Sunday, December 30, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Barack Hussein Obama:

a petty person; a peevish president

Unfortunately, I’ve picked up a bad habit as a result of listening to the endlessly droning- on speeches of the just re-elected, President “Me-Myself-and-I”.

My bad habit is, that I often lapse into writing in the ‘first person’. For example: “I was taught early in life to expect and be tolerant of imperfections in my fellow man.”

Normally, that would be a good thing however, in the case of this President, tolerance of his royal imperfections push really hard at the limit of my tolerance. I have a few reasonable standards of character and behavior that I believe, I have every right to expect from a President of these United States.

For starters, I don’t expect him to pontificate as if he were the Pope.

I don’t expect my President to be snarky and so overly-impressed with himself that he feels it necessary to inject himself as the central figure in every situation he addresses. Case in point: Today, he droned-on far too long while speaking at the memorial service for the late Senator Inouye. He spent most of his speech attempting to bask in the reflected glory of the just-deceased, highly-decorated WWII veteran and 50-year member of the Senate. How unseemly for any president to usurp such a solemn and sad occasion to splash himself with the reflected honor of another man.

How one who has never worn the uniform of any one of our armed forces can so deliberately insult those who have and those who now wear the uniform, by arrogantly alluding to his nominal title as Commander-in-Chief, is equally unseemly. It is in spirit and in fact, egregiously unconscionable. But, that’s how he thinks of himself; that’s who he is.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pitifully small person. All too often, he comes off as a petulant juvenile. Predictably, he displays his ill-tempered side when he is confronted with his short-comings that include: a reluctance to make decisions even in the face of national security emergencies or matters concerning the life and death of U. S. citizens. He bristles at questions pertaining to his ugly, disgusting and blatantly anti-Semitic hatred for the State of Israel, its Prime Minister and elected representatives.

Plus, there is the enigma of his demonstrably professed love of all things Muslim & Islamic that is grossly out of all proportion when viewed in the context of Presidential conversation. We, that is the United States of America, are a nation that was founded and established based upon the Biblical principles of Judaism and Christianity. This President has set about to ‘fundamentally change America’ by use of the nefarious tactics of negating or intentionally ignoring those principles. Were the voters who were mesmerized by this articulate candidate of color and who elected this man in the first place, aware of what he meant by his mantra - ‘Hope & Change’?

What is more to the point at this writing, is whether these same voters who cannot help but be aware now of his true intent, are still so mesmerized that they are willing to accept the disastrous consequences of his re-election? Or, are they so clueless that they haven’t understood and still do not understand those consequences?

Among other terms that are explicitly descriptive and painfully accurate when making reference to the character of Barack Hussein Obama - - Vindictive, Hypocritical, Mean, Spiteful, Fearful, Narrow-minded, Contemptuous, Vengeful, Insolent, Belligerent and shamelessly Boastful.

Wow, that’s quite a litany of negative characteristics I’ve just laid out. One might ask, “Hey there Mort, haven’t you anything positive to say about Obama?” “NO.”

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Do We Need More Gun Control Laws?

You could've almost predicted the knee-jerk reponses by the left-wing gun control fanatics who want to ban all or most guns. They seem to feel that by disarming all citizens (including the vast majority of responsible gun owners) they will solve the problem of wanton killing.

Everybody deplores the senseless killings in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colorado, Ft. Hood, Arkansas, and in Arizona (the Gabby Giffords shooting) etc., but would the banning of guns have prevented these horrendous killings? Only a cock-eyed optimist would have said that would be so.

Step back a little and look at the situation without the emotional fervor that these killings engender. By claiming that it is the gun that is at fault instead of the crazed "nutjob" who pulled the trigger, is putting your head in the sand and living in la-la land.

Instead of banning guns, wouldn't it be wiser to arm certain people in order to try to mitigate the senseless toll of innocents that occur with little fear of reprisal as they perform their dastardly deeds on innocent people?

Look what has happened in the City of Chicago. So far this year, over 446 children have been shot, this has happened even though the City of Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in place on the books in the country. It seems the good, law-abiding citizens of Chicago are at the mercy of the criminal element, who seem to have no problem getting guns, even with those strict gun control laws in place. Why are schools in Israel almost free from similar attacks like what happened in Connecticut? One reason is that teachers and security guards are armed with weapons and they are trained to use them, couldnt we do the same thing here in the U.S.A.?

Aren't teachers educated and responsible enough to be able to be a line of defense immediately if their school comes under attack? By the time police could react to a shooting or any other attack with a weapon, it might be too late to save a goodly number of victims. Of course, arming teachers wouldn't or couldn't have stopped a deranged individual intent on causing harm to others, but they could've mitigated the damage that this crazed individual(s) could do before the police arrived.

We arm our airline pilots today, with no adverse effects, the same could be for teachers, security personnel, and others in facilities that also might be targeted by either foreign or domestic terrorists or deranged individuals.

Although I'm against the banning of guns, some added restrictions might be in order such as, closing some of the loopholes on the purchase of firearms, especially at gun shows, a more thorough background check to try to weed out any psycho's who might want to purchase a firearm, and requiring prospective gun owners to take a gun education course, like what the NRA sponsors today.

Maybe, by working with the reputable gun organizations like the NRA, some sensible rules can be put into place regarding the the sale of rapid fire so-called "assault weapons"? I'm sure that reasonable people, with differeing points of view regarding guns, can join together to address the concerns of both sides. Let's bring common sense back into the discussion and leave the emotions out of the discussion. The old expression of "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" really does make sense. Remember, the country of Switzerland, requires all its citizens to be armed and the crime rate throughout he country is practically zero. Maybe that amazing result is trying to tell us something?

Since I don't own a gun or never have owned a gun (except a Red Ryder B-B gun as a child) my views are not colored to favor one side or the other, but I try to use common sense in expressing my views on this very emotional topic.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Would Obama Be President if He was White?

To some, that would be a “racist” question because anything negative you would say about him is a “racist” statement, but what would your answer be to that question?

Was Obama elected because of the policies he espoused, or because he was a symbol to assuage the guilt of a good portion of the voting public (the white vote), and of course, he was the favorite son of the minority communities who voted overwhelmingly for him (blacks 95%, Hispanics 71%, Asians 73% etc.)?

There is no doubt in my mind that emotion was the major factor in his election and re-election, facts and common sense were put on the back burner and the results of his presidency, so far, has shown that to be true. We are still in the economic and foreign policy funk that he found in 2009. We are no better off today, even with all the wasteful spending he has instituted and the debt he has piled up.

What did Obama have to offer the electorate to make him so attractive to the voting public? He had a minimal amount of experience in government, economics, and in executive positions (in fact, none). His major accomplishments, if you call them that, was as a college lecturer (who taught Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”) and being a Community Organizer in Chicago‘s inner city. He was an unknown with a “silver tongue”, but the one aspect of him that stood out for him was that he was “black” (actually only half black).

His whole life, up until he ran for president, was being associated with radical people. His parents (including his step-father) were radical socialists, his mentor in Hawaii during his teen years was Frank Marshall Davis, who was an avowed Communist, his grand-parents were left-wing radicals, his professors, who he associated with in college, were left-wing, his mentor in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an avowed anti-Semite and anti-American socialist, and his close friend and person who launched his political career, was an admitted terrorist and radical socialist, Bill Ayers. These were the people he grew up with and who shaped his thinking up till he was first elected president. Shouldn’t these associations have been a pre-cursor as to what his policies would be as president?

Of course, these obvious associations and his core beliefs didn’t matter to the main stream media who embraced him as their “Messiah”, and to other like-minded radicals. They had a “double-header” in Obama, a person of color and a radical thinker who would try to “transform” America into their way of thinking in order to bring to America a form of European-style Socialism, a system that has been tried (the “nanny state“), but has failed miserably (look at countries of Europe today, most are on the verge of bankruptcy).

So my question at the beginning of my screed, would Obama be president today if he was white, deserves some critical evaluation other than just being a “racist” remark or question. A responsible observer of the passing scene would have no other conclusion but that the answer to that question would be “no”, and that we are suffering the consequences of that decision now and will for the next four years. It goes to prove that by electing Obama, the heart, in many cases, supersedes the brain, and we, the citizen, must endure the fickleness of the voting public, much to our chagrin and angst.

God bless the U.S.A.!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 20, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Continuity of incompetence is assured.

The machinations of evolving the decision to select his nominee for Secretary of Defense being made by Obama, the Great Decision-Maker-in-Chief, are almost palpable. Decisions like this are far more difficult than just voting, ‘Present’.

One thing we can count on – whichever of the incompetents, among them Chuck Hagel, John Kerry or a grotesque dwarf named, ‘Honey-Boo-Boo’ – the choice will be one that does nothing to improve our national security. A replacement for Leon Panetta is just that - the replacement of a proven incompetent by another incompetent with absolutely no experience – none, nada. So much for what should be the primary consideration, that is - who would be the best person to oversee our national security?

On the other hand, if one is concerned that the new Secretary of Defense will be dutifully compliant and sufficiently malleable to carry out the mandate of this President – that of neutering our military and reducing it to a state of total incapacity to defend our national security – then the choice of incompetents becomes simply, a beauty contest.

The integration of females with male crews on aircraft carriers and other fighting units, was the first break in the centuries-old tradition of ‘men-only’ sent to the front lines to wage war. There are pros and cons in the argument as to how best to allow females to serve in the armed forces, on a par with males. So, when it comes to the make up of the front-line teams we send to defend our liberty, we find ourselves still awaiting a Solomon to bring forth his wisdom. In the meantime, ‘men-only’ seems to be the best option.

The nullification of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ way of handling ‘gays in the military’, was a resounding victory for those who choose the ‘alternate’ lifestyle. But, it has proven to be a severe impediment to the absolute necessity for coherence in the military from the smallest units, i.e.- aircrews or infantry squads, to companies, battalions and armies.

And as if these complications weren’t enough, we now have a recently re-elected President who has a terribly skewed view of what the military is all about. He views it as a tool to bring about social justice. Or (facetiously, of course), as a source of labor for tilling the White House vegetable garden under the supervision of the First Lady. Look no further than the latest advertising slogan imposed upon the U.S. Navy’s recruiting program: “The U.S.Navy, a Force for Good”.

Since when is a military force that has been created solely to break things and kill people in its sworn duty to protect and defend this nation and its citizens – since when is such a killing machine to be described in a namby-pamby term like, a ‘Force for Good’?

C’mon man, we might as well dress our armed forces in pink ‘camo’, adorned with lace & pink ribbons and send them out with sling shots as weapons and badminton shuttlecocks as ammo. Such a ‘Force for Good’ is guaranteed to defeat the blood- thirsty forces of Islamist terrorists and keep our shores safe from harm. Thanks Obama – you sure know a lot about leading from behind and defending this nation. Not!

And so my children -

“Ask not what is best for our country – rather, ask what is best for the enemies of the United States”.

Does it really matter who is the next Secretary of Defense? No, it doesn’t. Obama has rigged the system so that the continuity of incompetence is assured.

Now, let’s get onto more important decisions - - where shall the President plan to vacation next?

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Is The Electoral College Ready For The Scrapheap?

Whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney won the last election does not relate to this inquiry as to whether we should change the Electoral College as a means of determining the winner of the presidential election.

We have 50 states in our union, so why should only 10 states be in play and the other 40 neglected by the candidates? Is it fair to all our citizens to be ignored or not appealed to in trying to get their vote for the very important position of President of the United States?

Originally, the Electoral College was put in our constitution because of concerns of the smaller states, rightfully or wrongfully, that the larger states would control the election of the president.

A change was initiated in 1969 to abolish the Electoral College and it passed in the House, but it got only 55 votes in the Senate which was 12 votes shy of the 2/3 of the votes needed for passage. The proposal, therefore, died in 1970 as it could not generate the 67 votes needed for passage. Even if it passed the Congress it would’ve needed 38 states to ratify it, and according to a N.Y. Times survey of states, at the time, only 30 states were for it, 6 states were unsure, 6 states were leaning opposed, and 8 states were solidly opposed.

Today, with all the modern polling techniques refined down to the last voter, the campaigns can figure out what states are in play for their candidate and which states are not. With that in mind, some states, who overwhelmingly favor one party over the other, are ignored by the non-preferred party candidate as being a waste of time, effort, and financial resources.

States like California, New York, and Massachusetts etc., which are overwhelmingly Democratic are ignored by the Republicans because they don’t feel they have a chance of winning those electors, but also the Democrats won’t campaign to any great extent because they have those electors already sewed up. The same is true for the Republicans who can count on states like Texas, Alabama, Georgia etc. who are overwhelmingly Republican.

I’m sure there were many voters in the 40 non-swing states, that didn’t get much play from the candidates, who didn’t vote because their votes, in their minds, weren’t meaningful in determining the electors in their states.

I feel that if we use the popular vote total from all 50 states, we would get more voters out on election day (only about 50% of registered voters actually vote today) as they would feel that their votes actually counted in choosing the president.

At the time the Electoral College was proposed and implemented, there was a genuine fear that the most populous states would control the election of the president, but today, with our population spread out across the land from ocean to ocean, it seems that the fairest election would be the candidate who got the most votes, and the candidates wouldn’t just be interested in the so-called “swing states”. I’m sure, some of the outrageous campaign spending by both parties, would be spread out among the rest of the states and not just spent in the “swing states”.

It’s worth a consideration, don’t you think?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 13, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Why Mr. President, why?

One of the first things a budding trial lawyer learns is, never ask a question to which he doesn’t already know the answer. I’m not a lawyer so, I’m not bound by that rule.

My question: Why, Mr. President, why? - - would you run for the Office of the President of the United States, if you didn’t sincerely want to address the nation’s problems and do something constructive about re-dressing them?

As a SINO (Senator In Name Only) you had at least, the occasional experience of dealing with other ‘members’ who held opposing viewpoints to your own. Granted, you voted ‘Present’ more times than you voted For or Against legislation. Even then, you avoided the tiresome process of working with others or making a decision.

In retrospect, it is quite apparent that you are a single-minded chap whose only concerns are those that are self-centered. Your history is one of a concerted effort toward advancing yourself to positions of increasing power, leading to the ultimate office that permits you to exercise dominance over any and all opposition. Rather than availing yourself of opportunities to exchange viewpoints with other duly- elected representatives of the people in order to reach mutually-agreeable solutions, you choose to bully others into submission. That is the way of the Chicago street thug. That is the way of the Community Organizer. That is the way of the Muslim Brotherhood. That is your way, Mr. President, Sir.

That is not the way of a truly patriotic American President who believes in the Constitution of the United States. It is not the way of someone who understands the meaning of leadership and actually knows how to lead. A true leader doesn’t think in terms of ‘leading from behind’. And so, when you issued that statement, you provided us with a crystal-clear insight into your perverted way of thinking. And, it is ugly, Sir.

Your warped philosophy, born of your life-long indoctrination in failed Socialist ideology – stinks! Your objective of imposing dictatorial, tyrannical controls over every aspect of American life, deceptively obscured in your pathetically pandering catch phrase – “Hope and Change”, is unfortunately, enjoying temporary political success. Lincoln said it best: “You can fool some of the people all the time.” Time will bring about, change. One wonders why you would kick, claw and scratch your way to the Presidency if you weren’t seriously interested in solving the nation’s problems, using the tools provided by the tenets of the Constitution? Why would you seek the highest office if it weren’t for the opportunity it would provide to improve the lot of the American people? Hmmm?

Why would you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to pit various segments of the American population against each other, rather than using that voice to bring all elements of the American people together in an effort to make us more unified, to make us stronger?

Could it be that you had and still have, ulterior motives? Could it be that you had in mind all along, to bring about a total reform that is based upon Socialist policies? Could it be that you had in mind all along, to affect a stealthy transformation of our three equal branches of the Federal Government into a Shariah-compliant system with a hierarchy of Imams as its final authority? Or, might the leader in our future be someone as – let’s just say for instance – someone like Muhammud Morsi, newly-ensconced head of the Muslim Brotherhood? Hmmm?

Could it be that you are more inclined to enjoy the speech-making rather than the hard work part of being President of the United States? Could it be that you want more than anything other than life itself, to enjoy the perks of the Office? Could it be that freely spending other people’s money brings with it an intoxication that you find impossible to resist? Could it be that this is your raison d’etre, your very reason for being?

Could it be that you prefer the trappings of a Potentate as opposed to those of a mere President? Do you believe that extended vacations in exotic locations, with your family and a corps of personal servants and security details that will cost tax-payers millions of dollars during these times of national economic crisis - are due you because of your prodigious effort while criss-crossing the nation in pursuit of your re-election? Hmmm?

Obviously, we all know these answers to the question, “Why Mr. President, why?

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Even then, Alexis de Tocqueville Knew!

Funny how a person, 177 years ago, by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and diplomat, could’ve foresaw what has happened during the year 2012 with the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

The strategy of making many citizens (potential voters) dependent upon the government for much of their sustenance, was parlayed into reality by the Obama campaign in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

It seems that the Obama campaign, headed by David Axelrod, decided to target certain groups that were ready to be exploited. These special interest groups included Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, college students, gays, Jews, families with incomes under $30,000, and union members. A relentless barrage of ads and appeals were made to motivate these groups into thinking that only Obama cared about their needs and wants and that his opponent, Mitt Romney, did not care. Romney was depicted as an “evil” exploiting capitalist whose only interest was giving rich people tax breaks and making the middle-class and poor people poorer.

Through the office of the President, he implored Blacks to support him because he was Black (he actually set up a group called “Blacks for Obama”) and that by being Black himself, he could empathize with their special problems. He did this a couple of years back by signing off on giving Black farmers a total of $1.2 billion (Pigford vs. Glickman) which was adjudged by many to be a form of racial reparations, and he had a program to give poor inner city people cell phones and he increased the food stamp program along with other “goodies” from the federal treasury (the Blacks voted 95% for Obama); he targeted Hispanics by instituting the “Dream Act” which made it possible for children of illegal aliens to get reduced tuition in colleges, and he implied that he was going to get them some form of amnesty (which he didn’t do in his first four years) in the future (the Hispanics voted for Obama at a rate of 71%); he appealed to gays by changing his previous position on gay marriage and by refraining to enforce the Clinton era “Defense of Marriage Act”; he appealed to college students by offering to lower the interest rate on student loans and by making Pell grants more available; he adopted a moratorium on half the payroll taxes thereby giving workers more take-home pay; and he promised the members of the unions (which gave 95% of their campaign donations to Democrats) that he will push for more laws (even if by circumventing the Congress by use of Executive Orders) favorable to increasing union membership in his next term. He owes the unions big time for their financial aid and for their campaign workers on the ground, especially in the battleground states.

Being the President, he was able to do many of these things by presidential decree (Executive Orders) that Mitt Romney could not do. It looked like he was President “Santa Claus” as he handed out all those presents to his loyal followers and gullible voters.

So, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated 177 years ago, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years”. We are in that time frame now.

After the election, Mitt Romney commented on the facts mentioned above and he was roundly criticized for being a sore loser - what, for telling the truth? Also, Bill O’Reilly said similar things and was also criticized with venom by the Obama supporters and by even some Republicans. They must’ve hit a nerve to get such an “outraged” reaction. Sometimes the truth hurts, and they can’t stand the truth (as Jack Nicholson said in the movie, “A Few Good Men”).

I wonder if de Tocqueville had someone like Obama and the Democrats in mind when he made that famous statement 177 years ago?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Eenie meanie mynie moe, who's the Racist of them all?

Accused of being racially bigoted is any Caucasian who dares criticize the President's blunders, and to any black conservative, they label him an Uncle Tom for assimilating into society for a better America.

The 'they' are the congressional black caucus, black radicals who want to get whitie and the guilt ridden rich white liberals from New York's upper west side, Malibu and any other liberal enclave of the pseudo do-gooders who patronize the poor, uneducated, chip on the shoulder nanny state domiciles, making themselves feel good. The 'they' in truth, are the greatest patrons of bigotry and racism against those who they accuse.

In a hypothetical scenario, if or when President Obama submits U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's name to congress for Secretary of State; predictably any attempt to secure the truth with an honest answer of what happened in the Benghazi debacle will be futile, with the left accusing Republicans of racial, gender and political motivation to beat up on a black women, affirms my personal belief and accusations stated above.

I hold in highest esteem Uncle Toms, such as Dr.s Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice and scores of other black Americans who didn't waste their time moping and blaming others for any plight they may have had. They didn't use up their energy wallowing in self pity. Instead, it was put to good use to show it can be done. Dreadlocks militants and skin heads are the garbage of society President Obama stirs up with his class warfare policies, dividing the country into what he thinks levels the field.

Human topography is no different than the geographic landscape. There are highs and lows. There are valleys and peaks, just as in the human condition. The panhandle is a flat stretch of real estate that can be called an even and level field. We all know what happened in the 30's with the dust bowl. The even and level field became arid and inhospitable. It was unproductive as far as the eye could see, because of the greed and ineptness of its custodians This is what will happen with Barack Obama's socialist vision.

Without incentives and sound judgment, the economy field will lay waste and not become fertile again until somebody who knows what he is doing intervenes. Money alone is not the fertilizer to bring it back. It needs the ingenuity of its people and trust in God. The President is stifling recovery by shutting down entrepreneurship topography by trying to make everything flat so no one rises above the other.

One stencil to paint all Americans the same is a disaster in the making and the end of individualism, tradition and morality. His plan melts good and evil together so no one will feel deprived or guilty for doing their own thing. He speaks of fair share only when it pertains to the successful. There are things other than money when speaking of fair share, so when is the bottom rung of society going to contribute to this fair share thing?

Conservative commentary from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Who’s He Going To Blame Now?

When President Obama takes his oath of office as the next president in Jauary, who is he going to blame for the lousy economy he was left with by the previous president?

After four years as president, will Obama be able to avoid taking responsibility for an economy stuck in neutral or will he still be blaming his predecessor, George Bush?

Being as arrogant and narcissistic as he is, I can envision that he will try to govern the same way he did during his first term, an attitude of “my way or the highway”. That type of governance is not conducive to getting things done for the good of the country. He doesn’t have a mandate, as he only got 51% of the vote, that means that almost one-half of the country didn’t agree with him or his policies. Yes, elections do have consequences, but a good leader tries to bring consensus among the rival parties. He does not seem to understand that you get more cooperation for getting what you want with honey rather than with vinegar.

The voters sent back to the Congress a majority of Republicans, hopefully to put a restraint on the Marxist/Socialist policies that is most likely going to be pushed by President Obama in his second term. You could say that this is going to be the “last line of defense” against the “transformative” policies of the Obama Administration.

It was amazing that President Obama was able to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat, by convincing the majority of voters that social issues were more important than the “bread and butter” issues of getting jobs and revitalizing our economy. Most likely the voters will regret their perfidy as our wounded economy doesn’t make a comeback like it should.

Eventually, President Obama is going to run out of scapegoats, especially George Bush, and he’ll have to face the fact that he has no one else to blame but himself.

But, being the narcissist that he is, he will try to blame someone or something else for his failed policies - as he is incapable of making a mistake, in his mind. And as for the voters, it is now too late to undo the mistake of re-electing him for four more years, we must now support the opposition of Obama’s policies and hope we can mitigate the damage he will try to do in these very fateful next four years.

God bless the U.S.A.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 29, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

An open letter to Congressional Republicans

That would be ALL Republicans in the Senate and the House. This means YOU.

The Republican Party is supposed to be the ‘Party of Principles’. Anybody remember that? Or, didn’t you know about that?

For your education and edification, let me deign to alert you to a few facts, pesky things though they are:

1. Democrats lie; it’s in their DNA. It’s what they do.
2. Obama lies; it’s in every fiber of his scrawny, un-American, Muslim body.
3. Democrats hate Republicans and they love to point the finger of blame.
4. Obama hates Republicans, Americans, Israelis, all Jews and all the other people that the Muslim Brotherhood and the cult of Islam hate and are sworn to destroy.
5. If you go-along-to-get-along like the (R) establishment leadership, you are a coward, a creep and not worthy of election to public office, even as dog-catcher.
6. If you are really concerned about being called a Republican obstructionist, racist or any of the other choice monikers that Democrats call Republicans, without hesitation but, with no valid reason – then sorry Pal – it’s too late to grow a pair.
7. Obama, in case it has escaped your notice, has never ever accepted blame for anything he’s done that has failed – which is almost everything; including all his failed policies; obscene spending; his bullying tactics; his outright lies to the American people; his disgusting abuse of the perks of the Office of the President and his never-ending power grabs conducted under cover of darkness, enabled by his corrupt appointees. Oh, almost forgot: He killed Osama bin Laden (not).
8. Also, in case it has escaped your notice, Obama never fails to point the finger of blame toward any & all whom he finds to be the closest, most convenient targets, never at himself. That’s – never at himself. Never at himself. Nev-ah!
9. The Democrats seem to have discovered the precise location of the very raw nerve in (R)s who heaven forfend, simply cannot tolerate being called these derogatory names – even though they know very well the categorizations are wrong, false and undeserved. Good grief fellas and gals but, aren’t we the sensitive ones?
10. Questions? Did it ever occur to you – that means ANY of you, to tell Harry Reid to his ugly face that he is a vicious little shit? Did any of you ever consider when addressing Nancy Pelosi, to borrow the words Allen West used when addressing Debbie Whatevuh Schultz – “vile & despicable”? Have any one of you ever stood tall in the well of the Senate or the House and given back some of the vitriol continually spewed forth from the podium by those loud-mouthed Dems who are such hypocrites? Do you wear your Goody-two-shoes politically-correct behavior as a badge of honor? I view such pandering attitudes as a terribly embarrassing sign of bright-yellow COWARDICE. Don’t for a NY moment think that you are being viewed as noble because you ‘refuse to stoop to a strongly-worded rebuttal’ when responding to the Dem’s attacks. Because, you ain’t.

Be faux-noble on your own time, Senator. Be faux-noble on your own time, Congressman. When you are working for me, the one who helped elect you – here’s what I expect: courageous, principled representation; forthright statements at all times; leadership (from the front, if that’s not too much to ask); and above all – HONESTY !

If I’ve offended anyone, I’ve done my job.


Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 25, 2012

It Baffles My Mind!

There are certain things in this life of mine (and maybe yours) that I think are unfathomable and that baffles my mundane mind. Here are some examples that come to mind.

*How can you call someone in a foreign country and be connected to the number you called in a matter of seconds with no wires attached to the damn phone?

*How can that vehicle that you drive around in, be powered by a flammable fluid to propel it forward and backward without it catching on fire?

*How can a tiny camera be inserted in your body to observe the functions of some of your organs without hardly any pain at all?

*How can the leaders of our country continue to expand government spending and increasing the size of government, when we are now a debtor nation and cannot afford to continue the expense of these programs, and, if we continue, will someday put us on the same path of Greece and Spain, two economic basket cases?

*How could we have watched the Olympic games in living color in London this past summer as it was happening in all its splendor, intrigue, and excitement, just by flipping a remote control controlling our T.V.?

*How can people be so heartless and cruel to another human being by inflicting pain and suffering on that person just because they don’t agree with another’s politics, or religion?

*How do people who tatoo most every part of their body and put holes in their body for decorative purposes, rationalize the fact that someday, down the road, they will regret this “mutilation” of their bodies?

*How can an airplane with 200 passengers on board and thousands of pounds of luggage in its hold, take off and land with a 99.5% success rate year after year?

*How can we fathom how our “human wastes” are disposed of and handled without ever having the thought in our minds of how they could do it so efficiently and sanitarily?

*How could we send a rocket to outer space multiple times with humans as passengers, and have them return safely almost always to a specific location designated beforehand?

*How can certain high-profile entertainers and athletes, who make millions of dollars, piss away most of it so that they become future economic basket cases and eventually a burden to our society?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 23, 2012

Prager University: Do High Taxes Raise More Money?

The Laffer Curve Made Simple

If you raise taxes does it automatically follow that you'll raise more revenue? Is there a point at which tax rates become counterproductive? UCLA Economics professor, Tim Groseclose, answers these questions and poses some fascinating new ones.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Do We Really Celebrate Success Today?

Americans used to celebrate success, regardless of a persons race, ethnic background or status in life. Our friends and parents taught us to admire independence and self-reliance which in turn gave us liberty to do or not to do certain things in our life. We thought it better for people to thrive on their own rather than to look to the government for a handout instead of a hand up. It seems that most all of those positive thoughts have been changed and/or have gone by the wayside since Obama came on the scene.

All we seem to hear from the Obama Administration and the Democrats is that you need to take advantage of what the government has to offer you, whether you need it or not. In order to get votes, they have encouraged “poor” people to apply for food stamps in ever increasing numbers. In fact, when he took office in 2009, there were 32 million people on food stamps, but now the figure is 47 million (even middle-class people are now eligible for food stamps) and the cost is around $70 billion per year. In addition, the Obama Administration has given “free” cell phones to the poor people at a cost of many millions of dollars, just because they are poor, he has also included a provision in Obamacare that “children” up to the age of 26 can be included on their parents health insurance policies, and on and on goes the offering of “freebies”.

The modus operandi of Obama has been to get as many people as possible relying on government largesse and handouts and of relying on the government, as they then will be motivated to keep the “freebies” coming to them by voting for the Democrats.

During his first term in office, he has increased federal employment which has now become a built-in voting bloc, as these people want to keep their jobs, whereas the big, bad, fiscally conscious Republicans want to cut the size of government which will then mean fewer jobs. That’s one reason why the State of Virginia has become a “swing state”, as the northeastern counties are considered to be bedroom communities for the vast army of government workers who work in D.C and surrounding area.

We can’t continue on this road to financial ruin by making more and more people dependent on the government for handouts. The old saying of, “Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today, Teach a man how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime”. This “nanny state” mentality is getting worse and worse. The incentive to sit on your butt and collect government money is becoming more and more common. They think they are entitled to the largesse of the gainfully employed and those who run their own businesses and who pay taxes. It seems like the “takers” are multiplying and the “makers” are dwindling. Before you know it, we’ll become another financial basket-case like many of the countries in Europe with their socialist-styled economic systems. As former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher once said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money”.

Which brings me to think of the saying, “I can remember when being a success in life was a cause for celebration, not a grievance”. Success should not be a dirty word.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 15, 2012

MORT’s meanderings

My 15-minutes of Fume.

© 2012 MORT KUFF
(And, don’t anyone dare to quote this without attribution – I swear, I’ll sue!)

I’ve been axxed by many members of my reading audience (at least, two), the real story behind my permanent state of ‘upset-ed-ness’. Well, I’ll tellya, it’s like this –

There is an unwritten agreement between my wife and me regarding the aftermath of whichever of us expires first. We’ve agreed that whomever goes first, the other has promised to get a pet (most probably a bird of some sort) to kinda, sorta replace the expired spouse. It follows that there’ll be a need for something with which to line the bottom of the cage. Hence, we’ve agreed to continue our subscription to the Palm Beach County edition of the South Florida SunSentinel. That is of course, providing that newsrag is still publishing at the time of the demise of the first 50% of this happy union.

And so every morning the one who arises first, trudges out to retrieve the plastic- encased copy of the aforementioned newsrag. And, during my first cup of cawfee (acquired NYC accent), I peruse the paper, finally arriving at the Opinion Page (akshully, two opposing pages at the end of the main section.

These are the two pages of every edition of the SunSentinel that put the ‘Duh’ in, ‘Floriduh’. The content of these pages is guaranteed to kick-start my heart and is usually good for roughly, a 20-point uptick in my blood pressure. As I begin to read the Letters-to-the-Editor (always on the Left page – mm-mm-mm.), view the political cartoon and check out the columnists or selected contributors on the opposite page, my internal clock begins the count-down of my daily, “15-minutes of Fume”.

The ‘Letters’ alone, could do the job. One presumes that Opinions Editor, Rosemary Goudreau exercises final control over which letters appear on this page. Surely, there must be some intelligent letters scattered about the Editing Room floor. Surely, these daily selections of what are for the most part unintelligent letters, cannot be a fair representation of the bulk of letters received. Controversy, opposing viewpoints – is this the best the S/Sntl can do? Yeah, yeah, we know – you can only select from whatever comes in. Yeah, yeah.

Then, there are the political cartoons. It is always good to view what other Tribune- approved artists are producing. One (at least this one) gets reeeally, reeeally tired of Chan Lowe’s trite & tiresome scrawling & scratching. Usually, the term ‘hack’ is reserved for political writers. However, it is my view that political cartoons are in fact, opinions, except they are in visual format. And so, the term ‘hack’ is perfectly appropriate when applied to Mr. Chan Lowe-Blowe. By any standard, this guy’s skills are sub-standard.

Oh, and speaking of hacks, we’d be remiss not to mention the very forgettable, glittering star of the SunSentinel’s bevy of biased bully-boys, Anthony Man. If only the Obama administration possessed his transparency. Man’s antipathy toward Allen West was blatantly evident from the very first word he wrote about this American hero. What is it that Chan Lowe and Anthony Man smoke when they huddle in the Men’s Room at the SunniSentinel? If ever there were two pea-brains in a pod, it’s this pair. Well, whadya want for $50 bucks a week? That’s $25 for rolly-polly Man and $25 for Lowe-Blowe.

On the Right Side of the 2-page Opinion section, we enjoy the occasional appearance of Cal Thomas, Jonah Goldberg and one or two others who have their heads screwed- on properly. They are the token ‘Conservatives’ and are most welcome when they are permitted to join the Silly-Sentinel’s Sounding Board.

Regarding the rest of ‘Team Left’ – the all-wrong-all-the-time Gary Stein; the relentlessly off-the-wall humorist Stephen el Goldstein; and the hopelessly fact-deprived, pretend- Professor Robert Watson – they can all take a hike and wouldn’t be missed by me. And with regard to the lesser lights who alternately populate that Right Page of Leftist loons, ‘Who cares?’.

And so Kiddies, now you know the rest of the story of my ’15-minutes of Fume’.

Aren’tcha glad you stayed with me?

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 11, 2012

You Get What You Vote For, Not For What You Really Want!

Many of us proclaim that we are against this or that, but in actuality we vote against what we really want and don’t even know it. Let me explain what I mean.

Most of us wanted to get rid of Obamacare, but we voted to keep it.

Most of us said our debt is too high, but we voted for more debt.

Most of us wanted to be energy independent by drilling for more oil, gas, and coal, but we voted not to drill for more oil, coal, and gas.

Most of us wanted to cut government spending, but we voted to continue spending more.

Most of us want more transparency from our elected officials, but we voted for less transparency.

Most of us say that we should support our ally Israel, but we voted to undermine our ally and their Prime Minister on numerous occasions.

Most of us say we want more bi-partisanship between the President and Congress, but we voted for less bipartisanship between the President and Congress.

Most of us want to keep special interests from influencing our politicians, but we voted for them to exert more influence.

Most of us want the government to adopt a budget and to try to abide by it, but we voted to continue to not have a budget.

As you can gather by now, by voting to re-elect President Obama you voted for the things that you are generally against and you didn‘t realize it.

Wasn’t it humorist, pundit H.L. Mencken, who said, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public“? Well, you saw the validity of that jest in this past election.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 8, 2012

What in Hell Went Wrong?

I do congratulate President Obama on his re-election, and since graciousness is the better part of valor, I do hope that President Obama has learned that being the victor in the battle for the presidency, that he doesn’t carry forth with the phrase he used after he was first elected in 2008 by stating that “we won, you lost”, and that he and the Republicans can reach some sort of bi-partisan consensus for the good of our country. To the other phrase, “to the victor goes the spoils”, that can be used by him as he is the winner, but if he really wants to heal a divided nation, that’s where graciousness comes in and meaningful leadership follows.

My analysis of how Romney grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory, might go something like this.

Romney had to go through a bruising primary contest whereby some of the arguments used against him by his fellow Republicans were picked up and used by Obama in defining Romney, rightfully or wrongly. The characterization of Romney as being a heartless, evil, venture capitalist businessman, who couldn’t relate to the “average Joe” seemed to have taken hold and for which Romney was unable to shake for the rest of the campaign.

Since Obama’s lackluster record or performance as president was not mentioned by Obama (which was the right thing to do on his part), he went after Romney personally in all the battleground states, where millions of dollars were spent in attack ads on Romney. Unfortunately for Romney, it seemed to have worked.

After the first debate, it seemed that the tide had turned and Romney was shown to be not the “monster” he was portrayed to be, besides being very knowledgeable about the issues. He had Obama on the ropes, but, looking back, he mistakenly tried to carry that positive advantage throughout the rest of the campaign by not confronting Obama on his vulnerabilities, like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and his adversarial relationship with Israel. Since he didn’t remind the voters of these negatives about Obama’s performance, or lack thereof, he couldn’t rely on a probing unbiased media to do that job, as they were “in the tank” for Obama, just like they were in 2008. Once he left Obama off the hook, we had a natural disaster, named hurricane Sandy, which hit the East Coast and caused a tremendous amount of damage. This tragedy was ripe for the President to use the office of the presidency to act like a president should look, by showing concern and compassion. Unfortunately for Romney, his campaign went off the radar, and with his most valuable surrogate, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, praising Obama profusely and embracing him for his assistance in getting aid for his state, that gave Obama’s image an enormous boost as being a competent president. I don’t blame Christie for thanking Obama for getting aid to his devastated state, but his over-the-top effusive praise was not what Romney needed.

Of course, we can all be “Monday morning quarterbacks” and point out what coulda, shoulda, or woulda been done differently, but that’s how the cookie crumbles. The Obama campaign of appealing to all minorities and mobilizing them to get out and vote, the rallying of the 18 to 30 year olds, and his somewhat dubious “war on women” to attract women in general and single women in particular, by using fear in claiming that Romney wanted to do away with a woman’s “reproductive rights”, turned the tide for Obama against Romney. Also, the two Republican senatorial candidates who made some unfortunate references about women, didn’t help Romney one bit. It doesn’t matter whether it was true or not, it worked and it gave Obama four more years in the White House.

Although I don’t like the outcome of the election, I must accept the result and hope that Obama now realizes that you can get much more accomplished with “honey” rather than “vinegar“. For the sake of our great country and my family, I hope he is successful during his second term.


Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Slinky President

No party has a monopoly on compassion for the needy. The neo liberal Democrats think it is exclusive with them and the duty of government to provide for the poor, going beyond our present tax system, introducing forced socialistic wealth distribution; whereas Republicans and conservatives view it as a combined effort between the government and private sector, consisting of religious groups, charitable foundations and private individuals to offer financial and humanitarian relief.

It was unfortunate how the Joe Biden type gaff made by Gov. Mitt Romney in referencing the 47% non tax payers gave the slimy spinners a chance to spew their garbage on the less knowledgeable who are the rabble within a group who want to grab whatever they can get, without putting effort to earn any of it. Another side of that 47 is a portion of poor who create conditions due to faults of their own and in essence, they should be classified with the rabble. Retirees and miscellaneous others who no longer have large enough income, requires the figure to be adjusted. The truly impoverished suffer by the greed of the dishonest.

The Governor recognized any effort to dissuade these groups out of any un- deserved entitlements by replacing them with policies to help them stand up on their own two feet and regain human dignity, just to get their vote would be futile, because President Obama has them in the bag with his nanny state agenda and the promise of more to come. By no means did this mean they would be ignored if he was to become president. It means the whole welfare and revenue system will have to be reviewed and evaluated as part of revamping the economy, if there is still time to save the nation from complete disaster and avoid another "Greek Tragedy."

Our President's creative economics hasn't created jobs, bring down the deficit or reduce the debt by raising taxes and spending more. His plan is a 'slinky' caught going down the up escalator and going nowhere fast.

After nearly four years of this "affirmative action" president who was given the office over more qualified contenders, the plight of the truly impoverished has not changed and their ranks are in danger of increasing if the uninformed, complacent, one issue young single female voter gives this charlatan another four more years to complete the dismantling of the greatest democracy and hope for the world the world has ever known.

If anything, the debates showed who the adults were in the game of politics, and the presidential demeanor of the candidates. Objectivity should make it easy to ascertain which one.

Conservative commentary from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Mirror, mirror on the wall.

I’d like to have a dime for every time the question has been posed over the past several weeks since the Ambassador and three other officials were killed and the U.S. Consulate was destroyed in Bengasi, Libya – “Who is culpable; who is to blame?”.

Quite obviously, it was Muslim thugs who perpetrated these horrendous deeds. The name by which they call themselves this week, is meaningless. It is the vicious, murderous lunatics who are followers of Islam that performed these horrors against our Embassy, the symbol of our presence on that foreign soil. That is not the question.

The real question is, whom in our own government is directly responsible for the fiasco of disinformation that was offered up as the first official response? And secondly, how was it that neither the Secretary of State or the President responded in a timely manner, to the quite obvious fact that this was an organized attack of terrorism against our representatives and property of the United States? Terrorism? Jihad? Muslims? Islam? None of these terms were to be found in the first or even in subsequent reports on this tragedy. How could that be?

The Foreign Desk people at our national security agencies were aware of the build-up of insurgent activity and other undeniable signs of impending violence and trouble in Libya. And, I’m guessing that this information will come to light when their reports are made public - eventually.

Oh, regarding who might be culpable . . or who is to blame?

Hillary; Obama: . . . LOOK IN THE MIRROR! Mystery solved.

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Who Are You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Lying Eyes?

That quote comes to mind when you’re confronted with a political ideologue who only sees an issue through the prism of his political party’s philosophy and talking points, and what he claims as facts are not facts, but are untruths (lies). In other words, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.

It seems like Obama’s whole campaign is not to champion his policies, but to trash his opponent personally. Over the past three months, the Obama campaign has spent a couple of hundred million dollars in campaign ads running down his opponent. First, it was calling Romney a “vulture capitalist” instead of a “venture capitalist”, even though 80% of the business deals he was involved in as CEO of Bain Capital, were positive undertakings where over 100,000 jobs were created including Staples, Sports Authority, Burger King, Dominos Pizza, Burlington Coat Factory, AMC Entertainment etc. Compare his record with that of Obama who has used taxpayer money (actually borrowed money) to finance failing “green “ Co.’s like Solyndra, Ener 1, Beacon Power, Eastern Energy etc., all which went bankrupt. In addition, they tried to trash his stint as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics as being a failure, when, in fact, he took a money-losing proposition and turned it into a highly successful operation and wound up with a surplus when the games were over. Not to be outdone with their former lies, the Obama campaign went after his term as governor of Massachusetts as being a failure, when, in fact, he turned a deficit the state had rung up prior to him taking office, and when he left office in 2007, he left with a surplus and a state ranked #1 in education achievement along with an unemployment rate of 4.7%. Next, they implied that he wasn’t paying his fair share of income taxes, claiming that the 14% rate (the present capital gains rate is 15%) he paid, of his adjusted gross income, was much less than what the average taxpayer paid on his income from wages. Everything was legal and his returns showed that he donated more than $4 million to charity besides paying millions in taxes. The voters who were exposed to this relentless barrage of negative ads were starting to believe the charges and Obama began to pull away in the polls.

But on Oct. 3rd, at and after the first presidential debate, the American people (an audience estimated at over 63 million) were able to see Romney “unfiltered” without the slant of the vicious ads about him that was being put forth by the Obama campaign. What they saw was a very likeable man with a formidable grasp of the issues who looked presidential, as opposed to a Zombie-like performance of a president who looked like he didn’t want to be there. Even his flunky’s in the “lame stream media” (especially MSNBC) went apoplectic in evaluating his performance in the debate. Even they gave him a grade of “F”. From that time on, the polls reversed course, and Romney started to inch up and within a little over a week, he began to pull ahead of Obama, especially in some of the swing states.

If history is any criteria for predicting outcomes of elections, whenever an incumbent cannot gather at least 50% in the polls prior to the election, he will lose the election as undecided voters generally break for the challenger. This is the same scenario that occurred in the 1980 campaign between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, in which just weeks before the election after a strong debate by Reagan, Carter’s 8 point lead evaporated and Reagan won going away. Could this election be déjà vu all over again?

Of course, predictions are open to question, but who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Trickle-Down Government Leads to Trickle-Up Poverty!

The Democrats for years have called the Reagan economic policies “trickle down policies”, implying that if wealthy people or small business people, were able to keep more of their money instead of it being taxed, they wouldn’t use it to create more jobs or to start or expand their businesses, they claim that the wealthy would just keep it for their own personal use. Really? If the policies of the Democrats to tax the wealthy or well-to-do, over and above what is reasonable and fair, the wealthy or entrepreneurs wouldn’t have any money left over to build or expand their businesses as the money would go to the government (and most likely be wasted).

Remember a few years back, the Democrats pushed through a tax called the “luxury tax” which was enacted as a tax on the sale of luxury items ($30,000 or more). Instead of “sticking it to the rich”, the luxury sales tax caused many people to forego purchasing items over the $30,000 threshold price tag. The unintended consequences were devastating. Companies that built and produced yachts, luxury cars, airplanes, R-V’s etc. were hit hard in the pocketbook and some went out of business with the result of thousands of workers losing their jobs and becoming unemployed.

People who are wealthy or well-to-do are not stupid, if they feel that they are “getting the shaft” they will “vote” with their feet or close their wallets, which is what they did after the “luxury tax” was enacted. After seeing the resulting hardship effects of the tax, the Congress repealed it, but a little too late for those companies that went bankrupt and for the workers who lost their jobs. So, liberal left-wing Democrats, be careful what you wish for, you most likely will get just the opposite.

Obama and his Chicago thug campaign team, are complaining about Romney’s $5 trillion tax reduction plan over 10 years as being unrealistic and favoring the top 1% of income earners. What Romney proposes is that ALL workers (rich and poor) get a reduction in their marginal tax rates, but to balance that off, he would close many of the loopholes and tax breaks that many of the wealthy now take advantage of. In order to make his plan revenue neutral, he expects that due to these tax reductions, many jobs will open up as businesses will start expanding and hiring, thereby, bringing much needed revenue back to the treasury. It is a win-win situation to get us back into the economic recovery that we should have had since the recession supposedly ended two years ago.

The Democrats idea of “tickle-down government” does result in “trickle-up” poverty which is what Obama is already pursuing and is expected to continue if he is re-elected.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Why The Benghazi Video Story Is Important

If you read nothing else that I write to you between now and Election Day, please read this.

The story that a You Tube video is to blame for the death of an American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya, has (unnecessarily) taken on a life of its own. It has devolved into a political Ping Pong match. I fear that people will become so aggravated with it all that they simply tune the story out.

This is dangerous as this issue is deadly serious and at the heart of our national security.

Let’s take a short look back at terrorism under the Obama administration.

Early in his presidency, Obama embarked on his now famous Apology Tour, his speech in Cairo being most criticized, as he apologized for what he sees as previous administrations’ mistreatment of Muslims.

He changed our lexicon on terrorism. The word terrorism was stricken from public use. The War on Terror became an Overseas Contingency Operation. We no longer faced terror attacks from jihadists – these were now called “man caused disasters.”

In 2009 public opinion is all that prevented the administration from bestowing constitutional rights upon Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and trying him in civilian court in New York City.

Also in 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 and injured 32 at Fort Hood. He was tied to Anwar al-Awlaki and was heard yelling “Allah akbar!” while firing on his unarmed victims. But AG Eric Holder did not charge him with terrorism and eventually the event was termed “workplace violence.” He just went postal.

I’ve lost track of how many times Benjamin Netanyahu has been insulted and brushed aside.

Obama gave lofty praise and support to the Arab Spring, even as many of us warned of who might fill the power vacuums being created as leaders fell in country after country. He continued his praise, even when Islamists stepped in to take power.

At their convention, democrats celebrated the death of Osama Bin Laden and Obama told us for months that Al Qaeda was “on its heels.”

I’m sure I’ve left much out, but I’m pointing to the big picture, that President Obama seems to think that words alone can change the fact that terrorism exists and that jihadists want to kill us.

His myth was shattered on 9/11/12 when our consulate in Libya was attacked and four Americans were murdered. Days later CNN obtained the ambassador’s diary and we learned of his fears and requests for more security. People directly involved stepped forward to give credence to those fears and requests.

All the while our president and his assistants kept telling us a You Tube video, that up until then almost no one had ever seen, was to blame. During the same time we have learned that the Libyan embassy was attacked twice in the months prior to 9/11, and that Al Qaeda is growing throughout the Muslim world, regaining its power.

I don’t have to rehash it all. You have watched it play out. You’ve seen the lies. You’ve seen the parsing of words as we fall back into, “that depends on what the meaning of is is.”

President Obama’s standard stump speech contains this paragraph:

“Four years ago, I made a few commitments to you. I told you I’d end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said I’d end the war in Afghanistan, and we are. I said we’d refocus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 — and today, al Qaeda is on its heels and Osama bin Laden is no more.”

Well he has ended the war in Iraq and he is planning to end the war in Afghanistan. But Al Qaeda is NOT on its heels. It is stronger than ever and growing in a Muslim world where the Muslim Brotherhood is in control. I saw Sen. Lindsay Graham on TV this morning, giving an open message to President Obama (in case no one had told him) that Iraq is deteriorating and the Al Qaeda training camps there are open for business. Just yesterday, Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis attempted to blow up the Federal Reserve in New York City.

Americans are war-weary. We’re tired of watching our young people come home without their limbs or not come home at all. We would all like for it to be over.

But it’s not. We may not want to be at war with them, but they are at war with us. The president can give lofty speeches and tell you that he has vanquished Al Qaeda and you should sleep soundly. But it’s a lie and perhaps the most dangerous one ever told to us.

And what’s most disturbing is that it’s about politics. It’s about getting reelected. Our president and his administration wanted to give the appearance all was fine in Libya. Lots of Marines with guns hanging around our embassy would have over shadowed that appearance, so they weren’t sent.

And four men died – horrible, violent deaths.

It’s inexcusable.

In my opinion it’s criminal.

And if we don’t wake up to the truth, it will continue and it will get worse. Or have you forgotten those who jumped on 9/11/01 because the alternative was worse?

Conservative Commentary by Kathy from Liberty Trail

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 18, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Gratuitous advice from a failed Democrat Representative.

The Opinion page of today’s SunSentinel was sullied by a guest column ostensibly written by no less a literary lightweight than the very forgettable, former Representative from Florida’s District 22, Ron Klein.

His rant was titled, “GOP twists Obama’s Israel support”. I should have stopped reading right then. But, having watched Klein waltz through two terms while doing a sub-par job of representing the constituents of Dist. 22., I admit to a morbid curiosity to see what this failed ex-Congressman could possibly have to say.

His diatribe was a clumsy attempt to influence Jewish voters in this region to re-elect Obama. Indeed, it did appear as if he actually contributed some of his own views to this piece. Only he could put forth such a Swiss cheese case in support of Obama’s hateful and despicably hypocritical attitude regarding Israel, formerly our closest ally. The shopworn talking points he regurgitates are boring to the point that it is simply too painful a chore to read through them. It is vintage Ron Klein. Boring R us.

I have far better use for my time than jousting with the logic-challenged Herr KleinKlutz. While it would be mildly satisfying to refute all the lame rehashing of his hackneyed half- truths, crude & unproven innuendoes and his trademark, outright lies – I don’t need the exercise.

Untwisting this twisted character would be as much a waste of time as it was reading what the SunSentinel chose to print. Klein is what he is. My Mom always told me to, “Let lying dogs sleep” . . . I think that’s the way it went.

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 14, 2012

“Fool Me Once…………….”!

The whole quote is, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. What this means is that once you fall for something you should be smart enough not to fall for it again, the second time it’s your fault for not catching on.

A perfect example today is that the people who voted for Obama in 2008, because they didn’t want to be called a racist, should now have to vote for Romney in 2012 so they won’t be called an idiot (taken from a bumper sticker I saw). It would seem like a no-brainer since our economy is in such disarray and shambles, and heading for a Greece-like outcome, but not for some of our citizens, who seem to have in them the liberal gene as part of their DNA. No matter what Obama has done or said or what he hasn’t done or said, they will follow him over the cliff - you could say he is the “Pied Piper of Cluelessness” and he will be “lionized” by his faithful Zombies come hell or high water. The “Messiah” can do no wrong.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama made promise after promise, most of which he hasn’t kept. He painted himself as the “moderate” politician, which he really wasn’t, but luckily for him, in September, 2008, a national financial meltdown occurred, and, in addition, he had a very poor candidate running against him in the person of John McCain. In fact, McCain was supposed to be the center-right candidate in the campaign, but from listening to Obama speak on the stump, he sounded more center-right than did McCain. He really did “fool us once”.

After almost 4 years in office, Obama has mainly “ruled” as a far-left president, all semblance of moderation went by the wayside, as his Marxist/Socialist background came to the fore as he became a zealot for far-left causes and special interest groups, tempered only by a deceitful pragmatism which he has used to con the people into thinking he was the same moderate he portrayed himself to be in 2008.

Most all of his major policy thrusts were met with abject hostility, but he continually blamed others for his failures, especially his predecessor, George W. Bush, and other events that occurred around the world. He never seems to take any responsibility for anything he has done. He does come across as an elitist narcissist who can do no wrong.

During this campaign, the major thrust of this campaign is not his policies, but the personal inadequacies (in his eyes) of his opponent, Mitt Romney. Very little is said about his unpopular health care initiative, his failed “Stimulus” plan, or his total lack of bi-partisan legislative accomplishments (there aren’t any). It’s all about Romney’s wealth, his business career, his tax returns, his “extreme” legislative proposals, and his so-called phony “War on Women”. He wants you to ignore his lack of accomplishments, and that we should focus on him as being more likeable and the fact that he is our 1st black president, with the subtle hint that if you don’t support him, there might be a touch of racism in your actions.

So yes, the phrase “fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me” will apply if you vote for Obama again. Remember, ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 11, 2012

President Chutzpa

From his family background, how he was raised, the company he kept and his apologetic rhetoric, we know Barack Hussein Obama has one foot in Islam. If that foot is not amputated, its gangrene will contaminate our America way of life.

The Middle East is in chaos, partly due to his ineptness and and undertone hostility toward Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu. Apparently our President's campaign fund raising and tee time takes precedent over tensions that could trigger dire consequences in an already explosive situation transpiring in Egypt, Libya and other fanatically populated countries. This president would rather fight a made up, fictitious war of conservatives against women, than face the real war zone in Islam and the rights for women and little girls.

What can you expect from a man who cannot admit there are radical islamic terrorists, only misunderstood freedom fighters that we have insulted. What can you expect from someone who claims life is precious, but still caters to despots that have no regard for it. Who endorses the unfettered use of healthy, pre-infant deaths by abortion.

Have your fun in the sun with your movie stars and sports heroes. And you, Mr. President have the audacity to ask us to indulge you for four more years?!

Conservative commentary by George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 7, 2012

“Fore More Years”?

Using the word “fore” instead of “four” does have some significance in trying to evaluate the record of the performance of our “Liar in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. As the world is in turmoil and our economy is in shambles, Obama had the “audacity” (part of the title of his last book) to play over 105 rounds of golf since he was sworn into office. In addition, just recently it was revealed that he has missed almost half of his daily national security briefings by the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. since he has been president. To show his aloofness to his job, he has not met with his “Jobs Council” since January of 2012, but he says he thinks daily about the high unemployment that has lasted for over 43 months during his watch (that‘s a great way of showing it), and only recently he had a full cabinet meeting after almost a year. Is this what an engaged president is supposed to do during these highly volatile times, both on foreign policy and on domestic issues?

At a time when most of the world’s leaders were in attendance, recently, during the annual United Nations opening session, he could not find the time to meet with any of them, especially the leader of our most faithful ally in the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu of Israel, who requested a meeting, but was turned down. It just so happens that Obama was able to find time, though, to go to Las Vegas for a $40,000 a plate fundraiser, be a guest with his wife on “The View”, and to attend a big fund raiser in NYC sponsored by Beyonce and Jay Z and their friends in show business, but he couldn’t fit into his schedule the solemn duties that a president is supposed to take care of, that is specifically, the business of the people of the United States. It seems like he has been an “AWOL” president, who likes the trappings of being president, but not the duties that the job entails. He seems to be all symbolism over substance, and who tries to demonize his opponent instead of championing his own policies and how they have affected the lives of the citizens of America.

We all know that politics, especially presidential politics, is a “full contact” sport, but why would an incumbent president resort to the time-worn political strategy of the “politics of personal destruction”? Trying to slander a decent, moral man, like his opponent Mitt Romney, in a very personal way, is sort of like “hitting below the belt”. Inferring that Romney as being complicit in the death of a laid off worker, years after he left Bain Capital, accusing him of intentionally closing businesses and sucking them financially dry, of not paying his income taxes, and accusing him of waging a “war on women”, is patently dishonest and quite honestly, “Un-Presidential”. He should be ashamed, but, then again, narcissists generally have no shame to give. After all, he is the Messiah to his legion of Kool-Aid drinking followers.

One of the major sales tools, as taught by sales professionals, throughout time, is to tout your own product (in Obama’s case, his record in office) and not try to talk down your rival by trying to make them or him into a demon with evil motives.

Just recently, I read a very prescient bumper sticker, which read (I paraphrase), “If you voted for Obama in 2008 because he was black, you’ll have to vote for Romney in 2012, because he is now useless”. Touche!

Now, my fellow patriots, go forth and do the right thing and “fire” Obama this coming November. We don’t need “Fore More Years” of non-performance on the links or in the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 5, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Waah! I want my ‘Prompter’.

Last evening (October 3, 2012), the first of three Presidential debates was held in Colorado. President Failure looked as if he hadn’t slept in a month, had just been beaned by a 95 mph baseball pitch, and really wished he’d stayed in Las Vegas.

Whereas Mitt Romney looked relaxed, alert, fully prepared, brim-full of vitality and totally engaged in the process at hand. Obama looked edgey, disengaged and somewhat discombobulated. It was not the huffing & puffing, princing & prancing, show-biz rock star, preacher-man & side-show barker we’re used to seeing.

Obama’s responses to Mitt’s charges were delivered in what must have been the most halting, incoherent ramblings ever uttered by a sitting president. References made by Obama to his grandmother and to vague encounters with citizens along the campaign trail were so out of context with the questions at hand, that viewers across this nation surely must have been wondering if the broadcast was being jammed and edited by forces from outer space. It was weird. And, for Obama’s big $$ backers, it most certainly had to be painful to watch.

Round One: Romney 10 points; Obama 0.


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 4, 2012


Senior citizens are warned to be wary of scams. Many are trusting and not as sharp or alert as they were in their younger days, falling prey to con artists who find them easy marks. The Press often runs articles about this, and offer advise on how to avoid being a victim. Unfortunately, they fail to expose injustices perpetrated by our own government and scrupulous politicians, that can also be described and classified as scams, because many newspapers hold a liberal bias. I can speak on this issue as an independent senior who grew up in a family worshiping FDR and still considers Harry Truman as one of the most down to earth, honest presidents.

I don't know what happened, but what I see today scares me. This pre-election period is turning into one of the dirtiest in modern times. Particularly by one of the parties that is resorting to distortion and down right lies to scare us seniors.

Its members are being forced to confront third rail issues that have been avoided in the past, due to a controversial figure, Paul Ryan, chosen to run for vice president by the challenging party. Theirs is not a sweet sixteen party. We are talking about a sixteen trillion dollar debt, and still growing if nothing is done about it.

That should scare the bejeebers out of everyone and not just senior citizens. The only thing Pelosi's neo-democrats came up with is ObamaCare. It is a bill passed, with no one reading it, that is chaotic and very costly, versus a plan requiring some austerity, but will not break up the present medical system of Medicare that we seniors are on now.

Contrary to what you hear, we will not be affected, unless the seven hundred sixteen billion dollars hijacked out of it to finance ObamaCare creates a short fall that causes less compensation to providers, forcing them to raise their rates, or provide less services to make up for the loss of revenue.

For those fifty-five and under, it is better to have some of the pie than none at all. This is the problem we face if a fix is not tackled now. What I just said is fact and anything else iterated on the subject is a distortion of the fact.

Birds of a feather, flock together, so I'm urging fellow seniors who glue themselves to only MSNBC and the New York Times, be more objective and start mingling with other than your mahjong and bridge groups to broaden your horizons.

It is evident the proponents of ObamaCare wish to change the subject, away from our dismal economy and the failure of every plan this administration has put forth, with vicious, degrading personal attacks, injecting lies to defame their opponents. On one hand, they complain the presidential challenger, Mitt Romney pays only fourteen percent tax on his rather large income, and on the other hand, they accuse him of not paying any tax at all in ten years.

Calling him a dispassionate murderer of a woman who died of cancer six years after the fact, when the time frame does not compute with the accusation, putting him out the scenario entirely.

On another matter of accusing conservatives of waging war against women. What they are against is the ungodly use of abortion as another method of birth control and wanting the tax payer to fund their irresponsible discretions. They are not against women's' rights. They are against healthy pre-infant deaths! The havoc is just beginning and Chicago Central is working overtime to come up with more bigger and better whoppers of distortion to try to sink their opposition. The tactics are underhanded, so don't fall for the con game they are playing, because you'll be compromising your intelligence and screwing your children and grand children.

Another thing we seniors have to watch out for is yellow journalism, practiced by the so called mainstream media. The on target comments made by Gov. Mitt Romney, shortly after the terror attacks on our embassies in Libya and Egypt, was severely criticized by them because he pointed out the flaws in the administrations response, while the accusation of shooting first and then aiming can be attributed to the President, who went to sleep for an early wake-up call, to make his flight to Las Vegas, for yet another campaign fund raiser.

While this president's radical Islamic appeasements are stoking the fires charring ther Mideast, he found time to appear on Letterman and the idiotic 'The View'; but can't schedule talk with our staunches ally in the area, the prime minister of Israel. It is an affront to the Jewish community. Apparently his incomprehensible, inept expertise in foreign relations failures is seen by him as just another bump in the road. His foreign policy has more bumps than a bad attack of hives.

Voting against the branch office of this Chicago political machine in November will let them know we seniors are not all senile.

Conservative commentary by George Giftos

Bookmark and Share