and protection by any of our amendments. Like most of us, our president elect, Donald Trump is not versed in the lingo of politicians and diplomats, so plain talk is not acceptable for elitists, so our words are open for them to ridicule and twist. By the demonstrations we are witnessing, it seems to be working.

Apparently it was OK to back a liar and non-indicted felon, who in the words of the FBI, was careless and negligent with state secrets, and by her ineptness, is responsible for the death of 4 of America’s best in Benghazi.

I ask any of you who are angry over the election results, if one of the four murdered in Benghazi was your son, would your vote be different? If your answer is no, you are a very sick person!

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share