Sunday, September 24, 2017

Observations From the Poop Deck

I just returned from a cruise to the Eastern Caribbean for 7 days.  Here are my observations from the “Poop Deck”.

  • It seems that 70% of the passengers on the ship were overweight with some bordering on the semi-obese and the obese.
  • How some of these “proportionately challenged” passengers were able to navigate around the ship and in the “midget-sized” (a politically incorrect description) bathroom was beyond my comprehension.  It looked like the shower stall was modeled after Olive Oyl, so getting in and out of it by these bloated passengers was an almost impossible task.
  • Some of these over sized passengers were even lounging around in bathing suits on the sun deck.  It reminded me of someone trying to put 10 lbs. of potatoes in a 5 lb. bag.  It was a sight to behold.
  • Of course, the various restaurants around the ship were frequented by these huge “patrons of the culinary arts” with platefuls of mostly food with a high carbohydrate content.
  • In addition to the plus sized group were the passengers with mobility problems.  On some occasions it looked like a form of that old carnival attraction called “Bumper Cars” only this time it was between the passengers using walkers and wheelchairs.  It was quite a sight to see.
  • And then there were the passengers who thought they could break the ships “Casino Games”, not realizing that the slot machines were rigged to limit any enormous payouts, and that the “21” table was there to relieve the naive passengers of any money left over after playing the slots.  The odds of winning on cruise ships is like winning the lottery.
  • A major change has taken place on most all the cruise ships in regards to the “dress up nights”.  For many years, it was the practice for both the men and women to dress up in tuxedos and evening dresses on a couple of nights in order to add class to the atmosphere aboard the ship. NO MORE.  Now they have “smart casual” and “smart chic” nights.  To some it meant wearing pressed jeans with no holes in the pant legs.
  • I also noticed that the food portions were less than what was offered years ago.  On the night of the standard “lobster dinner” you had to order a double portion in order to get more than one bite of the lobster tail that was presented. In a way, less food on a cruise ship might be considered a healthy way to eat with less calories.
  • The entertainment provided was excellent as usual.  The energetic singers and dancers (mostly guys and gals in their early twenties) were very talented and they put on a great show which most of the passengers enjoyed immensely.  The production numbers were professionally done and rivaled the Broadway shows which cost a fortune to attend.
  • Finally, the ports-of-call were geared to the females being able to drag their less than enthusiastic husbands and traveling partners to visit the various jewelry and watch stores that proliferated in these port towns.  Most stores had chairs available for the “bored” men to sit down and relax as the women-folk went about charging up a storm on the credit card.
  • As usual, the cruise experience was both a relaxing and hectic adventure for all who were aboard, and it was a good feeling to be going back home to enjoy the peace and tranquility of the old abode.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann  

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Monument to Hillary

I have the distinguished honor of being a member of the Committee to raise $50,000,000 for a monument to Hillary R. Clinton.

We originally wanted to put her on Mt. Rushmore until we discovered there was not enough room for her two faces.

We then decided to erect a statue of Hillary in the Washington, D.C. Hall of Fame. We were in a quandary as to where the statue should be placed. It was not proper to place it beside the statue of George Washington, who never told a lie, nor beside Barack Obama, who never told the truth, because frankly, Hillary never could tell the difference.

We finally decided to place it beside Christopher Columbus, the greatest Democrat of them all. He left not knowing where he was going, and when he got there he did not know where he was. He returned not knowing where he had been, and did it all on someone else's money.

Jim Pirretti
Chandler, AZ

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 17, 2017

There's No Such Thing as a “Free Lunch"

That expression has been regularly used over the years to convey the idea that anything that is offered as “free” really isn't free, but is a hidden cost and a possible burden to others.

Ever since the “New Deal”, during FDR's administrations, politicians have been promising people something for nothing in hopes that those people will respond favorably in the future and vote for those politicians doling out the “free” largesse from the public treasury. Well, today the “chickens are coming home to roost” (a phrase made popular by Obama's former pastor/mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright). Many states are facing bankruptcy due to the fact that their “generous” fiscal policies, granted to favored groups and unions over the years, are coming back to bite them in the butt, big time. Many state pension funds are woefully underfunded, government salaries have been grossly inflated, and work rules shamefully relaxed, under intimidating union pressure. These past labor policies have now prevented many states from prospering, and as a result, have brought them to a “financial Armageddon” which is now being played out in the states of Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, California, New York etc.

Most rational people are not against government workers getting a public funded pension and benefits, but feel that these government workers should have to contribute towards these “Cadillac” pensions and health care programs and not leave the burden to be carried on the backs of the taxpayers by raising their taxes to pay for these fringe benefits alone. Over the years, due to pressure from the union bosses, during collective bargaining negotiations, the politicians have “sweetened” the “pot” to make public pensions and health care impossible to sustain by the taxpaying public.

How can you justify that 80% of the retirees in the NYC Fire Department retire on “disability pensions” collecting almost 100% of their salary, tax-free? How can you justify that a NYC bus driver, sanitation worker, transit authority employee, train conductor etc., can almost double his/her “lawful” pension by using “overtime pay” during their last couple of years of service as a pension enhancer to jack up their annual retirement pay to be used in the determination of their pension? Unused sick days and unused vacation time have also been used to jack up a potential retirees final salary, giving them a much higher pension than they would have earned by using their regular salary only.

Most private employees do not get what the public employees (government workers) get and feel that the salary enhancing ploys are not fair or justifiable in today's dire economic environment. They believe that everyone should be contributing something toward their own retirement fringe benefits.

The governor's, of many of our states, have to balance their budgets and must rein in these overly generous “freebies”. That must be their priority in trying to bring financial sanity back to the public workplace. The demonstrations in both Illinois and Ohio are a pitiful display of self-serving boorish behavior on the part of these well-paid government union workers, who want to keep the status quo by opposing any changes whatsoever, even in the face of a state going off the “financial cliff”.

Yes Virginia, there is no such thing as a “free lunch” and the sooner we realize that the better off we will be.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 7, 2017

The LEFT, the RIGHT and the FAR OUT

The Far Out are phony demonstrators known as Antifa, Occupy Wall Street, Black
Lives Matter and other idiotic but dangerous mobs, who have been given life and
headlines by fake news media.

This past week we witnessed the best that America has to offer, in Texas and
Louisiana, coming from every corner of the country, to assist those in distress and
dire need.

Unfortunately, it will be just a matter of time for the worse in America to appear again,
when the Far Out flex their muscles in another phony grievance, blemishing the good
Godly people gave for their fellow man, abetted in support by ungodly fake media
news sources and some on the Left with the Democratic label.

The President and members of his administration's commendable approach toward
the devastation created by Hurricane Harvey has the editorial boards from fake news
sources grinding their teeth and busy exploring ways to come up with a viable,
nonfactual creative story, to blame the storm on President Trump,knowing what ever
he does can easily be twisted to dupe the naïve public; but so far all they came up
with was a critique on First Lady, Melania's shoes.

Stay tuned for more creativity by the Gray Lady, Washington Post and CNN.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 3, 2017

Trickle Up Poverty

When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, his opponents scoffed at his proposal to lower taxes, calling the possible results as “Trickle Down Economics” (a/k/a Reaganomics). They said it was a worthless economic policy. Was it?

In theory, TDE is an economic system where there is no significant barrier to accumulation of wealth by individuals. If the rich do well, as the theory goes, benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of the people. Lower taxes on high income earners or capital gains will benefit not only the rich but everybody on the lower income rungs, is how that theory is supposed to work. Reagan's critics had to “eat crow” as the economy boomed after the Reagan tax cuts kicked in. The resulting prosperity lasted more than 25 years. Yes, the rich got richer, but so did the poor and middle-class, “a rising tide lifted all boats”, as Jack Kennedy once opined. The economy was booming during the late 80's and 90's as a result of Reagan's “Trickle Down Economics”.

As envy took hold among a certain section of the population, mainly by liberal Democrats, they thought that by lowering taxes it would decrease government revenue, but during Reagan's two terms, government revenue practically doubled as a result. The clamor for higher tax rates resonated across the national scene, pushed by the Democrats. They claimed it was unfair that rich people got richer and as a result they felt that some of those extra riches should be confiscated by the government by raising taxes on the wealthy. For the last 20 years, drip by drip and little by little, the Democrats have pushed for successful people to pay more taxes into the federal treasury to help fund the money losing social programs instituted by the liberal politicians looking to shore their low-information and poor people voting base. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the Democrat presidential candidates in 2016, both championed the Marxist/Socialist economic philosophy, as part of their campaign proposals which included “income redistribution”, which is one of the planks of socialist theory (take from the rich to give to the poor – the Robin Hood syndrome).

During the period of when Reagan's tax cuts kicked in (1983 to 2007), America's net worth climbed from $25 trillion to $57 trillion. In fact, more wealth was created in the U.S. during those 25 years than in the previous 200 years. This period was called by many economists “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet”. Besides cutting taxes, Reagan lifted price controls on oil and natural gas, cut regulations, took on the unions, and advocated for free trade. All this booming economy came to an abrupt halt in 2008, mainly as a consequence of wrongful public policy (the housing mortgage meltdown), which was promoted by the Democrats to give mortgages to not creditworthy poor people (potential Democrat voters) which resulted in massive credit defaults and a nasty recession.

The old adage of “people who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it” (this was a George Santayana quote) is something the Democrats haven't learned, as they want to punish success through taxing and regulating the producers over and above what is fair and equitable. In economics, there comes a “point of diminishing returns” which generally comes about when you take the incentive away from businesses and entrepreneurs by over taxing and over regulating them. After all, the top 10% of income earners now pay 70% of all income taxes, and they are vilified by the liberal left as not paying their “fair share”. Compare that “fairness” with the fact that 47% of income earners pay no federal income tax ( is that fair?). For example, a few years back the government, in their abject stupidity, instituted a “luxury tax” on products that wealthy people normally bought such as yachts, expensive cars etc. that cost $30,000 or more. The result of this action caused the wealthy people to curtail or stop their purchase of these luxury goods, thereby putting some of the producing companies of these luxury products out of business and the resulting layoff of thousands of workers, who were not wealthy. This oppressive tax was finally repealed after a short period of time. Was that a lesson to be learned by the Democrats, apparently not?

The policies put forth by the Democrats today is tantamount to reversing the theory of “Trickle Down Economics” which worked so well for so many years, and now they want to change it to “Trickle Up Poverty” as that will be the result if the tax and spend Democrats ever get back control of the government in future elections.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 31, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

What’s Fair is Fair.
Oh, the outrage about President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio.  
We didn’t hear that much outrage when Clinton pardoned his corrupt fellow-Democrats.  No such outrage when Obama set free dozens of the worst, vicious, violent Islamo-terrorists kept at Gitmo.  The ploy of sending them to Yemen was as phony and hypocritical as can be.  But, Pres. Trump pardoning Sheriff Arpaio from his ludicrous sentence for the vicious, violent crime of catching illegal aliens?  That takes the cake.
How about this?  How about indicting Obama; and the hundreds of Islamist agents he placed in positions of influence in our Federal Government during his 8 years as President; his two utterly racist & corrupt Attorneys General; Bill & Hillary Clinton and their ‘Foundation’; Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Nunzi Pelosi and the entire bunch of corrupt Democrats in the Congress?  Indict them, try them in Court, find them guilty which they are and then, throw them in jail for as long as the law allows. Keep them there with no special privileges.
And then, when the next Democrat President is elected, let him pardon each of these immoral, criminal reprobates as he sees fit.  Make sense?

Hey, I’ve got plenty of good solutions – just ask me

                                                                                  MORT KUFF     © 8-28-2017.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 27, 2017

We Need More Millionaires!

The far left “liberal loons” are constantly attacking successful people (a/k/a millionaires and billionaires) by saying we should tax those people more than they are already taxed because the liberals claim that it is “fair and just” - their favorite words when they want to raise taxes.

Little do these ideological political hacks realize that the top 10% of wage earners (those earning more than $133,000 per year) pay approximately 70% of all income taxes and that approximately 48% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Talk about fairness? Shouldn't every citizen have to pay something to support our country? And many of those people who pay nothing complain that the “rich” don't pay their fair share. Are they kidding?

Since the liberals want to punish millionaires (and billionaires) by raising their taxes to raise more government revenue ( most likely to pay for more entitlements instead of reducing the debt), maybe they should do just the opposite, lower their taxes so that the government will gain more tax revenue? What, you say? Lower their tax rates and get more revenue? Yes, and here's why. According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago, there were 399,000 people in 2007 earning over $1 million. In 2009, there were 237,000 millionaires, a drop of 39%. The people earning a million and above in 2007, paid approximately $309 billion in income taxes. In 2009 they paid approximately $178 billion, a drop of 42% in revenue paid to the government. So if the revenue goes down when we lower the number of millionaires, due to policies that were promoted by the then Obama administration, wouldn't it be smart to try to have more millionaires rather than less millionaires to increase the revenues to the government? That's where the dopey economic theories of the liberals come into play, because they feel that successful people shouldn't earn a lot of money (a million or more) because it is not “fair and just”. Aren't most of those “evil” rich people the one's who create jobs and make investments to start or expand their businesses? By over taxing them, by giving more of the money they earned to the government, they couldn't hire more employees or expand their businesses. A no-win, no-win situation. The people with a Socialist mindset would try to make us believe that businesses create oppression, while government creates prosperity. Of course, the total opposite is true, as any sane economist will tell you.

A widely known fact (except to liberals) is that rich people have the financial resources to move their money anywhere (voting with their feet), especially to places where they will not be punished by an avaricious government who wants to “redistribute the wealth”, like the former Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders said they wanted to do. As you can see from a few of the states that raised tax rates to levels that some people found to be oppressive, many of the “wealthy” people moved out of those states (ex. California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts etc.) to states like Arizona, Florida, Texas, and New Hampshire to avoid those excessive state taxes. Along with their move out of those states, along went the tax revenue that those “wealthy” taxpayers paid to those states.

Another aspect of over taxing successful (wealthy) people is that they can hire accountants and lawyers who will help them find loopholes to avoid paying taxes (does G.E. come to mind as they paid 0% in income taxes a few years ago?).

So, instead of lowering or reducing the number of millionaires, we should be instituting policies that would encourage more people to become millionaires. Has anyone reading this editorial ever been hired by a poor person? And also remember, the Socialist states like Cuba, and Venezuela which are economic basket cases because they have taken out the incentive for people to become a success and replaced it with a vast government bureaucracy, who's main object is to “redistribute wealth”, who are now the ones living the good life while the average citizen, in those countries, just barely gets by.

The United States is the richest country in the world because our founding fathers had the foresight to base our country on the free enterprise capitalist system, not the Socialist system. The Declaration of Independence said that everyone should have the opportunity for the “pursuit of happiness” not the “guarantee of happiness”. Let the cream rise to the top, and give everyone the opportunity to get to the top. For those that can not achieve the top, our policies should have a “safety net” to help those that cannot help themselves, which does not include the “freeloaders” who suck on the teat of Uncle Sam, which seems to be quite popular among many left-wing liberals and on many of our college campuses today. Bernie Sanders brand of Socialism is quite popular among the economic illiterate who are looking to get something for nothing.

So, let's encourage everyone to become billionaires and millionaires, with a hand-up rather than a hand-out, so that they can contribute to the success of our country instead of being a drag on our economy.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 24, 2017

The Then and the Now

Immigration at one time was the foundation of this nation. Immigrants
from countries around the world have been a tremendous asset to the
United States, bringing with them their skills, compassion to be free
and add their unforced, diversified cultures, to make America unique.
Contrasting the then and now will be misinterpreted as being bigoted
and against today's immigrants. I'm not against immigration. My parents
were immigrants. They were of good character and followed the rule of
law required to enter our country. Although they did not disengage
entirely from the culture they were born into and left behind, they were
anxious to adopt and intergrade into the American culture and add the
good things about theirs, as many others of different heritage did.
What is transpiring today, from the then to the now are undesirables
penetrating the ranks of the people who are following the rules to
enter the United States lawfully.

They are the obnoxious line crashers, pushing ahead of everyone who
have been waiting patiently for their turn. Criminals and individuals
of low character, taking advantage of the protection provided by liberal
sanctuary municipalities against the behest of federal law.

I feel compassion for the plight illegals have been enduring because of the
greed and incompetency of the leaders of their country. It isn't our
responsibility to play Mother Teresa to the rest of the world when we have
issues confronting us in our country. Even so, we have shown to be the
most generous people as a nation to the rest of the world, but a line has to
be drawn to the extent of this generosity, without jeopardizing the well
being of our own people.

To continue this generosity, immigration reform must be established to
prevent deterioration of our unique culture and overwhelming our
function of governance. This means complete control of all points of
entry with strict application of the law, with only allowances that benefit
the country, such as guest labor or limited technical grants to enhance
the scientific realm.

We don't want people in the country who compromised their integrity to
enter it illegally, then denigrate America, stomp on our flag while waving
the flag from the country they left, and accepting benefits reserved for
those in need, who love the country.

I can't paint everybody with the same paint brush, because there are always
exceptions; but there is no comparison in character and fiber from the
people of then and the people of now.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 20, 2017

The Hell with Political Correctness!

When are we all going to go to the window (like in the movie, “Network”) and yell out, “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore”, when it comes to dealing with the insane, mostly liberal, induced madness called, “political correctness”?

You can't say this, you can't say that, you can't do this and you can't do that - who in hell are these self-appointed arbiters and guardians of proper speech and behavior (a/k/a the P.C Police) to make our lives living hell because they deem certain things or actions “verboten”, “not Kosher”, or insensitive, to some real or imaginary groups or individuals? It infects all aspects of our lives especially when it applies to certain “protected” minorities. I thought we had a 1st Amendment right to say what's on our mind, whether it is deemed proper or not. Shouldn't people be allowed to look stupid, say stupid things, and do stupid things as long as it doesn't hurt some else, besides their feelings? It has gotten so bad that some people, in the normal interchange of conversation, can give someone a compliment and be sued for sexual harassment, that telling an ethnic joke, making a racial remark, or using a harmless non-threatening sexual innuendo, can be a cause for someone losing their job, being fined by a court, being refused a promotion, or being vilified by the media, because they (who's they?) deemed it insensitive or insulting? It is outright lunacy, to say the least. Just recently, Pres. Trump was vilified in the media and by Democrats (and by some Republicans), that he didn't condemn the white separatists clearly enough for them in the Charlottesville incident. He was criticized for including ALL hate groups, in his condemnation, including the ANTIFA and BLACK LIVES MATTER groups along with the NAZI group. For that he was called a racist, a Nazi sympathizer, and a bigot. That was “political correctness” gone amok, plain and simple.

Look what has happened in our judicial system - today when someone commits a crime, it must be determined whether or not it is a “hate” crime, which carries a more severe penalty, than the same crime committed by someone against someone else who is not in that “protected” class. How absurd! A crime is a crime, is a crime, regardless of who is the victim.

Certain people get a pass, just because they are in the “protected” class. If a white person called a black person a “nigger” it can be considered racial harassment, but if a black person called another black person a “nigger”, that is O.K. or at least it would not considered a “major” offense by the “P.C. Police”.

Zero tolerance is another area where “political correctness” holds sway. The intentions are sometimes laudatory, but the punishment doesn't always “fit the crime”. A casual remark by one person to another with a sexual connotation might be grounds for a lawsuit, a student taking an aspirin in school might be a cause for suspension, telling an ethnic, racial or religious joke might be cause for a firing or banishment from the industry, but there's one area where the “P.C. Police” don't seem to get involved in, that's when the topic is slandering or mocking Christians. Anything goes and in many cases it is looked upon favorably by those who are non-believers (generally liberal secularists and atheists). Slander a Muslim, a Jew a Gay or other protected minority, and all hell will break loose, but not when it comes to Christians - they are fair game. Shouldn't all religions be fair game, even for obnoxious, and slanderous speech or actions?

It was different years ago, when people could joke with one another, say stupid things to one another, and be free to either be nice or nasty, without a “blow back” or being vilified or harassed by the “P.C. Police”. Many comedians of 30 or 40 years ago were able to make fun of different racial and ethnic groups with no problems and plenty of laughter, especially by the group being made fun of. Today, you might lose your job or be fined. We should all be fed up with these “unwritten” restrictions called “political correctness”, and we should all run to the window and proclaim that “We are mad as hell and we won't take it anymore”. Political correctness be damned!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 17, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

                                             MORT KUFF  © 8-14-2017
Return of the TURD.
Traitorous Underhanded Reprobate Democrat
While TURD is certainly applicable to a litany of undesirables that have populated the Democrat Party over the past half-century or so, in this instance, the immediate past-President is the subject the ‘term’.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a name that conjures up painful recollections of eight long years of gross mismanagement of our nations affairs - and hundreds of moments of shameful recollections when this reprobate intentionally brought down upon the heads of American citizens, buckets full of excruciating disgrace.
Now, in blatant contradiction to an honored tradition of all former U. S. Presidents, Obama is not returning to his pre-presidential home State but has taken up residence in the District of Columbia.  From this high, brick- walled Headquarters, housed in a multi-million-dollar ‘castle’ just a few short miles from the White House, Obama plans to conduct a daily surveillance of President Trump’s every utterance and every action.  
To what end is he doing this? He wants to second-guess, oppose and obstruct every single move that President Trump makes.  So much for Obama honoring the tradition observed by the forty-three presidents that preceded him.  So much for the concept of this former-president remaining ‘out-of-the-way’ in order not to interfere in any way, shape or form, with the newly-elected President.  Au contraire. He plans to be a thorn in the side of President Donald J. Trump.  How ignoble can Obama get?  It is the Return of the TURD, a classless turd.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Liberals and Diversity

First off, let's define what we mean by diversity. According to Merriam-Webster, “diversity” is the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races and cultures) in a group or organization – it also includes a “diversity” of opinion.

Now, with that definition in mind, let's see how the liberals use it in trying to further their political agenda.

It seems that the Democrats (a/k/a liberals) think that “diversity” is the “be all and end all” that should happen in our society, not the intelligence, the work ethic, or the experience of the person, but whether or not he/she fits the “diversity” parameter that they constantly use in what they think is good for our society. According to the liberals, they want us to look different but think the same. You see this in college campuses around the country. Many colleges brag about how diverse they are, but the the faculties are mainly staffed by an overwhelming majority of liberals who contribute mainly to the Democrat Party, no “diversity” there. Also, many of these colleges give preference to enrolling students with “diversity” in mind, rather than accepting prospective applicants on the sole basis of their academic credentials.

Giving preference to one group over another, to me, is un-American and contrary to the principles set forth by our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't everyone be judged as an individual and not as part of a group? That doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people from some group from gaining credentials and experience to be able to compete for admission to a school or college, but by blatantly discriminating in favor of a person from a certain group, that should be considered unfair, especially to the other person being denied even though better qualified.

Our founding fathers, in their eminent wisdom, have written that everyone should have the “opportunity” to better themselves, not the “guarantee” of success. That's what they stated in our Declaration of Independence that we, as citizens, are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” - as you can see they did not say the “guarantee” of happiness (or in other words, success), because when you give something to someone you have to take something from somebody else. That's what seems to happen when someone gets accepted (because of “diversity”) for a slot in a college admission over someone who doesn't fall into that “diversity” category. That is called “reverse discrimination” and should not be tolerated.

The “diversity” goal is also used in the business world as the government has set up rules and procedures that authorize companies and businesses to hire people, not on the basis of merit for performing the job, but on the basis of their ethnicity, race, or gender. Should the government be the arbiter as to who some business should (or must) hire or should that be left to the business itself? Liberals, in the main believe that the government should get involved, whereas the Conservatives, in the main, say the government should stay out. Yes, there may be some who might discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race, and gender, but most businesses are in business to make a profit so they will hire the person who will be the most productive for their business and will add to the bottom line (a/k/a profit).

So, the idea that“diversity” can be the “be all and end all” of how we run our lives, it can work in ways that bring more problems to society than in solving the problems of society. Forcing people to do or not to do certain things, in the name of “diversity” is never the way to go. Educating the people to do the right thing might take some more effort than passing a law, but in the long run it will create less animosity among the citizens who think that they are being discriminated against in the name of “diversity”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 10, 2017

The Road to a Healthy Existance is Prevention

Since the Civil War our country has never been in a more precarious situation
than today, because a new form of protest has evolved out of a rambunctious
display of vitriol by persons who do not respect nor accept the outcome of a
constitutionally won presidential election.

It has left an open wound they won't allow to heal, by picking on the scab and
sucking out the blood at every attempt the new administration is putting forth
to cure the ills left by the previous one, and utilizing every unsterilized
means available, with dirty hands, to infect and cripple it in its endeavor.

Although there was a possible Russian symptom, it has proven to have been
misdiagnosed and not applicable in examination and fruitless to continue to
pursue it, distracting the government from more important things needing
attention for the well being of its citizenry. Jobs, lowering taxes, the
health of the economy and the safety of the nation from the contagious
terror disease that's beginning to spread like the plague, throughout
the world.

A repeat of history is hard to be believed at this time and most of us living
today will never know, but even Abraham Lincoln too, was once the most
hated man in the land.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Given The Circumstances With North Korea and Finding Out Obama’s Iran Deal Was Much Worse Than We Suspected, Doesn't This Picture Make Sense?

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Homosexuality: A Normal or Abnormal Lifestyle?

Whichever way you answer that question, you will be vilified by either support group. If you say “normal”, you will be accused of undermining eons of traditions dating back to the origins of man and woman. If you say “abnormal”, you will be labeled a bigot, homophobe, Fascist etc. Either way, a person voicing his/her opinion, that person will be “walking on hot coals” in trying to voice their views on this highly volatile, emotionally charged subject. To begin a discussion, let's define the word “Abnormal”. Merriam-Webster defines it as, “not normal, average, typical or usual, deviating from a standard”.

As human beings, we can “love” anyone we want to. As a heterosexual, I can see where people can love someone of the same sex, mainly as it concerns fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, other family members and close friends. It is “normal” to show affection in those cases, but the difference between that “love” and homosexuality is the part about sex. That is the part that homosexuals are trying to convince others that “gay sex” is normal, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

It seems that the momentum over the past few years has shifted to the LGBT community as the media, academia, and Hollywood have painted homosexuality as a normal lifestyle that is comparable to a “straight” lifestyle. It seems that tolerance for opposing views on this subject is visibly lacking on both sides, especially the LGBT side as they organize against opponents by bringing lawsuits, asking opponents to be fired, and by boycotting businesses.

Which ever side you support, we should not oppress the other side as we, in the U.S.A., are a free people who have the right to have an opinion, free from censorship and violence.

Most of the people who claim that homosexuality is NOT a normal lifestyle, generally come to that conclusion mostly out of a profound religious teaching. Since the beginning of recorded history, most religions and cultures have NOT recognized homosexuality as being a moral precept. Only during the past 20 or 30 years has the problem been brought to the forefront. Since the Civil Rights movement, which began in the 1960's, and gained momentum, the LGBT community has latched on as another aggrieved party. Even though it has been estimated that the gay community represents only about 3% of the population, they are well motivated and well funded and have wide support in the liberal sector of the Democrat Party, the main stream media, and the left-leaning academics, both teachers and professors. This support has given momentum to the gays in their cause for “special” treatment. The question most people who oppose the gay lifestyle as “normal”, say that the gay community should not get any special treatment and that they should be treated the same as any other citizen with all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Is it “normal” for a man to have “sex” with another man (anal and/or oral), and the same with females with other females? Let's discuss the situation.

If you believe in a God or some other dynamic in our universe, do you believe human beings have been created in a certain and distinct way? Were humans, man and woman, created to cause a certain happening? The human race can only survive by a man and woman procreating to have an offspring. The people in a homosexual relationship cannot procreate (unless through surrogates or artificial insemination), but they can still love one another. To get technical, the anal orifice in a man was made for “elimination”, not “ingestion”. To argue otherwise, one would argue that that procedure, in sexual terms, was “normal”. In the case of female homosexuals, they don't have that problem, and the dangers that come from engaging in that lifestyle (ex: STD's, AIDS, and rectal problems) generally is not a concern to them, therefore the lesbian life expectancy is about 10 years greater than their male counterpart.

So taking all that into consideration, and the way our bodies have been formed and created, it would be quite a stretch to reasonably conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is “normal” and should be made comparable to the heterosexual lifestyle.

The question then arises about whether the gay lifestyle is just another alternative lifestyle, that they shall be given all the benefits that straight couples have, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

Due to the power of the gay lobby, who are very well financed and emotionally organized, they have convinced quite a few states to recognize gay marriage, and more seem to be on the verge of following suit. A lot of people who do not agree with the gay community, are cowed and threatened by the militant gays. Cries of “homophobia” and “bigot” ring out if you question their ideas or come out against the validity of their lifestyle, which they are trying to change as being “normal”. The gays who are always preaching tolerance, become very intolerant when you disagree with them. In that case, tolerance has a tendency to breed intolerance.

Nobody knows what will eventually occur in the future, but it will be contentious to say the least, on both sides.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 3, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

Attention: People with their heads screwed on straight.
Can you take your eyes & ears off the CNN’s and the Democrap Obstructionists, TrumpHaters & ForeverResistors like Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters and all the committed Leftist talking heads on the tube, for just a moment?  Can you do that?
Is it really Earth-shaking when Pres. Trump says he is honored to be meeting with the Russian thug ‘President’?  Can we get past this ‘by-play’ by our President, who is the greatest negotiator of all time and realize that he is way smarter at that game than either the heads of any of the foreign countries around the Globe or certainly, the so-called leaders of today’s Democrat Party?
Would you really  rather have Hillary, Sanders or Biden occupying the Oval Office in the White House?  C’mon . . lets’ get serious!

                          MORT KUFF  © 7-10-2017

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 30, 2017


Ida May Fuller, the first recipient of a Social Security benefit check in 1940, paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security fund. Her first monthly S/S check was issued in 1940 was for $22.54, almost as much as she paid in. Over the ensuing 35 years of her life, she collected a total of $22,888. Her case is reminiscent of the early investors of a Ponzi scheme. They get paid off from the investments of future dupes (or victims).

Social Security, a well-meaning program instituted to help seniors during their non-working retirement years, has turned into a financial nightmare for the workers of today (not for the present retirees), who are paying F.I.C.A. taxes and not expecting to collect anything when they retire. The cost of the program has mushroomed over the years from its inception in 1935. Let's take a look.

Social Security benefits paid out over the years are as follows:

1940- $35 million
1950- $961 million
1960- $11.2 billion
1970- $31.9 billion
1980- $120.5 billion
1990- $247.8 billion
2009- $650 billion
2017- $955 billion and rising

You can see from those figures that the the costs of paying benefits are going up precipitously and eventually the system will go broke unless some changes can be made.

The tax rate set in 1935 was 2% (1% by employer and 1% by employee) on the first $3,000 of earnings. Today the rate is $12.4% on the first $127,200 of an employees taxable earnings (6.2% for the employee and 6.2% for the employer). In short, we've gone from a maximum dual contribution of $60.00 per year to a maximum dual contribution of $15,772 (which includes the medicare deduction of 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% by the employer for a total of 15.3%), and it still falls short of the funding liabilities. In 2005, the Social Security trustees estimated that the unfunded liabilities were $8.5 trillion. It is now thought to be (in 2017), $12.3 trillion. It is heading for a Bernie Madoff type financial meltdown as sure as night follows day. The estimated date of insolvency is now projected to be 2033.

In 1935, the average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the retirement age to collect S/S was 65 years old. In 1940, the life expectancy was 62.9 years and 20 workers contributed to fund the retirees. In 1960, the life expectancy was 69.7 years and 5 workers were contributing to support the S/S retirees. In 2005, 3.2 workers were contributing to one retiree and the average life expectancy was then 77.8 years. In 2017, 2 workers were contributing to one retiree and the average life expectancy was now males = 84 years, and females =86 years. So as the “pot” of retirees keep expanding while the supply of investors (workers) keeps on declining.

This year, 10 million more “Baby Boomers” will begin to retire which will cause the senior population to double in the next decades (today there are 62 million people collecting Social Security benefits), while the number of employees paying F.I.C.A taxes will either remain constant or decrease. There will not be enough workers to pay for these new retirees unless we do something and soon. Just like the schemes of Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff, the pool of new investors (workers) will not be enough to pay off the previous investors and the whole thing will come tumbling down like a house of cards.

When the first generation of S/S recipients got back in benefits was far greater than what they themselves paid in, you could say they got something for nothing. The same will not be said for future retirees. They probably will get back next to nothing for something.

That's the way a Ponzi scheme works, with the first wave of “investors” getting paid with the money paid in by the second wave and on and on. And, like Social Security, a Ponzi scheme creates no wealth, but only the illusion that it cannot last. Ponzi and Madoff went to prison, but our lawmakers get re-elected for doing the same thing.

President Bush back in 2005, with the recommendation of two prominent Democrats, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John Breaux, tried to institute a “partial” privatization of Social Security, but the plan was shot down by the Democrats who demagogued the plan as being “too risky” and a boon to the Wall Street tycoons. The plan simply was that a person paying F.I.C.A. taxes would be able to put aside 4% of his contributions into a private account that he would own and be able to leave for his heirs when he died (today when you die, no more S/S checks will be paid to anyone - with the exception of some reduced benefits to his widow and minor children). The plan, as proposed, was optional and anybody who opted out for the present S/S setup would be able to do so. Any young worker today, with any economic common sense, would jump at the the opportunity, because over the long term, and even with the ups and down of the stock market, to choose a plan that would give him two or three times the amount of retirement benefits that he would receive now under the current benefit schedule, would be a “no-brainer”. Politics won out again, and as of the present time, our Social Security system will be going into bankruptcy in a few short years leaving our children and grandchildren high and dry unless Social Security taxes are precipitously raised to meet the commitment we made to them. What a shame!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share