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
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Mind if I ask you a couple of questions?
If Jews, in particular those who reside in S. E. Florida, are indeed ‘God’s Chosen People’ – Why is it that so many of them act so stupid?
After seven years of Obama’s blatantly anti-Semitic statements and intentionally harmful actions taken to the detriment of American Jews, the State of Israel and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – why do the Jews who voted Obama into office twice, still support him? Why is it that so many of them act so stupid?
There are unfortunately, some Jewish Representatives sent to the U. S. Congress from S. E. Florida – Robert Wexler (D), Ted Deutch (D), Debbie Schultz (D), Ron Klein (D) and Lois Frankel (D) – to name a few that have done little or nothing except to serve as enablers and willing flunkies to the corrupt leadership of the Democrat Party in the Congress. And more recently, they have actively taken up the cause of violent, Jew-hating Palestinians, by their inexplicable support of
‘J-Street’ and other like-minded anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish groups.
Why is it that so many of them act so stupid?
And now, far too many of S.E. Florida’s Jews who consider themselves to be among the smartest people in this nation, are openly supporting Hillary Clinton, a proven congenital liar, for the Presidency of the United States. This is the very same Hillary Clinton, long touted as, “The smartest woman in the world”- who, after serving as a Senator from New York state and as Secretary of the U. S. Department of State, sports the record of the most time served in those offices without being credited with a single, notable, positive accomplishment. She has nothing to recommend her except that like Miss Piggy, she is a female. Barf!
I’ll ask you one more time – if ‘God’s Chosen People’ are so damned smart –
Why is it that so many of them act so stupid?
MORT KUFF © 11-9-2015
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Remember when we had an organization called Murder Inc.? That was the name the press gave to organized crime groups in the 1930's and 1940's (made up of mostly Italians and Jews) as the enforcement arm of the American Mafia.
Although murder was part of the “modus operandi” of Murder Inc., the Clinton Foundation is not violent and is considered a white-collar “crime” operation that works as a tax-free international money laundering scheme. The Clinton's are very clever in their approach to becoming wealthy beyond belief in just 15 years, and they have used the tax-free foundation as one of the means of obtaining that wealth. Since the Clinton's claimed to be “broke” after Bill Clinton left the presidency (the debts claimed were mainly caused by Bill's legal problems of lying before a grand jury etc.), they have very cleverly set up the tax-free Clinton Foundation, which was supposed to fund “good works” around the world. Who could be against that?
Bill Clinton, along with his wife Hillary, used their influence as an ex-president and Hillary's positions as a U.S. Senator and a Secretary of State, to wean money from various countries and individuals by having them pay them enormous speaking fees (from $200,000 to $800,000 per speech) and very generous donations to the Clinton Foundation for using their influence in and out of government. In many cases after these fees and donations were made, a favorable monetary result or a tactical political result happened to these countries and individuals. That is called a “quid pro quo” which the Clinton's seem to have mastered to perfection.
The Clinton Foundation works its web of “influence peddling” in the following ways. First, they set up a “foreign charity”, like the one they set up in Canada, with shady character Frank Giustra as one of the principles (Google him up). With that in place, many oligarchs (many dictators and wealthy foreign businessmen) and foreign governments then donate mega millions to the Canadian “charity”. The Canadian charity then “bundles” the donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation. Due to the laws in Canada, the people and countries making the donations are prohibited from being disclosed and identified by Canadian law. The Clinton Foundation then uses that money to do supposedly “good works” around the world. Many charitable experts believe that approximately 10% of the foundation money goes to real charitable operations, and much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, and by paying “cronies” exorbitant salaries to work for them and to be future surrogates when Hillary runs for president, and to provide lavish travel arrangements for themselves and their hangers on. This whole scheme is virtually all tax-free, which means you and I are subsidizing their lavish lifestyle, as they are part of the now infamous and “evil” 1%. The Clinton's are estimated now to be worth over $150 million. I guess they're not broke anymore.
With both Clinton's, being lawyers (which might be rightly could be spelled “liars”), and many of their friends on the Clinton “gravy train” being lawyers, they have weaved a tangled web of financial “hanky-panky” which is difficult to prosecute as they use our laws to skirt the laws for their own financial benefit..
Much of this money paid to the Clinton Foundation goes into the Clinton's pockets tax-free, and is untraceable back to the original donors. This is a classic case of money laundering which many people, other than the Clinton's, are now serving time in prison (ex: former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell now serving time for a paltry $165,000 in gifts and loans), but it seems there are two sets of rules and laws in our country, one for the Clinton's and one is for the rest of us poor schlepps.
The list of beneficiaries of the Clinton influence peddling includes many countries and unsavory individuals who benefited from their intervention. The following countries, the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi), Uzbekistan (run by a dictator) and other countries who paid Clinton speaking fees and made donations to the Clinton Foundation, as were global companies like, UBS (the mega Swiss bank), Ericsson (the Swedish electronics giant), Oracle, Renaissance Capital (a Russian bank), Samsung, AFLAC, Dell Computers etal. All received favorable outcomes of their problems with the U.S. by working with the Clinton's (especially during the time when Hillary was Secretary of State) by paying huge speaking fees and making big Clinton Foundation donations.
Both the Clinton's and the representatives of the countries and organizations with these arrangements said there was no connection with their lobbying efforts and the speaking fees they paid the Clinton's outright, and the donations to the Clinton Foundation. If anybody thinks that they did that out of the goodness of their hearts, and that nothing was expected in return, and that there was not a “quid pro quo” involved, than I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
It will be interesting to see what the FBI will come up with in their investigation of the Clinton's. Chances of Obama flunky, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, bringing criminal charges against the Clinton's (who are Democrats) is remote to say the least, so exposure by the Republican candidates, and the conservative newspapers (few as they are) and conservative talk radio shows, will be vital in exposing the Clinton Crime Foundation Inc., and all its many money laundering tactics. Can you imagine the American electorate voting into the office of the presidency someone like Hillary Clinton, who is a potential felon?
Let's hope the alleged crimes of the Clinton's will see the light of day and that the voting public will reject Hillary and bring us back to the constitutional republic our founders gave us back in the year 1789, the ratification of our Constitution.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, January 17, 2016
There is many a liberal who has taken up the cause of ignorance. It is futile arguing with
any of them if you hope to win, because logic for them is negated by emotion over fact;
and a country cannot survive under that circumstance.
It is an unfortunate reason why people like Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the
Clintons and others of their ilk exist. In evidence is the state of the union and its decline
on all fronts, due to the leadership, or lack thereof, by the ideologue whom those mentioned
above entrusted to maintain the country's exceptionalism grudgingly.
Their life styles defy their oral humanitarianism, spouting equality from ivory towers, to
be heard for those below. There is no differential line between those in legitimate
need and the ones playing the system, when it comes to bribing them for their vote, or
fanning their ego.
Prof. Jonathan Gruber nailed it when describing the general public, in his statement
pertaining to Obamacare. Their ignorance reaches far beyond that. A frightening number
of clueless people are in positions affecting lives and it appears those waiting in the wings
(millenniums) to replace them is scary. They are social liberals, eating away the moral
traditions that endured for centuries. Trying to destroy the formula for structured family,
that has maintaining the quality of life for most.
Unless we find the way to stop this decline in morals and revive our Judeo-Christian
values, our country and what was the American way of life will be heading toward
Conservative column from George Giftos
The Rape of Europe
Gangs of Muslim migrants sexually molest hundreds of European women on New Year's Eve. Who will the progressive Left side with, the real victims or side with the Muslim Refugees?
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Just recently, both Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton, Democrat candidate for president, were asked that headline question, “What's the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat” and the question was met with a “burst” of silence. In other words they didn't know the difference. I don't really blame them because there really is no difference. Many elected Democrat officials are members of the organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (Google up members of the Democratic Socialists of America). You will find approximately 70 members of the House and Senate who are members, and practically all of the Congressional Black caucus, who are members of that organization.
Most Democrats will deny that they espouse Socialism because the word, according to them, has a negative connotation in the lexicon of the American language, but it is with their ideas and actions that belie the fact that they are more sympathetic to Socialism than they are of Capitalism. There has been a quote going around that is attributed to the late perennial presidential candidate on the Socialist Party line in the 40's and 50's, Norman Thomas, who supposedly said, “ The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”. Whether Norman Thomas actually made that statement, it sort of rings true as the past 60 years have shown. The Democrat Party has evolved into the party of big government and big government handouts, and who some have called them, sarcastically, the “free stuff” party.
Today, we have an admitted Socialist running for president, Bernie Sanders, and two other candidates by the names of Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, who instead of using the term socialist, refer to themselves as “Progressives” (which many say is a euphemism for Socialists).
The U.S.A. was founded on capitalist principles and in a little over two short centuries it has brought forth more innovation and accomplishments than any other economic system used by man. That successful system is now being attacked as being unfair and an exploiter of the average citizen. In 2008, then candidate and now president, Barack Hussein Obama, campaigned on the slogan of “Hope and Change” and that he was going to “transform America”. Well, how did that work out?
Yes, some people fallen through the cracks and some have been unable to take advantage of our capitalist free enterprise system, but to abandon our capitalist free enterprise system for a government guarantee of everyone being taken care of by the government, we would have then taken out the incentive for people to better themselves and to make their lives a success on their own. We then will have descended into mediocrity by accepting the Marxist philosophy of “from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need”.
The people espousing Socialism want to “rob from the rich to give to the poor” (the term “income inequality” used by the Democrats), which is a form of government looting of the producers in our society to support the non-producers, which inevitably runs into trouble whenever the givers of these government “goodies” (the politicians) run out of other peoples money (us, the taxpayers). The Socialists then blame Capitalism, which was the goose that laid the golden egg. In a classic bait and switch, the Progressives (a/k/a the Democrats and Socialists) offer freedom and deliver regulations. They offer prosperity and deliver stagnation, inflation, and economic ruin. This mentality of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” (mainly to generate votes for politicians), is a prelude to blame Capitalism for the economic ills of society when in reality, Socialism is the problem and Capitalism is the solution.
Just listen to the Democrat candidates for president and see what they have to offer - they want government to be the be-all and end-all of society, therefore giving these Progressive leaders power over the people, by making and keeping them dependent, which is what they always seem to crave. So the answer to the headline of this editorial's question is - there is absolutely no difference between a Socialist and a Democrat.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Is it too much to ask?
Fifty-six men of Faith, of disparate backgrounds but, who all of whom shared the common dream of creating a new kind of government, one that derived its power from the people and served at the pleasure of those same people, met in Philadelphia in the Summer of 1776 to attempt to breath life into such an innovative concept. It was an extraordinary gathering; nothing like it had ever been tried.
Together, they represented a prodigious body of knowledge of the history of all governments, religions and science from the dawn of recorded history to the very day they first convened. They discussed, argued, agreed and disagreed but finally, hammered out a compromise they called, The Constitution of the United States of America. It was duly accepted by the people of the original thirteen colonies. This grand experiment survived and through all sorts of ups and downs, has withstood the test of time for 240 years.
The one variable has been the fact that for this unique system of representational government to function successfully as designed, it was dependent upon honest men of staunch faith in their creator, who were totally dedicated to service to and for their fellow citizens whenever they were elected to represent them. This has been the strength and also the weakness of the system. Dedication to the principles, the tenets and the original intent of The Constitution has been the key to its successful implementation.
From the outset, elected officials were inducted into public service upon their swearing an Oath of Allegiance to The Constitution of the United States that was based upon Judeo-Christian principles. Hence, it became accepted practice to take this sacred Oath with right hand raised and left hand resting on The Bible, attesting to the solemnity of their dedication.
Through much of the next one hundred years or so, the composition of the members of the U. S. Congress was pretty much dominated by white, Christian men. Following the Civil War until currently, the make-up has included men and women of a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. In recent times, several members of the Muslim faith have been elected to the U. S. Congress and have sworn their Oath of Allegiance with a hand placed upon a copy of the Quran.
The Muslim faith, based upon the Quran and the political-religious way of Islam and Shariah, is in direct conflict with The Constitution. It seeks to replace our Constitution with a Caliphate that accepts no belief other than Islam and the tenets of Shariah. That of course, is totally the opposite of our beliefs and traditions held since this nation was founded. Today, the Western world, the civilized world, is experiencing mass murders and unspeakably violent attacks on innocent civilians at the hands of radical, militant, lunatic, terrorist Islamos. They operate primarily in the Middle East but have recently expanded their blood-thirsty activities to include us, here in the USA. Not all Muslims are terrorists but, all terrorists are Muslim or, they are radicalized followers of Islam. Obama and his entire administration are in total denial of the reality of this insurgency; ‘Climate Change’ heads up this president’s list of priorities. “What’s the problem?”
My question: Is it too much to ask that the people we elect and send to our nation’s Capital to represent us and protect us from harm - be required to swear their Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution of The United States of America, with their right hand held high and left hand resting only on a copy of The Constitution ? Not the Bible, not the Quran. Not a comic book but, The CONSTITUTION !MORT KUFF © 12-17-2015
Thursday, January 7, 2016
Quite often on the campaign stump, Hillary asks the crowd if it's time to elect a woman as president, after a burst of applause, she smiles approvingly. She played the “gender card”. Do you think that Hillary is the right woman to reach that momentous office as the first woman president of the United States?
She proclaims that she is the best candidate to further the goals of women, is she correct in her self-serving assessment? Let's take a look.
When she was a practicing lawyer, she represented a pedophile who was accused of raping a 12 year old girl. Even after her client failed a “lie detector” test and she later admitted that she thought he was guilty, she laughed at getting him off on a legal technicality. The young girl was devastated.
During her stints as first lady of Arkansas and first lady in the White House, her job was to cover up and trash the women who blew the whistle on her “horndog” husband, Bill Clinton. In fact, her duty was to calm the storm by being in charge of “bimbo eruptions”. No matter what these women charged her husband with, unwanted groping, unsolicited exposing of his genitalia, and the charge of rape of Juanita Broaddrick, these women were trashed and branded “trailer trash” and “nuts and sluts” etc. All this by the woman who now is telling women all over the country that she is for woman's rights and who decries the sexual abuse of women.
Just recently, Hillary was speaking before a woman's group and stated the following, “alleged female victims of sexual abuse should be believed first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”. In other words, the man is presumed guilty before any evidence is presented. If that be the case with her, how come this didn't apply to the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse? Does she engage in a double-standard? Didn't she believe his accusers?
This appeal of vote for me because I'm a woman, is just as fallacious as vote for me because I'm black, or vote for me because I'm a Christian, a Jew or any other religion or ethnic group. A vote should be based upon competence, experience and moral character of the individual candidate, but I guess that doesn't apply to the Clinton's or to the Democrats. Look at what we would up with when a majority of voters chose race over competence and experience in 2008 and 2012. As woeful campaigners as John McCain and Mitt Romney were, I'm sure we would've been better off as a country, if either of those men won, than what we have today, as turmoil engulfs us, as a nation, both domestically and internationally. We are the laughing stock of the world.
Is voting for Hillary because she is a woman, in our best self-interest? It seems that no matter what she has touched over the past 25 years, it has turned out to be a disaster, from Hillarycare, the missing Rose law firm papers, “travelgate”, the Russian “reset button”, the missing millions of dollars at the State Department on her watch, the disaster at Benghazi where 4 Americans were murdered, including our ambassador to Libya, and, of course, her use of an illegal computer server as Secretary of State, the list goes on and on. Gender had nothing to do with any of these boondoggles, it was her arrogance and sense of entitlement that made her think that she (and you could include her husband too) was above the law. That's why, when a Quinnipiac poll asked citizens what was the first word that came into their minds when a name was mentioned, the first three responses when Hillary's name came up were, a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy. That's a damning indictment against anyone, whether male or female.
So let's stop the nonsense about gender as a basis for voting, and choose the best candidate to be our president and Commander-in-Chief. From my vantage point, that person is not Hillary Clinton.
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Although the democratic primary might be a forgone conclusion for Hillary
Clinton, it is not her ultimate goal. The self-serving Hillary always strives to
conquer everything before her, to fulfill an unsatisfied ambitious narcissism.
Like receiving a Nobel prize for economics, to put another feather in her cap;
for turning a thousand dollars in cattle futures into a hundred thousand
dollars over night. Or not so inconceivable, as her final goal, converting to
Catholicism, so she can be beatified for sainthood. Like Jesus turning water
into wine, using the turning of a thousand dollars into one hundred thousand
as one of her miracles.
Also, her pious destitution of being dead broke serving the country, after
humbly leaving the White House and turning her life around by going to the
people (Wall Street) to help her raise two and a half billion dollars, so she can
continue her unselfish good work to fix our dysfunctional government and
getting the unaccountable money out of it once and for all.
Founding the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation is another unselfish,
humanitarian endeavor, because she cleverly induces big corporations and the
oil rich, unsavory Middle East countries to finance it. These contributors can
donate their money directly to some of the foundation's benefactors, but it will
be contrary to the teachings of the Quran and Sharia practices against women's
rights and other inhumane issues. So sheltering the money under the Clinton
foundation keeps their integrity under Allah intact.
Of course her positions in government is integral and essential, to show her
Quid pro quo appreciation for their support.
Because she is so special that she doesn't have to follow the guidelines that
apply to the rest of us, her lying is accepted or ignored, as evidenced in the
Benghazi hearing and all previous confrontations, that will more than
likely happen with the FBI's investigation in the use of her private server to convey
and receive classified and top secret communications.
In spite of this, the American people are so lucky to have someone like Hillary, who
would walk on water for them.
Conservative column from George Giftos