Monday, August 29, 2011

The Mother Smother Syndrome

This editorial soliloquy will generate some negative comments, especially from women, but I feel that this “politically incorrect” dissertation represents the thoughts of many men who have made their thoughts known to me through their conversations with me relating to this topic.

As we were children growing up, most all of us looked forward to having our mother smother us with hugs, kisses, and loving squeezes. As we got older, we sort of shied away from that display of love and affection put forth by our loving mothers, not out of angst, but because we felt we didn't need that loving intruding reassurance that our mothers so willingly provided, especially in public, as we grew into our teens and after.

Even as I reached adulthood, my mother continued to smother me with “overly concern” for my health, habits, and life in general. Looking back on my life, I call that the “mother smother” syndrome.

That “mother smother” syndrome was a particular annoyance as I grew up and grew older, and it was furthered by the women in my life with whom I've had relationships over the years. The mothering instinct, which is a beautiful, loving, positive aspect of life, can be an annoying relationship killer in our adult lives, without the other person (woman) even realizing it.

Let me explain. Men, who generally are not as warm and fuzzy and outwardly giving of their emotions as are women, go crazy when the women in their lives tell them what to do, where to go, what to wear, what to say, how to do something, how to drive, what to eat, etc., etc. This is especially true when we as men, still have our mental faculties, and consider it to be an absolute turn-off to be “mother smothered” constantly by our women partners and close female friends.

Many women think that we, as men, can't walk and chew gum at the same time and that we need that “mother smother” advice constantly or we wouldn't be able to survive or function in our daily lives. No amount or cajoling or pleading on the man's part can convince the “mother smotherer” that they should stop the butting in on our lives and the giving of free (not asked for) advice. I believe that many a relationship is made much more difficult or downright more impossible than from the onset of late-term “mother smothering”.

I realize most of the women mean well and want the best for us now and in the future, but they must realize that grown men don't need the overly nurturing concern that was needed in our early childhood, which they gave abundantly to their own children, when we are now grown-up men. We like to get advice when we ask for it, but resent it when it becomes annoying and a form of constant nagging. The militant feminists have encouraged this behavior as a means of empowering women to stand up to men and “wear the pants”.

In conclusion, men love a warm and caring woman, as a partner or as a friend, but they hope that their loved one's instinct to be a “mother smotherer” be curtailed or eliminated so that we can feel free, as men, to lead our lives, with mutual respect, without being told what to do or how to do it. Is that a deal, ladies?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Meanness Don't Just Happen Overnight

The left is always accusing the right of being mean, insensitive, liars, racists, intolerant, and other equally vile adjectives. Well, doesn't that sound like the kettle calling the pot black?

Who are the one's who use vile derogatory words to describe their political opponents? Is it the Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party supporters or is it the same “suspects” who make the accusations? Listen to the “Lame Stream Media” and the so-called “objective” columnists on any given day or night and you will hear the worst bit of character assassination cloaked in so-called political dialogue.

Most all of these left-wing pundits and talking heads including Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, the departed Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, and of course, the “Rhyming Reverends”, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, all are well versed in the tactics of the late Saul Alinsky, author of the book “Rules for Radicals”, who said you must marginalize your opponents by using ridicule.

The “politics of personal destruction” is the method used by the left-wing radicals (mostly Democrats) to marginalize their political opponents. The main targets have been George Bush and Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann etc. Very seldom do they use political arguments to disagree with the aforementioned people (maybe because they don't have any), but it seems it always comes down to a personal attack on their character and their personal lives. The words idiot, stupid, liar, racist seems to drip off their lips on a regular basis. In many cases it is not to enlighten but to demean and to denigrate their opponents.

According to the rhetoric of then presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, he was going to bring the people together in an atmosphere of congenial bi-partisanship. Where has that “Hope and Change” been the past 2 ½ years? He has become one of the most divisive presidents in our long history as well as being one of the most overly partisan. His sneery quips in putting down his opposition seems to be second nature to him. It's not the color of his skin that seems to be the problem, it is how thin it is. In his speeches, mainly trying to gin up support for his re-election, he says all the right things, but in practice he does just the opposite – he is a chameleon as well as a practicing narcissist. I guess he acquired that demeanor from sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. It seems to have rubbed off on him.

So, the old farmer's observation that “Meanness Don't Just Happen Overnight” has validity in today's political arena and it seems disproportionately coming from the left rather than from the right. Agree?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 22, 2011

MORT’s Meanderings.

Words to live by.

Congressman Allen West who represents Florida’s District 22, has become the ‘go-to’ guy for political news writers seeking quotes to liven up their columns.

Show me the political writer who doesn’t have an agenda and I’ll show you a writer who doesn’t work for a Tribune newspaper. Show me the radio or TV anchor opinion-ist who doesn’t lean slightly to the left or slightly to the right and I’ll show you a fairly dull person – and, networks don’t usually, knowingly - hire dullards.

Many politicians have latched onto the popular saying, “I say what I mean and I mean what I say.” That saying used to be meaningful. In these times of blabber-blabber- jabber-jabber, it has almost become a ‘throw-away’ line. It has become almost, a trite bromide.

Every hack politician has adopted it, including President Barack Hussein Obama. So, you know what it’s worth. Something less than, ‘not much’.

There is an exception, however. When U. S. Rep West speaks for publication, he knows precisely what he is saying and he stands four-square behind everything he says. This man is used to doing combat with our nation’s enemies both within and without our borders, in every conceivable venue - from the hostile sun baked deserts of the Middle East to the hostile environments of air-conditioned posh hotel meeting halls, the hot-lighted TV studios and the oftimes chilly Editorial conference rooms of local newspapers. He is quite capable of functioning comfortably in any climate, under any conditions. Plus, he is able to discuss matters with friend and foe alike, while he maintains an expressionless demeanor. He is a man who knows how to play a poker hand without revealing his thought processes..

When speaking to audiences as he does twice-a-month at the ‘live’ Town Hall meetings he conducts in his home district whenever Congress is not in session – he speaks without notes, without teleprompter and without que cards*. He usually makes a brisk, rather informal power-point slide presentation that reprises his recent schedule of activities in the House of Representatives.

Then, he responds to questions written on cards by members of the audience, prior to their entering the meeting hall. The questions are pre-screened and read aloud by a non-partisan person who has no public affiliation with politics. This saves a lot of time. Time that otherwise, would be wasted by individuals who dearly love to hear the sound of their own voice, before they are politely urged to pose their question – like, now.

It is during his responses during this Q&A session that the Congressman is likely to express himself using military terminology. After all, he did spend 22 years as an officer in Uncle Sam’s Army and some of that experience rubbed off. Or, he might express himself in colloquialisms commonly heard during his formative years in his hometown, Atlanta, Georgia. Or, he might use a bit of collegiate terminology picked up during his matriculation at the University of Tennessee. Or, he might illustrate his response with a biblical quotation or a quote from one of his vast library of books on the history of the world’s religions and mankind’s civilizations down through the ages.

Whichever he chooses to use to spice up his answer, you can rest assured that it is not a frivolous, off-the-cuff remark; it is rather - a studied response. He knows what he is saying. If he says it, he meant to say it.

When he comes off with a lightly-disguised bit of sarcasm or sardonic humor, he will invariably crack his boyish grin – that’s the key. He relaxes the serious demeanor at such times.

And so, for the benefit of anyone, especially members of the established media who should be sufficiently experienced and observant to catch the ‘visual’ along with the ‘audio’ – they cannot (or shouldn’t) miss his true meaning.

It is my personal opinion, for what that’s worth – that many (most?) reporters and / or journalists take themselves so seriously, that they are physiologically incapable of recognizing humor, be it bombastic or subtle. Or is it, that they don’t appreciate the humor because it conflicts with their pre-conceived political positions?

In any case, Congressman West’s ‘Words to live by’ make lively ‘copy’’. My gratuitous advice to reporters: Attend the Congressman’s words closely and watch his facial expressions. If you don’t clear your mind and you don’t watch and listen carefully, you’ll miss the opportunity to learn a lot. And in turn, to enlighten your readership to the what, when, where and why of true civic representation, as practiced by a man whose wisdom is way beyond his years.

*Congressman West keeps several ‘data’ cards in his inside jacket pocket, as back-up reference to his presentations that are chock-full of facts, figures, dates and data. He uses them mostly, as props.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 18, 2011

MORT’s Meanderings.

Obama & Co: A culture of destruction

I believe that it is absolutely true but most unfortunate, there is a certain element in this country that harbors an innate hatred for ‘The Man’ - meaning all levels of governmental authority. Hand-in-hand with this irrational hatred, there seems to be a driving urge to destroy anything that represents any authority tasked with maintaining peace and order in our society.

This warped frame of mind springs directly from the pages of Saul Alinsky’s handbook written as a guide to the destruction of our free enterprise system. And, it apparently suits a number of ethnic minority populations who consider themselves to be victims of Whitey’s world. Whitey of course is ‘The Man’. He is to be hated for his work ethic, his accomplishments, his patriotism, his values, his traditional American way of life and his institutions of authority – all imagined by the ‘victims’, to be lined-up against them.

And so, in order to validate their frustration, anger and victimization, those who find comfort in this racist mindset, deliberately set out destroy whatever symbols of authority they can access, using whatever tools and destructive methods they have at hand.

One example of this ugliness, is the architectural blight to be seen in practically every sizeable urban area of this nation. These are public housing projects conceived and built by HUD or municipalities, to make low-income housing available to families that found themselves at the lower end of the economic scale. The theory was that such projects would provide modest but affordable housing for a family to live in until they could improve their circumstances sufficiently, to be able to afford more adequate housing in a middle-income neighborhood.

So much for ‘theory’. Once ensconced in subsidized public housing with the broad scope of ‘entitlements’ available – food stamps; health care via public agencies; furniture allowances; free public education and free school lunch programs to name just a few – it wasn’t very likely that low-income families would find much incentive to seek other accommodations. They simply became firmly entrenched, permanent residents.

Most such public housing developments were built in the years following WWII, to replace dilapidated old neighborhoods close to the center of big cities. Thus, they became the core of inner city living and over a period of roughly the next twenty years, many of them through neglect and abuse, steadily declined to become literally, slum tenements.

Residents would purposely disable the plumbing or wreak such other vandalism that they felt would cause the apartment to be in violation of one or more city health code ordinances. And thus they rationalized what were in their minds, valid reasons to forego reasonable maintenance of their living quarters. Plus, this was all the excuse needed for not paying the rent.

And so, those ‘certain elements’ referred to earlier, became a part of the ‘culture of destruction. Other acts of vandalism guaranteed to render a public housing unit in violation of health code ordinances, were all too easy to make happen. Example: Since garbage cans provided in public areas must have a lid on them according to code, the simple act of ‘losing’ a garbage can lid was all the excuse needed to stop paying the rent.

Such pre-occupation by many recipients of entitlement benefits, with ‘getting back at the Man’ or flaunting the authorities, became widespread. Community organizers in inner city areas often took advantage of this attitude in order to exacerbate the feelings of victimization among those ‘certain elements’. Discontent, anger, frustration, blame and finger-pointing inevitably led to more flagrant vandalism. Vandalism is contagious.

And often, all that was needed to inflame passions of a crowd of people who already considered themselves to be victims of ‘authority’ , was the provocation when one of their own was being detained or arrested with what they considered to be unwarranted force. That’s all it took – that’s all it takes, to turn a restless crowd into an unruly, uncontrolled mob, bent on the destruction of things, places and people.

Obama & Co. has created an art form of calculated, divisive rhetoric. Barack Hussein Obama as President, has unconscionably resorted to name-calling, pitting one economic class against another; pitting one ethnic group against another; and pitting one American citizen against another. These are tactics and strategies he was taught by his friend and mentor Bill Ayers, whose bible was Saul Alinsky’s little book on how to confront authority and how to destroy this society. Obama was an astute and willing pupil. He learned his lessons well and so, has became the leader of today’s organized effort to implement the initial phase of his master plan he called, ‘Hope & Change’.. The objective of course, to replace our traditional free-enterprise system with Marx’s often-tried, always-failed plan to Communize and Socialize our free American society.

Can there be any doubt about the direction in which we are being mis-led by Obama’s ‘culture of destruction’? Did I hear someone shout, ‘Four more years’ ?

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 15, 2011

Who In Hell Gave Them the Right?

Just think about this, how did we get along before the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (and his Administration), came on the scene? Were we able to walk and chew gum at the same time? According to his “holiness”, it seems we could not.

Who said we voted for the “Nanny State” in 2008 when we elected Obama as president? Let's see what I'm talking about. Coming up soon will be the situation where we won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs because Mama and Poppa Obama say they are dangerous to our environment. Says who? The word is out that the new “approved” light bulbs are more toxic than the light bulbs we are now using. In fact, a warning comes with the purchase of these new bulbs about what do if one of these bulbs break, because of their toxicity. Is that progress?

We all agree that obesity is a major problem in our country today, but should we be told what we can eat by passing rules and regulations handed down by a gaggle of government bureaucrats? Wouldn't moral persuasion be the better way to go rather than the “iron hand” of the government telling us what to eat? This is America not the former Soviet Union, right?

Should government be telling us what we can and cannot do? Should we not have the “choice” to do or not to do what we think is best for us (as long as we don't hurt someone else)? If you mention “school choice” to a liberal (a/k/a Democrat), they throw up the charge that proponents are trying to ruin public education. It seems they don't look at what that decision means for the children involved, because it has been shown that school performance is enhanced in both charter and voucher schools as opposed to under performing regular public schools. Shouldn't President Obama give other people the same choice he has for his daughters by being able to send them to a well performing school? After all, he lives in public housing too.

We all know that the Obamamaniacs think Obama has been sent down from heaven to lead us, but let's get real. He hasn't a clue as to how our economy works or what the average Joe wants and needs for himself and his family. He was just a rabble-rousing “Community Organizer” in his corrupt city of Chicago, with zero economic and business experience before he hit the political scene, and now he tries to tell us what to do. Are we stuck on stupid, or is he?

Most of these busybody liberals (Democrats), including Obama, want “choice” when it comes to abortion, but want to restrict our freedom of choice when it comes to everyday living. They make it difficult for business to survive by imposing all those restrictive rules and regulations we force upon them, and then they wonder why companies outsource some of their activities out of the country? They have, besides light bulbs, refrigerators, and toilets, to name just a few, taken it upon themselves to butt in on our lives by telling us what we can and cannot buy. Should we have to rely on the government to tell us what washing machine to buy and what toilet to sit on? Sit on this Obama!

Who the hell gave them the right?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 11, 2011

MORT’s Meanderings

Clichés: The verbal bridges to nowhere

I have always had an aversion to clichés. It is my practice to avoid them like the plague.

I’d meant to write about this a while back but, just never got around to it; oh well, better late than never. I guess I’d just gotten used to kicking the can down the road. Truth be told and the fact is, and let me be perfectly clear here, as I’ve said before, I just plain put it off.

And let’s face it, one of my failed policies has been my propensity for putting off ‘til tomorrow, what should be done today. No excuses, such behavior is unsustainable. It is an unconscionable avoidance of looking the beast in the eye. I shall endeavor to improve, going forward.

Now that I’ve confessed to my own character weakness, I feel vindicated in pointing the finger of blame at those who promised transparency in government during the last presidential election. I believe it is time to apply the Litmus Test and to hold their feet to the fire. It’s time to make them walk it back to a time of more fiscal responsibility. All talk of bi-partisan compromise, a balanced approach and paying our fair share, is just so much poppycock chatter. One just has to watch what they do, as opposed to what they say. It would be nice to see some fiscal responsibility for a change. We hear about 2000-page bills being passed in the middle of the night, with nary a Congress person having read nary a page. Only later, do we learn the dirty little truth, that indeed, the devil is in the details.

Who can deny that Federal spending is out of control ? There can be no denying that we are in a severe economic crisis. Political expediency has reared its ugly head as it always seems to do. The Congress on both sides of the aisle, in both the Senate and the House, have no will when it comes to reining-in the spending. Game-changing tactics parading as policy, have been slyly re-named to gain acceptance for example, Stimulus Package, which stands for drunken-sailor spending spree, with the bill being picked up by the tax payers. Redistribution of wealth which means, taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. Investment in the future, which means, more wild-eyed, unaccountable spending sprees.

Tax cuts for the rich according to community organizer in the Oval Office, includes anyone making more than $250K a year or anyone owning a private jet. Bi-partisan cooperation means giving up one’s principled position and doing it his way. Spending cuts in Government lexicon means, “We wont run up the debt as much as we’d planned, just now . . maybe later”. One of the most egregious perversions of our language by this and previous administrations, is in the meaning of the term, Entitlement. It now means, an outright give-away with the complicit recipients fully expected to reciprocate by casting their vote for Democrat candidates. It is an out & out quid pro quo bribe. Another nod to ‘government-speak’ is the use of an innocent-sounding invention, the Single-payer. Whenever you hear that one being bandied about, it means that generous Uncle Sam is going to sign the check – and, that you and yours will be beholden to that kindly gentleman and his nephew (the IRS), for the rest of your lives. Better believe it. And further, if you ever try to renegotiate in good faith, you will find that Uncle Sammy has been quietly, moving the goal-posts in the middle of the night. It’s called, a Zero Sum Game. When you play, you lose.

Oh, I could go on with this verbal twitter but, I’d only be raising the bar. And, enough is enough. Now, I’ve got to get back to my multi-tasking.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 8, 2011

Does Obama Tell “White Lies” or “Whoppers”?

I know I'm right when I say that we all tell “white lies” and sometimes out and out lies (Whoppers). That's human nature. But, when a person running for and finally attaining the most powerful job in the world, has a tendency to tell big lies routinely, “something is rotten in the State of Denmark”.

The double-standard in the “Main Stream Media” is quite apparent when the name Obama pops up. What is an egregious gaffe if a Republican or Conservative says an untruth, the MSM look the other way or make excuses if their “Anointed One” (Obama) tells an untruth, even a “whopper”.

Here are some examples of what I mean.

When speaking before a black audience, Obama made the statement that his mother and father met while participating in the Selma, Alabama civil rights march in 1965, I presume in order to give him credibility as being “one” of them. He stated that he was born as a result of his parents hooking up at this march. Only trouble is, Obama was born more than 3 years before the Selma March. That was a big “whopper”.

Another “whopper” Obama told during the health care debate was the story about his mother being refused health insurance benefits because of the arbitrary decision of the big, bad insurance company. Truth is the insurance company paid the medical benefits to his mother who was fighting cancer, but the insurance company balked at paying for a disability policy which had nothing to do with health insurance or pre-existing conditions. Was that a “whopper” or what?

On another occasion, he claimed that his uncle participated in the liberation of the Auschwitz Concentration camp, only one problem with that claim, the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was in the Red Army, he couldn't have been there. Obama was trying to give himself credibility before a group of veterans by claiming something that wasn't true. A big “whopper”.

Does Obama consciously make up stories to justify his policy moves or does he just misspeak like many of us do on occasion?

Does anybody really believe that Obama could regularly attend the church services of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and not be exposed to or hear the anti-American diatribes preached by his pastor/mentor? In fact, those hateful rants (sermons) were being sold in the lobby of the church for anyone to buy. It boggles the mind that Obama could claim that he knew nothing of the hate and venom his pastor passed off as “Black Liberation Theology”.

In conclusion, with the listing of some of his “Whoppers”, these damning truths about Obama's credibility and truthfulness, he once stated during his campaign that he visited 57 states with two more to go. How could someone with a law degree from Harvard not know that there are 50 states in the the U.S.A.? Maybe he was referring to the 57 Muslim states since he was educated, during his formative years, in Indonesia.

He made a major point that he would be the most transparent president ever, but I guess he had difficulty making the distinction between telling a “white lie” and a “whopper”. He has chosen to receive the prestigious Burger King award for the best “Whopper” in town. That's quite a distinction.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 4, 2011

MORT's Meanderings:

Resume on lapel?

One way to entertain one's self for just the cost of a subscription to one of our local newsrags, is to read the letters-to-the-editors. It is also a very effective way to elevate one's blood pressure by 25 points in roughly 25 seconds.

Let me give you an example: In the 7-27-2011 edition of the SunSentinel a genius from Ft. Lauderdale (let's call him Yo-Yo), wrote a letter in which he announced a singularly brilliant observation he'd made. The light bulb clicked 'on' over his head when he noticed that Congressman Allen West, the elected U.S. Representative from Florida's District 22, wears pins on the lapels of his jackets. According to Yo-Yo, this is done for the purpose of 'advertising his accomplishments'. Yo-Yo's powers of deduction are stunning.

What Yo-Yo doesn't know about life in general and accomplished human beings in particular, could fill all the books on all the shelves of the Library of Congress. To attempt to smarten up this uneducable dolt would would be a sinful waste of time and effort. It is preferable to let him wallow in his pre-conceived notions of normalcy until he is overcome by his own ignorance which hopefully, will happen momentarily.

That Yo-Yo and his ilk enjoy the protection of our brave military, as exemplified by the miniature decorations worn on the lapel of retired U.S. Army LTC. Allen West when he addresses veterans at Memorial Day events, is just one of the benefits we all enjoy who live under the Constitution of the United States. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who pay taxes, one of the inequities.

Yo-Yo deserves to live under a Democrat-dominated administration. I believe that as rational, responsible citizens, the rest of us do not.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Bookmark and Share