Monday, August 30, 2010


That expression seems to be the modus operandi of the Obama Administration. No matter how urgent the situation, it seems that he (Obama) cannot make a timely decision or for that matter, any decision at all.

It probably goes back to his days in the Illinois State Senate when he voted “present” 130 times. He didn’t have the guts to take a stand on a slew of controversial issues that came before the Illinois Senate for a vote. He was what we might call a “mugwump”. (Look it up).

This tendency for being indecisive seems to have followed him to the U.S. Presidency. He talks a good game (with the help of a teleprompter) but when “push comes to shove”, he avoids making a decision like the plague. He doesn’t realize that the job of president is not like the job of a “Community Organizer” which he was during the 1990’s. His lack of administrative experience, along with his lack of economic and business experience, was pointed out before the election took place, but the electorate (53% of the voters) was blinded to the facts before them by the smooth talk and the significance of electing the first black President. The main stream media was “in the tank” for Obama all through the election cycle and therefore, his lack of meaningful experience was downplayed or not even mentioned at all. Even today, in light of all the problems that he has not confronted forthrightly as President, the news media, with the exception of talk radio and the Fox News Channel, are still giving Obama a pass by not criticizing his blunders and policy mistakes like they did when George W. Bush was president.

The monstrosity of a health care bill that was passed by Congress and signed by the President was a perfect example of Obama not taking charge of the situation. He farmed out the job of drafting this legislation to two incompetents, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Obama stood on the sidelines making general comments that at best could be called overstatements and in some cases misstatements or outright lies (ex. Passage of this bill will not add one cent to the deficit). Not only did he not read the over 2,100 pages of the legislation, but neither did most of the Democrats who voted in favor of it. Arm twisting, intimidation, and outright bribes were enough to get the number of votes needed for passage. We are now finding out about this piece of legislation by dribs and drabs, and most people (over 60%) want this law repealed because they are finding out now that it was not what it was cracked up to be.

Today, we have the biggest environmental catastrophe in our nations history and he dithers away his time on the golf course or by throwing concerts at the White House, like the one he threw for Paul McCartney, and a host of other ceremonial events while the people of the Gulf Coast are crying out for help. He could’ve and should’ve kept the oil from reaching our beaches and marshlands, but he didn’t move to accept any help from foreign countries until day 70 of the spill. Why couldn’t he move to keep this environmental nightmare from spreading? I guess he wanted to vote “present” again instead of making some important choices and decisions.

When our national security is at stake, his procrastination can be downright dangerous to our fighting men and women overseas. It took him over 3 months to make a decision to send more troops that his commanding general requested from him, and when he agreed, he only allowed 30,000 instead of the 40,000 which was requested. You could say he was a “day late and a dollar short” on this very important military decision. I would guess that his dithering on this matter led Gen. McChrystal and his aides to make some uncomplimentary remarks months later with a reporter from “Rolling Stone” magazine that cost McCrystal his command after those remarks were printed and made public.

Our country is crying out for leadership but we’re not getting it from this Administration as they seem to be a “day late and a dollar short”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Godly or Hypocrisy

I try to respect all legitimate world religions, but for those and some sects that are contributors to human suffering, controlled by an elite group, or condone human or animal sacrifice.

I am troubled and have questions about Islam. I hope a follower will put my skepticism to rest and enlighten me by answering these questions.

Why being allowed to wed four wives has anything to do with religion? Is a woman allowed to be wed to four husbands, and if not, why not? Can a woman become a Martyr? If yes, will 23 studs be waiting for her in paradise?

I understand the Burka has no religious significance except for expressing modesty to cover the body against roving eyes outside the family. It is a tradition devout Muslims practice. can you explain Belly Dancers? How 'bout, would you let your wife or daughters attend a Chippendale performance?

Am I wrong that Shariah law is not in the Koran, but a supplement created to suppress free thinking and like the Burka, designed to suppress women?

The Muslim world is outraged at water boarding, regarding it as torture and inhumane. Is stoning, limb amputations, decapitation for non capital crimes more humane?

Another thing I find hard to understand is why many of the ancestors of those who were rounded up in Africa by Muslims, bound and sold to white traders and shipped to America, converted to Islam. The root and faith of the their instigators and plight.

Do Muslim men consider women their equal?

Conservative commentary written by George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 23, 2010


Let’s get real, we all know that the “N” word (“nigger to be precise”) is an offensive word to most black people and to many white people, especially if it is uttered by a white person, but is using that word “verboten” when expressed in public by everyone? The answer, according to the “race hustlers”, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and other self-appointed leaders of the black community, is a “qualified YES”. God forbid, though, any white person uses that term in public (with the exception of the late Robert Byrd, a white former KKK member and a liberal), they are immediately condemned to eternity as racist bigots, no ifs ands or buts, but not in the case of a black person.

But, you may ask, don’t we have “free speech” guaranteed by our constitution? Of course we do, but don’t try to invoke that “evil” document into the conversation or debate if you don’t want to be called a racist or a bigot.

Ironically, as bad as the word “nigger” is viewed in our society, not everyone is restrained from using it. In fact, in some cases it is looked upon somewhat favorably. It seems it is O.K. to use the word if you are a black comedian or a “Hip-Hop” or “Rap” artist (where they got the word “artist” to describe these performers, I don’t know). The wrath of the “P.C. Police” generally will not come down upon a Chris Rock, the late Richard Pryor and a host of “Rappers” who very flippantly use the word “nigger” to enhance their act, even among mixed audiences, and to pad their wallets as a result.

Just recently, Dr. Laura Schlesinger used the term “nigger” in some commentary with a caller on her radio program. The “racial arsonists” and the righteous liberal media jumped all over her. I hear that she has since quit her radio show as a result of this flap. I presume their wrath was directed at her mainly because she is a white “conservative” talk show host who used that word against “their” rules. Where’s the outrage when the aforementioned black people use that word? Some blacks like Bill Cosby have condemned the use of the word “nigger” used by other blacks, but generally they all seem to get a pass because they are black.

On the other hand, what about black people using the term "cracker", "honky", "whitey", “redneck” etc. in response to their describing “white people”? Is that O.K. because it is directed at the former “oppressors” of black people? Do you think there might be a double standard in play when people of different ethnic or racial backgrounds can use derogatory terms for people of the other ethnic or racial groups and get away with it? “You betcha”, as the “evil” Sarah Palin would say.

No amount of moralizing will prevent or stop others from using those offensive words. Only the “self-righteous” indignation of the phony politicians and the people who are the “victim purveyors”, like Jackson and Sharpton, will the condemnation be so severe that the person caught using it will be placed on society’s trash pile and will be heaped upon with scorn and derision, meanwhile giving cover to the politician and “race hustler” as being morally superior to the offender. I wonder how many times the word “nigger”, “cracker” etc. have been used in private gatherings by the various sanctimonious Congressional groups, both black and white? I firmly believe that all of us, at one time or another, has used one or more of those terms sometimes in our lives.

So yes, it is offensive to use those terms and people using them should be aware that many people will be offended by its use, but let’s not pass laws or ban people from using those terms, no matter who is offended by its use. Let us all support the 1st Amendment and, in addition, also bring into play some moral suasion to educate others to refrain from using those offensive terms recklessly, in order to put down others not like themselves.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 20, 2010

“Dreams of My Father’s Son”

(that would be, me) by MORT KUFF © 2010

Volume No. 1

  • I dream that the nightmare that is the Obama administration will soon implode.
  • I dream that Nancy Pelosi smashes her finger with her gavel.
  • I dream that Harry Reid is sent to roam the Nevada desert alone, for 40 years.
  • I dream that Reverend Wright turns white overnight, then gets Laryngitis.
  • I dream that Dick Durbin gets run over by a former Nazi prison guard.
  • I dream that Chris Dodd’s hair turns black overnight.
  • I dream that Barney Frank gives the Clapp to John Kerry and we find out.
  • I dream that Al Sharpton runs out of pomade and he loses all his hair.
  • I dream that the two Republican Senators from Maine ‘get theirs’.
  • I dream that Chelsea Clinton inherits her Father’s moral compass.
  • I dream that Sen. Leahy steps in drek up to his puppik.
  • I dream that Hillary’s ankles get even thicker every Monday morning.
  • I dream that Gov. Crist of Florida loses his Senate race and turns really pale.
  • I dream that all three female Supreme Court Justices grow black moustaches.
  • I dream that Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell gets stomach cramps.
  • I dream that all ‘Rappers’ get arthritis in their fingers.
  • I dream that Chris Mathews gets hit in the hardballs with a microphone.
  • I dream that David Letterman and his stupid top-ten lists just go away.
  • I dream that Rosie O’Donnell gets her weight in law suits.
  • I dream that Jesse Jackson gets hustled by a bunch of white CEO’s.
  • I dream that Maxine Waters is convicted and gets sent to prison in Alaska.
  • I dream that Charlie Rangel gets the Nobel Piss Prize for Corruption.
  • I dream that Robert Gibbs has to review all his Press Conferences, to eternity.
  • I dream that Whoopie Goldberg becomes a victim of Obama’s anti-Semitism.
  • I dream that Keith Olberman has itching powder put into his under shorts.
  • I dream . . . . to be continued.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


That expression, “Say it ain’t so , Joe” was attributed to a young baseball fan as “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, of Chicago “Black Sox” fame, was leaving the court house after telling his story to the Grand Jury in 1920, about his role in a betting scandal involving baseball, and Joe supposedly said, “Yes, kid, I’m afraid it is”.

Can you imagine if “Joe” Biden, of Vice-Pres. fame, would say that same phrase to someone asking him about his and the Messiah’s policies about what they are trying to shove down the throats of the American people? The answer would probably be, “Like a snowball in hell” as neither Biden nor Obama would admit that their policies would be considered detrimental to our country’s well-being. You wouldn’t expect a sensible answer from these two lawyers with a minimum of practical business and economic experience, since there isn’t an ounce of humility left in either one of them.

Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama are pushing policies that are so devoid of economic common sense and reason that it is mind-boggling, to say the least. We should be on the fast track to recovery by now, but due to the inane and unworkable policies put forth by this duo and the Democrats in Congress, our recession has a good chance of becoming a full-fledged depression as of the beginning of 2011.

Economist Arthur Laffer, in his article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal recently, is predicting that if we don’t change our present economic policies, we will be headed for an economic collapse in 2011. He points out that on or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate (death) tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision of the Bush tax cuts.

It is a fact that only 8% of the people in the Obama Administration have had any kind of practical “Business” experience, as most are lawyers, professional politicians, academics, or various and sundry bureaucrats. This lack of hands-on business experience could explain why the policies that could and should give the private sector business a boost have not been put into effect due to this economic and business ignorance on the part of the President and his Administration. You don’t grow GNP by expanding government and its bureaucracy, as they don’t produce goods or services, thereby generating revenue for the government and by creating tax paying jobs to produce those goods and services. The “stimulus” package enacted by the Obama Administration has not had the effect on jobs they predicted when proposing it, in fact the unemployment rate has gone up to 10% when they said it wouldn’t go above 8%. It has been a monumental failure. A basic economic principle is that you can’t create prosperity by the over taxing of its citizens and over spending by the government. Tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire workers and to expand its operations is what is needed, not government handouts to the favored few.

It seems like everything the Obama Administration proposes is anti-private sector business. Most of their efforts seem to be going to their labor union friends and to government employees, both of whom support the Democrats overwhelmingly come election time. You could say its payback time.

It boggles the mind why the Obama Administration continues on their disastrous economic policies when history tells us that by reducing taxes and easing onerous regulations that strangle business, it would turn around this economy almost overnight. It must be ideology, on the part of the Democrats and Obama, and their propensity to embrace failed European socialist policies, that is driving them toward a major electoral defeat this coming November.

For our country’s sake, let’s clean the HOUSE (and Senate too) this coming November and vote the tax and spend incumbents out and put into place some free enterprise capitalists in place of the pseudo- socialists that are now screwing up our economy.

Unfortunately, the candidness of a “Shoeless” Joe Jackson will be missing and not be heard, in the halls of Congress or in the White House, as the political spin will take precedence over truth and candor, if we leave these miscreants in office. Let’s start by voting the bums out in November!

Conservative comments by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 14, 2010


To the “politically correct” crowd the name Shirley Sherrod has been elevated to “sainthood” over her so-called “vicious” treatment by the Obama White House, the NAACP, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, Fox News, and filmmaker Andrew Breitbart. She has been depicted as that “poor” insignificant Dep’t. Of Agriculture worker who was maligned by the above named people and organizations in a rush to judgment.

Well, not so fast. This “wrongly” accused black woman has a checkered past when it comes to race relations and her involvement in a scam against the U.S. government for supposed “racial exploitation” of black farm laborers and farmers in Georgia.

What started out as a small claim by 400 black farmers has escalated into a claim by over 80,000 “farmers” trying to get in on this massive con job? The original lawsuit claimed that the USDA unlawfully denied loans to the poor black farmers. The case was entitled Pigford v. Glickman. The farmers won their case and the government agreed to pay them as much as $50,000 each to settle their claims.

But, in February of this year, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25 billion (that’s with a “b”). This was because the original number of plaintiffs- 400 black farmers- had now swollen in a class action law suit to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There is only one problem – there isn’t 86,000 black farmers throughout America, no where near that figure.

Can you smell a scam in the works? Where did these people, who want to jump on the “gravy train”, come from? How did this happen? Well, a person by the name of Shirley Sherrod spearheaded this case because of her position at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” in 1997. Yes, that’s the same Shirley Sherrod who was summarily fired for supposedly making racist remarks at a NAACP Convention in Georgia in March of this year. Why was she so quick to get the ax from the Obama Administration? As it turns out, the original Pigford v. Glickman settlement only applied to 16,000 black farmers (the final total), but in 2008, a junior Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. That junior Senator was Barack Hussein Obama. Was this decision to introduce that proposed law based on fact or on race? Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible (Shirley Sherrod) was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced, in the middle of a world-wide recession, to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim that by now was dubious, to say the least. One reason for this is that the new settlement applied to other farmers and those who “attempted to farm” and did not receive assistance from the USDA. Getting the latest round of Pigford cases from the 2008 farm bill settled is said to be a high priority for the Obama Administration. Is this payback time (or could it be a backdoor way to give reparations to blacks)?

Shirley Sherrod and her husband wound up getting $150,000 each (total $300,000) from the original settlement when the maximum was supposed to be $50,000 for each person. How come they hit the jackpot? Something doesn’t smell kosher here, does it?

So what started out as a claim by 400 poor black farmers suing the DOA for past discrimination practices, has turned into a money grab by over “86,000 black farmers” from around the country, with the help of the DOA, Pres. Barack Hussein Obama and many members of the Congress, and don’t forget our “victim” Shirley Sherrod. Do you smell a rat here?

Here we have a classic case of corrupt people “playing the system” for unlawful financial gain using race as the motivating factor. So instead of being the poor victim of racism and a rush to judgment on the part of the Obama Administration and the NAACP, she has been exposed, or should be, as a corrupt player in a scam against the government, which includes you and me the taxpayers.

I wonder how many in the main stream media will jump on this story and find out the truth on this blatant raid against the U.S. treasury. I predict it will have to be the “evil racist” Republicans who will have to blow the whistle on this caper or it will die a very uneventful death and Shirley Sherrod will only be known as the poor victim of “racism” instead of the scam artist that she really was.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Here's what I believe:

I believe there is an unspoken-of phenomenon - an invisible, clandestine thuggery - that is being waged all across this country, even as this is being written.

The results of this creepy business are manifested in the recent cascade of unbelievable, untenable capitulations by so many cowardly, corrupt, co-opted elected officials, regarding their approvals of new mosque construction and the placing of known Islamo-radicals into positions of public trust. This is a conspiracy theory that I readily claim as my own and for which I make no apology.

It is my strongly-held belief that radical Islamo operatives (Imams, clerics, agents and/or home-grown-Muslims indoctrinated in radical Islam techniques and tactics) are actively engaged in both outright bribery and intimidation of elected officials at every level of our government.

The bribery of unprincipled, self-serving officials can come either in the form of cash placed directly into their hands - or, in the form of political support, upgraded positions, or gifts and services of significant intrinsic value, provided to them directly or indirectly. In any case, the reprobates who betray their public trust, become bought & paid-for tools of radical Islam. Thus, they are doomed; their fates are sealed.

The intimidation can take the form of actual, direct and explicit threats on the lives of the officials or their families. This is a most effective technique that strikes terror into the hearts of the targeted officials, for both their own physical safety and that of their families and friends. Another technique of intimidation is the threat of exposing the targeted official's sexual indiscretions, gambling debt or other embarrassing or illegal, career-ending activities.

And of course, this intimidation is so very real, so imminent and so potentially damaging that the corrupted officials would rather die than confess that they have been so co-opted. Their fears are genuine and well-founded.

It is a major failing of far too many members of the so-called, 'Third Estate' (the mass media) that they have been unwilling to probe into the motivation of officials who have curiously, come out in support of such obvious threats to our justice system, our personal freedoms and our traditional American way of life. Freedom of the press is well on the way to being destroyed at the hands of those reporters and journalists who place a higher value on 'political correctness' and far-left doctrine, than they do on their jobs or in the full reporting the true facts. If we lose our rights as described in the First Amendment and 'guaranteed' by that clause in The Constitution, it will be in great measure as a direct result of the cowardice, misdirection and malfeasance of those members of our mass news media who are failing so miserably at doing their job.

MORT KUFF (c) 2010
Boynton Beach, FL

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 9, 2010


Isn’t it ironic that the secular progressives (a/k/a atheists) are so in favor of the Muslims building a gigantic mosque at ground zero by invoking the 1st Amendment, but couldn’t or wouldn’t care less if it was a Christian or Jewish religious building that was an issue in a dispute. On the other hand, they probably would demonstrate against it.

This “political correctness” nonsense in this case will be the death of western culture and civilization, as we know it. Why do they (the Muslims) demand tolerance from us but don’t reciprocate by being tolerant to us? Suppose we wanted to build a church or synagogue in Mecca or Medina, would they be using the equivalent of the 1st Amendment to welcome the building of those edifices in those cities and the country of Saudi Arabia? Of course not, only “schmucks” like us would be so accommodating to people who, in the most part, hate us and in many cases want us dead because we are considered infidels.

Why do we have so many wusses in our midst like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Governor David Paterson and the ACLU who fall all over themselves to approve of this “poke in the eye” mosque near ground zero? That indictment also goes for the “appeasers” who are on the Zoning and Planning Boards of the City of New York and the Landmark Commission as well. All of these wimps should be ashamed of themselves for caving into the pressure from the radical Muslim organizations. What are they afraid of?

The only avenue left to right thinking citizens is for the people to rise up and put their feet down and say “hell no, we will not permit this mosque to be built a block from ground zero”. You can do that by organizing the building trade unions of the City to refuse to work on the demolishing of the building and construction of the mosque in its place. If they can’t get workers to build it, it will not be built as a monument to the perpetrators of 9/11. It is a well known fact that radical, militant Muslims like to erect mosques on or near the site of their conquests or victories. The murder of 3,000 infidels on 9/11 was considered a victory for these warp-minded people and the mosque near ground zero will be their monument of that victory.

We must not let this happen. This goes beyond partisan politics – neither Democrat nor Republican should tolerate this symbol of the 7th century crackpots who couldn’t care less about human life. If we fold like a cheap camera on this matter, it will only be a short time before we no longer will be the United States of America, but we will be ruled by people who will impose Sharia law in place of our Constitution, like what is happening in many countries in Europe today. Is that what we want for our children and grandchildren? I would hope not. Let’s put the pressure on and work together to stop this abomination at ground zero.


Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Allen West: Honor In Iraq

LTC (Ret) Allen West's exemplary career is being smeared by his opponent. Listen to Allen West explain the facts.
I hope you find this information helpful in promoting Allen West's campaign aimed at restoring honor, integrity and character back to Washington.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 2, 2010


Is it race baiting if you disagree with the policies of the country’s first black President?

Well, if you listen to certain people or groups, especially one’s who claim to represent the black and Latino communities; the answer is “YES”. Can you imagine that?

Our country, whose constitution is envied by the vast number of freedom loving people around the world, has, as part of that constitution, the right of free speech (the 1st Amendment). To criticize people for exercising that right of protesting the policies of anyone in elected office, including the President, is an affront to all law abiding citizens whether they are black, white, brown, yellow or whatever. Being of a certain race, color, ethnic background, gender or anything, doesn’t leave you immune from criticism about “What” you stand for, your policies, or your actions. We all have that right and to be vilified, unjustly, for exercising that right peacefully, is a disgrace and it is un-American.

We have a recent case of the national chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., condemning the Tea Party for alleged racism, without a shred of “real” evidence to substantiate that inflammatory charge. First off, the Tea Party is not an organized party in the strict sense of that word. It is an amalgamation of concerned citizens who are protesting the actions of their government and its policies. They couldn’t care less if the President is black; the vast majority is against his governance and his radical policies that he is trying to shove down the throats of its citizens. I would bet my life that if it was John Kerry as President espousing the same policies as Obama, the same protests would be taking place around the country. Race has nothing to do with it.

When the “racial arsonists” get on their soap box and condemn the overwhelmingly peaceful, patriotic people protesting against their government by calling them racists, it shows that these agitators have lost the argument and fall back on the time-worn tactic of race-baiting. It seems like the once highly regarded N.A.A.C.P. has now joined the chorus of “grievance hustlers” like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Malik Shabazz (of the New Black Panther Party) in stirring up racial tensions when it was assumed that the election of the first black President would move us toward a post-racial nation. Well, it seems like the opposite is now taking place in our country, and the President is complicit in it by his actions and rhetoric. He is fanning the flames of racial tension.

In the words of that noted black columnist/author/commentator, Dr. Thomas Sowell, “People on the left (including those mentioned above) want the right to impose their idea of what is good for society on others – a right that they vehemently deny to those whose idea of what is good for society differs from their own”.

So, the answer to the question posed at the beginning is “YES” it is race-baiting, and all people of goodwill should oppose those un-American acts perpetrated by the self-proclaimed practitioners of tolerance who have now become intolerant. To single out and condemn a group for rare instances of objectionable behavior (if it wasn’t already staged by a radical liberal plant at the meeting), and then tar-brushing the entire group as racists, is an insult to all fair-minded Americans. In all the Tea Parties held around the country, over the past year, no arrests for disorderly conduct, no riots, no car burnings or store window breakings, and a minimal amount of trash left behind, is the legacy of the Tea Party. This is not what the racial arsonists are trying to convey. Shame on them and their media flunky’s for engaging in this self-serving obnoxious behavior for partisan political gain.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share