Sunday, June 28, 2015

O'bama at the bat

Not letting a good lie go to waste, President Obama and his minions are recycling, in spirit,
the erroneous slogan, " Hands Up, Don't Shoot," in his nuclear parlance with Tehran; hoping
to deter the Iranians from developing nuclear weaponry. It is believable only to someone
suffering acute naivety.

It is so humiliating presenting Barack Obama as the leader of our country to the rest of the
 world. Especially after hearing oratory from real leaders like President Ashraf Ghani from
Afghanistan, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

A giant basket contains six years of Obama blunders. If you dipped your hand into it today,
 you will have drawn the one where six notorious high level Taliban terrorists were released
 in trade for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who deliberately walked into the hands of the enemy. Our
troops suffered six fatalities attributed in the search to find him.

Despite warnings by the men who served with him, stating his absence was a desertion, the
President invited Bergdahl's parents to the White House Rose Garden, honoring him for his
 service; feeling smug about the whole dastardly deed. His partner in stupidity, National
Security Adviser, Susan Rice praised Bergdahl for serving with honor and distinction.

Obama was hoping the public would see it as him hitting one over the fence, but in reality,
he struck out again and his team is still in the cellar, batting zero.

When our Caspar Milquetoast president looks into the mirror, the image he sees reflected
 back at him is a Walter Mitty, not the dynamic Reagan-istic leader he imagines to be.

We are living with our head in the sand and tail between our legs in an Obamanistic era of
 shame, with assistance from the national mainstream media and their liberal endorsements
 for his agendas.

Just as ISIS is not junior varsity, Barack Obama is not a major leaguer.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Ten Ways a Woman Can Screw Up a Relationship or a Marriage

Under the threat of being called a “sexist” (or worse), here goes. Yes, I know it takes two to have a meaningful relationship, but, being a male, I'd like to give you my take and observations of others as to how a woman can screw up a relationship or a marriage. Here's how it can occur.


#10 – Women will insist that the man must accompany them whenever THEY go shopping. Most men think it is a waste of time and effort to schlepp from store to store. Men usually go shopping to buy something they need, buy it, and then leave to go home. It's in the man's genes.

#9 – Women think it is their job to tell men how to drive, what to wear, where to go (sometimes it is “hell”), what to eat, what to say and on and on. But, it is especially dangerous when the woman acts as a “back seat driver” in the car, especially when instructions or advice are not asked for.

#8- Women who mistrust the man's friends by constantly putting them down and criticizing them for no apparent reason other than being jealous of someone else (my evaluation).

#7- Women who constantly nag their man by torturing him like a nerve grating, contentious, non-stop dripping faucet of fault finding and finger pointing.

#6- Women who criticize their man in public by shaming him about something trivial or inane thereby embarrassing him in the eyes of others.

#5- Women who try to keep their man on a short leash like he still is under the control of his mother.

#4- Women who give their man a hard time whenever he wants to sit down and relax by watching his favorite athletic team on T.V. Most women just don't get it, and make life miserable for their man.

#3- Women who seem to take the advice of others in place of the advice their men can give as if their advice is not relevant. Inevitably, the advice given by others is wrong or misleading (especially when it comes to restaurants, friends and movies).

#2- Women who never apologize when she does something that hurts her man, but she expects an apology even for things that are trivial at best or even just imagined that she claims her man has done to her.

#1- Women who become “drama queens” in order to make the atmosphere tense, crazy, or completely out of touch of the normal situation at hand. Tears are used as a weapon, and it usually works.

And a bonus way: Women who will use sex (or lack thereof) as a form of punishment by saying “no sex for you”, unless her man admits he was wrong in the first place.

I'm sure women have their complaints about their men, for as I said before, it takes “two to tango” to live in peace and harmony in a relationship between a woman and her man.

I know what I've listed here will, in some cases, be considered “politically incorrect”, insensitive, or sexist, but it is what many men really think, but are afraid to voice their concerns or opinions for fear of retribution, real or imagined.

Observations by Chuck Lehmann

Who The Rachel Dolezal/NAACP Scandal Really Hurts.

Video by "Louder With Crowder"

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Marco Rubio and the NYTimes

As you may know, that beacon of fair-mined journalism, the New York Times, has been uncovering one "scandal" after another concerning Marco Rubio.

First, it was that he had 4 traffic tickets and his wife 10 over a ten year period. That alone in the "mind" of the Times should be enough to disqualify him from public office.

And then you had the fact that he used his personal money to pay off his student loans. How dare he do this! Every red blooded American, if you follow the Times philosophy, should default on his loans.

And then Marco Rubio bought a house again using his own money to put down a partial payment on the property. I guess the Times wants him use a government funding program to buy a house. How dare he do this with his own money. After all, if we followed the Obama philosophy of wealth distribution, nobody will have his own money.

And then we had the extravagance of his buying yacht which really turned out to be a fishing boat. I guess the Times' philosophy is never let facts get in the way when you are bashing anyone in the Republican Party.

Well, I guess the Times finally got it right about Rubio. Here is a video every voter should see about Senator Rubio. No doubt the Times will get a Pulitzer Prize for uncovering this deep dark secret about the Senator.

Conservative Commentary by Jim Pirretti

MRCTV (Media Research Center) looks into the latest NY Times piece on Marco Rubio.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 18, 2015

MORT’s curmudgeonly* meanderings

     We’re all about equitable solutions.
That sweet-faced, tousled-haired young chap who along with his older brother was responsible for killing and maiming Boston Marathon runners and innocent by-standers a couple years back, has been convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.  Good.
However, given the ratio of lawyers to real people in Boston and the suffocating  preponderance of God-fearing, decent, Goody-two-shoes Liberal Democrats who call Massachusetts home – and who keep sending the likes of the Kennedys, John Kerry & Barney Frank to Washington to keep things mucked-up – plus, the endless appeals available to convicted felons that have been duly sentenced to death – this piece of human flotsam from SomewhereStan-near-Russia, could conceivably live for eight or nine more decades before finally expiring of old age and an attack of convulsive laughter.  
What a miscarriage of justice and what a colossal waste of tax-payer money. I’ve given this matter at least a half-hour’s concentrated thought and have finally arrived at a curmudgeonly conclusion that I consider to be a rather satisfactory solution:
The Sovereign State of Massachusetts in its early days, made frequent and very effective use of an ingeniously simple device called, the Stock.  While the perp was seated behind this device with his head showing above it, his hands and feet were immobilized by being locked into openings in the heavy oak boards that formed a wall in front of him.  Certainly for those times and even in these politically-correct times, not an inhumane device.
Thus, the perp became available to the public for target-spitting, invective-hurling and the ever-popular, ‘stoning’.  Why not place the tousled-haired young chap in a Stock located in a public square every other day so that Boston Marathon aficionados while on their lunch hour, could ‘relate’?  And, and on alternate days, let him spend his leisure time in his private prison cell receiving medical attention and recouping as necessary.  If he lasts a week, Taxachussetts might well consider levying an entertainment tax on the hard-working middle-class - just to make things appear to have a flavor of ‘equality & fairness’.
                                                                                          MORT KUFF   © 5-15-2015
                                                                                               *cranky old codger

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Should it Really be Called the Clinton Crime Foundation?

The Democrats will say that any negative words or comments about the Clinton Foundation is nothing but a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to denigrate the Clinton's and to work against the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, no ifs, ands, or buts.

It's true, if you watch the liberal T.V. stations (most all except Fox News) or read the mostly liberal press (the N.Y. Post and the Wall St. Journal are exceptions), you will find that the coverage of the Clinton Foundation and the donations that have flowed into it from various nefarious countries and characters, are very short and sweet (i.e. all to be forgiven). Although both liberal publications, the N.Y. Times and the Wash. Post, have run stories about some of the shady deals attributed to the Clinton's and the Clinton Foundation, the in-depth reporting has been very shallow up until now. Compared to the coverage that Pres. Nixon and George W. Bush faced during their presidencies, the coverage of the Clinton's has been pitifully light in comparison.

The recent book by author Peter Schweizer, that has reached the N.Y. Times best-seller list, listed many areas where the Clinton's allegedly used their prestige and power to make deals that enriched themselves, their cronies, and their foundation for well over $150 million. Can you imagine the outrage if some Republican couple were able to amass that sizable fortune in the small amount of time that it took the Clinton's ? The Clinton idolaters and apologists slough off these allegations as nothing but a continuation of the hatred of the Clinton's by the Republicans and the right- wingers. They claim there is “no smoking gun” and that the Clinton's and their foundation are beyond reproach. They seem to be blinded to the facts by their liberal ideology.

The heavily researched book by Peter Schweizer, points out the many “coincidences” that public policy and individual financial aggrandizement, benefiting the Clinton's, that took place while Hillary Clinton was a senator and while she was Secretary of State, and is now the overwhelming choice to become the Democrat nominee for president in 2016. The Clinton's, both being lawyers (even though Bill Clinton has been disbarred), know the ins and outs of being able to skirt the law and to hide their activities from scrutiny. They have been doing that for the past 30 years, ever since they got involved in politics. So far, it has worked out real well for them.

What bout those charges that Peter Schweizer has laid out in his book, titled “Clinton Cash” (subtitle, “The untold story of how and why foreign governments and businesses helped make Bill and Hillary rich)? Just last year alone, the Clinton's made $25 million in speaking fees. What did the Clinton's have offer those companies, institutions, and individuals, that a one-hour speech, by either one, was worth between $250,000 and $750,000? It boggles the mind that anyone paying that kind of money didn't expect something in return now or in the future. In addition, the money that flowed into the Clinton Foundation didn't just come from countries with good relations with the United States, but countries and individuals from countries like Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Algeria, Kazakhstan, India, and other nefarious shady characters and dictators from other obscure countries. It seems that whenever Bill Clinton made an appearance, that within hours or days of the speech or meeting, an important business deal was consummated, enriching one of his cronies and/or the country involved, and an ensuing donation was made to the Clinton Foundation. This type of activity has gone on for years, and yet the Clinton's have not been brought to task or questioned about these activities until this book came out pointing out all the instances and coincidences that these two, once “poor couple”, as Hillary called themselves after they left the White House, were able to amass this sizable fortune with very little work except their positions in life, as ex-president of the U.S. and founder of the Clinton Foundation, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Secretary of State.

All these deals that they have been associated with just don't pass the smell test. People, countries, and businesses just don't donate money out of the goodness of their heart, something more tangible must have been involved to explain this largesse to the Clinton's and to the Clinton Foundation.

From all that I have read or heard about Hillary and her husband Bill (he didn't get the nickname “Slick Willie” for nothing), I have concluded that the “Clinton Foundation” should change it's name to the “Clinton Crime Foundation”, and to think that Hillary might become our next president. Heaven help us and the U.S.A.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 11, 2015

A False Over Inflated Claim of Accomplishment


I caught a snippet of comments made by President Obama,
hosting a discussion group at the White House with 75
young southeast Asian leadership initiative (YSEALI)
members, when he said he wants Americans to know that
America once again became "the most respected country
on earth" under his watch.

For a moment I thought he was making a guest appearance
 on Comedy Central. Then I realized it was not funny, but
 a serious self evaluation of the affect hisleadership has
had on the nation.

Continuing...... "People don't remember, when I came
into office, the United States in world opinion ranked
below China, barely above Russia, and today, once
again the United States is the most respected country
on earth, and part of that I think is because the work we
did to reengage the world and say that we want to work
with you as partners, with mutual interests and mutual

This to the delight of the dung hole countries who have
always detested our enterprise and exceptionalism, while
losing the trust of our allies.

His Walter Mitty Syndrome is still alive and well, but in a
form of delusional psychosis which is dangerous to the
safety of the country. It can be described as narcissistic,
egocentrism and megalomania when he pompously uttered
those words to this group.

It is difficult to identify even one country that trusts us,
or support his ineffectual strategy that doesn't exist, to
deal with ISIS and all the other problematic conditions
around the globe.

His robust hocus-pocus, hokey-pokey, mumbo-jumbo
economy is another point of contention that will be the
pin prick that will deflate his legacy balloon.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Is Pope Francis a Marxist/Socialist?

It has been a little over a year since Pope Francis was elevated to the exalted position of Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. During that short period of time, he has been perceived as a personable guy who champions the poor and downtrodden. To the people of the left, who generally despise religion and the religious people who run it, he is looked upon in glowing terms for his policies which seem to be somewhat different from his predecessors (more liberal).

Pope Francis is a product of Argentina (the 1st Pope from outside of Europe), a left-leaning country which has espoused a Marxist/Socialist agenda for quite some time. It seems that Pope Francis has brought that philosophy with him to the Vatican.

Over the past year, the Pope has commented on and supported some highly controversial topics which have included gay rights, global warming, income redistribution, and he has cosied up with some undemocratic characters like Raul Castro of Cuba, and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestine Authority. His rhetoric seems to have been taken from the playbook of Karl Marx - the father of Socialism. The Pope seems to be a throwback to the 60's and 70's, when “liberation theology” was all the rage in many Latin countries, including Argentina.

In his own words, the Pope rejects the idea. “ that “economic growth”, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world”. Those are high sounding words touched with compassion for the poor, but in reality, does he believe that all men should be financially equal regardless as to what they have produced for society? Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, seems to be preaching from the same hymnal.

It seems to me that his compassion for the underdog (the poor) has blinded him to the effects of what he preaches. He doesn't seem to realize that when you take from the producers to give to the under-producers to try to even out the playing field, you take away the incentive for the entrepreneur to innovate and expand his economic horizons, which in turn which would produce more jobs for the poor and downtrodden. He bemoans “trickle-down economics” while championing “trickle-up poverty” (my evaluation). Could it be that that his economic background is influenced by his life spent in Argentina and their socio-economic system?

Just recently, he proclaimed that the Vatican will recognize Palestine as a separate state (without consultation with Israel). This is purely a political move and is subject to criticism, especially by Israel. Is he now giving credence to both Hamas and the Palestine Authority who have proclaimed that the State of Israel should not exist? It seems that way, doesn't it?

Some have said that Pope Francis is showing his naivete in in matters pertaining to economics and politics, and seem to imply that he should stick to the problems of the Catholic Church and its doctrines instead of venturing into the economic and political matters of the world.

With organized religion taking a beating in the world press and on college campuses, it is ironic that the Pope is surprisingly popular in the media and on college campuses right now. Since Marxism/Socialism is quite popular in academia at present, it sort of proves that Pope Francis and his philosophy has matched their own leftist view of the world.

Maybe the Pope should heed the words of Sir Winston Churchill who once opined that, “If you're not a liberal by the age of 20, you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative by the age of 40, you have no brains”. Although the Pope is nearing 80, it might be too late for him to change his mind, but we can hope that the hierarchy of the church could make him soften his rhetoric and views when it comes to economics and politics.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 4, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

     The Great Disconnect.
The reason there is such a gaping disconnect between generations – i.e., “The Greatest Generation” and the “Millennials” - is a combination of memory retention in the former and education that excluded American history, in the latter.  
So in actual fact, experiencing a disconnect between the two is quite unlikely since, there was never a connection between them in the first place. These generations might as well attempt to arrive at a mutual understanding while speaking different languages.  And sadly, shouting doesn’t help all that much.
Successful communication is doomed to failure when the older generation makes reference to people and events that are no longer taught in our school systems at any level and therefore, are completely unknown to the current generation – even those who might carry several initials after their names that represent earned academic degrees.  If the current ‘gen’ was not taught Patrick Henry’s famous quote, or the rich witticisms in H. L. Mencken’s writings – how could they realistically be expected  to relate to any reference that is made to speeches or writings by these people, so long buried in our dust-covered history?  
Can this disparity be reconciled?  Of course; anything is possible.  It could happen if the younger generation studies our history, beginning with the founding of this nation – and if the older generation takes some crash courses in computing, wi-fi texting and learns to retrieve data from a ‘Cloud’.  Yeah, it could happen but, is it likely? Ah dun think so.     
Then, is there any hope that the old codgers and the cool newbees will ever connect for the mutual benefit that could possibly accrue?    Nope.

                  MORT KUFF   © 5-8-2015

Bookmark and Share