MORT's meanderings

The White House can't speak.

Has anyone noticed?  The White House. located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., is an edifice made of brick & mortar that has been painted 'white'.  It is a mute structure; it can't speak.  Therefore, statements represented as coming from the White House, are either  statements coming directly from the President or, indirectly from his authorized spokespeeps.

Are you with me so far?  

Why should we be expected to believe any pronouncements that are veiled in anonymity as,  'the authoritative word being handed down, from the White House'?  If the information being sent from 'on high' to the citizens of the United States - who by the way, are the sole  owners of that edifice and have hired its occupants for a limited engagement - is indeed meant to be taken as 'official', then it should be in the form of an official document, signed by its originator.

Are you still with me?

What's the problem here?  The problem is that old bugaboo, the issue of 'Transparency in Government'.  There never seems to be any shyness about taking credit for 'successes'.  But, there seems to be a great deal of reticence when it comes to attaching a name to statements or pronouncements whenever there is concern from 'on high', that the message is calculated to  either generate controversy or worse, is likely not be received  with overwhelming acceptance. Are we clear?

And so, as a natural-born citizen of the United States of America and part-owner of that edifice located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW in Washington, D.C., I have appointed myself as a Committee of One, to hereby demand that every official statement or pronouncement that emanates from 'The White House', be signed by the individual who sent it, accompanied by his or her official title.  Thus, a name and title that indicates that individual's identity and official relationship to the President, will be established and made known to the public.  Got that?

I don't think it is too much to ask that our elected officials and their appointees be required to publically stand behind their 'official' statements - all their statements, every single one.  So please - no more anonymous proclamations, pronouncements or propaganda issued from, The White House.  The White House can't speak - remember?

Attention, complicit Members of the Fourth Estate - that would be alla yez:  Are you able to process the info above?  If not, contact me at mortkuff@bellsouth.net  and I'll 'splain it to you.

MORT KUFF  © 10-15-2013

Synthetic Hysteria

If you listen to the Obama Administration, you’d think that the sky was about to crash to the ground. Obama and the Democrats are trotting out the usual emotional, false information to try to gain the sympathy of the public. Like on cue, they trot out the rhetoric of the “evil” Republicans who want children and women to suffer (you could also add in seniors and the infirm). They always try to tug at our heartstrings with these worst case scenarios. By the way, how come they never mention the men?

No doubt a government shutdown is an inconvenience that most people don’t like, but where is the President in trying to bring the parties together? He is A.W.O.L., again, as his leadership skills are woefully lacking. How can you resolve a difference of opinion by refusing to talk to the opposition party? He said he would not negotiate with the Republicans. He claims that he will not bow to the “extortion demands” of the Republicans. It seems “it’s his way or the highway” as he is the all-knowing, omniscient, master of the realm, who knows what is best for the rest of us. Is he trying to make amends for his disastrous “red line” fiasco in Syria, as his being a weak leader, by now playing hardball over the government shutdown and debt-ceiling problems? Being so inexperienced in the ways of being an executive and organization leader, he compounds his inexperience by being petulant and by using derogatory words to describe his opponents. How can he negotiate with people he has demonized?

Look at some of the decisions he has recently made. Firstly, he requested and had implemented a “Sequester” cutting back on government expenses, and then he blamed the “pain” on the “evil” Republicans. He never seems to take the blame for anything he does. Recently, he has ordered the closing of open-air memorials and monuments and national parks, and of course, he blamed the Republicans. So when a group of World War 11 veterans (men and women in their 80’s and 90’s) tried to visit the WW11 memorial, they were turned away. It took more workers to put up the barriers than the number of people who were furloughed. What a disgrace! Luckily, the Vets broke down the barriers and paid their respects.

In another instance, he ordered that families of dead servicemen not to be reimbursed for burial expenses. What crime did these grieving families commit to be treated in such a shabby manner? Obama had the authority to free up these payments, but to this “narcissist”, he seems to have a “tin ear” when it comes to doing the right thing, especially when it comes to our nation’s veterans.

His trying to maximize the pain of a government shutdown in order to gain political points over the Republicans, is an outrage and an avoidable inconvenience to the general public.

The tide now seems to turning against Obama as his disapproval number is now up to 53% and his approval number is down to 37% and falling. Another poll showed that close to 80% of the public thinks that our country is on the “wrong track“. Maybe many of the “low information” voters, who voted for him in 2012, have now seen that the criticisms of Obama are now coming true. This “Synthetic Hysteria” that is pushed by Obama and the Democrats must cease and meaningful leadership take place, but with Obama at the helm, it might just be wishful thinking. The people definitely have a case of “Apocolypse Fatigue”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Thank You AARP

As you know from commercials on TV, in the newspapers, and in other media AARP sponsors, actually sells, health care plans from United Healthcare - an insurance company. AARP was one of the biggest boosters of Obamacare promising seniors that they would benefit under it - or at least wouldn't be harmed by its passage. They have made a charade of looking as if they support seniors rather than pocketing the money from selling United Healthcare medicare policies.

Well, today's edition of Investors Business Daily has some interesting news. UnitedHealth Group, the parent of United Healthcare, announced earnings that were far below what analysts predicted or expected. As a result, the stock dropped 5% in one day. Further, a press release indicated that next year's earnings would miss analysts' estimated "due to ObamaCare cuts to Medicare payments." The insurer also said it expected further earnings pressures in 2014 "when health care reforms take effect." To help improve its financial position the insurer indicated that it would "withdraw" some Medicare Advantage plans in 2014. One analyst thinks that in the long run the Medicare Advantage Plans will face substantial cuts to pay for subsidies, etc. given to non-seniors under Obamacare.

Here in the Tampa Bay area we have already seen what these cuts mean. First, UnitedHealthcare in some of its programs dropped out of the Silver Sneakers Program. Second, it substantially raised the copay for all but generic drugs. Third, it increased the copay for specialists and any out of network medical providers. Finally, it dropped the leading area cancer center, the Moffitt Cancer Center, from its coverage! Just imagine the wonderful changes in store for us in 2014 when ObamaCare is fully implemented.

The AARP said none of this would happen if ObamaCare was passed and they would continue to watch over the interests of seniors. Well, so much for empty promises. AARP will continue to peddle United's medicare policies and if our costs for these policies increase no doubt so will their commissions.

So, thank you AARP for screwing us seniors.

Conservative Commentary by Jim Pirretti

Are We Our Own Worst Enemy?

Some of the biggest critics of Republicans lately have been other Republicans. You’d expect the Democrats to trash Republicans, as that is what they are really adept at, but why do Republicans have to act like Democrats? That’s a little disconcerting with this Republican.

Most all the Republican members of the House were elected in their constituency by pledging the voters to defund or repeal Obamacare (a/k/a the (Un)affordable Care Act), and when they try to follow up on their promises, other Republicans “back bite” them and call them names. You’d expect that from the Democrats, but from their fellow Republicans?

We all know politicians are always interested in their next election or re-election, and we would expect that their “gunfire” would be directed at their Democrat or Republican opponents, but when they turn on their own, it hurts the brand and their barbs are then used by the Democrats to attack the Republicans (this is what happened to Mitt Romney).

Let’s look at what happened in the last presidential election. Our candidate, Mitt Romney, a conservative Republican, was not conservative enough for some Republicans. The turnout by the conservative base was “lukewarm“, to say the least. The turnout was definitely less than expected. Look what happened, we now are saddled with 4 more years of our “Liar in Chief”, the incompetent Barack Hussein Obama. Do those “lukewarm” Republicans, who didn’t come out to vote, feel that they are better off with Obama at the helm instead of Romney? We could’ve had a chance to defund Obamacare (as Romney wanted to get rid of it), but now we have to watch that monstrosity play havoc with our economy and our health care. Under a Romney presidency, we’d be exploring for all our energy resources and would’ve put the Keystone pipeline on line (thus creating many thousands of jobs), and we would’ve had a more civilized society as compared to how Obama has handled things.

Because Romney wasn’t 100% of what some of his Republican opposition thought he should be, it seems that “they cut off their noses to spite their faces”, and we are all now suffering the consequences of their inaction. We were our own worst enemy in this case of not coming out to vote for Romney.

Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who said that Republicans should observe the 11th Commandment, “Thou should not speak ill of another Republican”? It was stated that the “Commandment” never meant that one Republican could not criticize the policies or philosophies of another Republican, it meant only that one could or should not engage in a personal attack on another Republican.

Just recently, during the debt ceiling debate and the government shutdown, Republicans who should know better, like Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsay Graham, Sen. Bob Corker, and Rep. Peter King, use obvious personal attacks against other Republicans. Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave? Differences can and should be expressed or discussed between Republicans, but in private, not in public.

This episode was a perfect example of Republicans shooting themselves in the foot and of being our own worst enemy. Let’s hope we can get our act together for the 2014 mid-term elections. Our country desperately needs a Republican House and Senate, we don’t need another Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid during Obama’s last two years.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Teaching the ABCD's

There seems to be a misconception of what freedom is. Libertarianism does
not define it, nor do progressives, because they are ideologues who always
want to fix what ain't broke, and being politically correct giving it to some
by taking it away from others.

Freedom doesn't work without discipline and responsibility, that in some cases
proves to be dangerous if not applied properly. Do your own thing is a prime
example of things going astray when discipline and responsibility are shunned.
In some cases a freedom may have to be compromised for security or safety
and the most vocal against this are the ones who never fought for any of the
freedoms they enjoy.

Headlines dominate news, with our children committing horrific, insensitive acts,
spurred by undisciplined, irresponsible entertainment moguls and so called
artists, purveying smut and violence filling their pockets with unimaginable
wealth, along with sports idols sending a wrong message, all by their free life
style. College campuses are filled with clueless students having their minds
manipulated by professors who were stoned, doing their own thing in the sixties.

Some may say, they are not all like that, and I agree, but there are enough to have
screwed up the works. One of their products admittedly stoned in his youth, by his
own confession, in his book, "Dreams from My Father," our president, Barack
Hussein Obama, setting the wrong example. Especially to young black youth who
 are noticeably becoming a problem. His voice is silent to condemn his past and
speak to them and others about discipline, responsibility, hard work and stop
preaching they are victims of an unfair society.

Education must go back to the basics instead of forcing progressive innovations
concocted by the ideologues who always try to fix what ain't broke.
The letter D should be added to the basic ABC's, standing for drug education.
Drugs begins with a D, so does dumb. Not all homes are Father Knows Best.
Sadly undisciplined and irresponsibility has created single, unmarried mothers,
without a father image environ that can't be called home or family, perpetuating
poverty and a violent atmosphere. Few born into it escape it and it has to change.
The added D in basic education is to show there is another way. It should stress
what the President, community leaders and civil rights groups have not....drug free,
hard work and purpose is what will get them out of the eddy they are caught in.
Teach them self reliance, not government reliance.

There will be certain factions disagreeing with me because, in order to maintain
their cushy existence, they need the suppressed.

I was hoping the President was going to address some of the things concerning me
and many others which I stated above, when he spoke at the foot of the Lincoln
Memorial commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s, "I
Have a Dream" speech. He missed the opportunity to offer solutions, but instead
used that platform for his usual, blame society for the plight of unfortunate
minorities, unable to resist inserting misplaced politics into the event.

His delivery was impressive, but his aura seemed arrogant and sounding more like a
one-upmanship contest over Dr. King's speech, for historic impact. He failed to
even make a dent and his words will be forgotten, collecting dust in his presidential
library.

Conservative article from George Giftos

Who Are The Real Extremists?

If watch the Democrats on T.V. or listen to them on the radio, you’d think the most “evil” people in the world are the people who support the “Tea Party”. What crimes have they committed or what views do they hold, to be labeled as extremists and a threat to the American way of life?

What riles up the Democrats (a/k/a liberals, progressives, and losers) so much about a group of people who want a smaller less intrusive government; less taxes and regulations; to follow the dictates of the Constitution; a balanced budget so that we have to live within our means; and a repeal of that job-killing law called Obamacare? Are those ideas worthy of the angst being directed at them by the liberals? If those principles are antithetical of the best interest of America, what are the principles that their opposition favor in its place? Could it be a Marxist/Socialist agenda?

The venom just drips from the lips of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid as they blame everything they are against on the Tea Party.

Who are these “evil” people who sympathize with the tenets of the Tea Party? Actually, it is a hodpodge of unorganized (on a national level), disparate people who love this country and think that its direction is on the wrong track by a lack of leadership from the top on down.

The “Tea Party” has been accused of being “arsonists”, “terrorists”, “black-mailers”, and the king of all slurs, “racists”. These were words uttered by the leaders of the Democrat Party. Can you imagine if Republican leaders called the Democrats these pejorative names and epithets? All hell would break loose. In addition, these family-loving patriots have been called a cell of Al-Queda or the Taliban. All this vitriol directed at them because they hold views that don’t coincide with the Marxist/Socialist policies that dominate the Democratic caucus. These are the same people who proclaim to be tolerant, inclusive, and in favor of free speech. In the words of the late William F. Buckley, Jr.; “It seems that the liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views”. It seems that the liberals can’t argue the facts, so they resort to name calling and personal vilification to try to diminish their opposition (this tactic is right out of the “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, who was the disciple for both Obama and Hillary Clinton).

The Democrats must fear the potential power of the “Tea Party” as they spend so much time and effort in trying to demonize them in the eyes of the public. I think you will see a resurgence of the “power” of the “Tea Party” movement in the 2014 mid-term elections, as people will become disenchanted with the policies, both economic and foreign-policy wise, with Obama and the Democrats. It’ll be déjà vu 2010 all over again.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT's meanderings

Ballack Inssein Obama

Enough has been said, enough has been written, enough has been documented - to prove beyond question, that Barack Hussein Obama is unqualified, unsuited and unfit to be the President of the United States.  Does it take a brick wall to fall on us before we 'get it'?

Anyone who thinks that patriotism is bothersome - anyone who is uncomfortable with competition -  anyone who believes The Constitution is no longer valid - anyone who is only comfortable in a crowd of like-minded people - anyone who feels the need to be represented by a trade union -  anyone who truly believes it is okay to take wealth from one group and give it to another - anyone who believes this President's divisive class-warfare rhetoric - anyone who believes that big Government can solve all problems better than creative, entrepreneurial individuals - - quite obviously, these are the kinds of people who voted to put Obama into office. They fell for his line of B.S. - not once but, twice.  

This proves to me at least, that the 'Something-for-Nothing' crowd; the people who voted based upon skin color; the clueless and the careless; and those who always vote against established authority; -  these are the people who put Obama into office.  They seem unaware that so far, there has been no gain and  they don't appear as yet, to be feeling much pain.  We have a tanking economy; huge price increases in necessities such as food & gas; painful unemployment all across the country; increasing incidents of violent racism in the news every day and violent terrorism being taken as a matter of course by an unconcerned Obama.  Plus, his sycophant appointees who head up the agencies that are supposed to be protecting us - they too, seem equally unconcerned. .  Where is the outrage?  Where is their sense of obligation to honor the oath they swore to protect us?  Do these people not equate Obama's lack of leadership with the fact that these problems go unresolved?  Do they not connect the dots between these conditions and the many-times-tried; always-failed Democrat policies?  Can they not see what is happening to America?  Do they care?

And, very sad to say - an overwhelming majority of Jewish voters here in South Florida appear to be among those with their heads buried in the sand.  These folks always vote the straight Democrat  ticket.  They do so, simply because their parents voted for FDR when he promised to end the Great Depression.  They cannot convincingly, point to any positive results from Democrat leadership. Let them try to make the case for the tyrannical Socialism, Communism and Islamist-Jihad we are facing.

I share my Jewish heritage with these folks but, I am at a total loss to comprehend why otherwise intelligent people can be so suicidal when it comes to politics that have profoundly detrimental effects on their own lives and the lives of their families.  What are they drinking;  what are they thinking? Have they lost their ability to reason?  Are they really so arrogant as to think their judgment regarding Obama is infallible?  Can they really be so dense as to imagine that their Jewishness is not the target of an undercurrent of anti-Semitism  that has always existed in this country?  Do they imagine that the Islamist movement currently gaining power in much of American life, (thanks to Muslim-in-Chief Obama) will not sooner or later, be focusing their Jihad on Synagogues, Jewish organizations and individual Jews, themselves?  Are my fellow Jews really that stubborn & stupid?   I can only say, "Oy Vay!".

MORT KUFF  © 9-2-2013

Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You?

We’ve all heard that proverb, “Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You”, at sometime during our lives. It means that you shouldn’t be mean to the person who is giving you something that you need. That proverb should be the new slogan of the Democratic Party, for that is what they have been trying to do for years in making people dependent upon them in order to get their votes come election time.

This proverb has been taken to a whole level of profundity by Obama and the Democratic Party during the run-up to the last presidential election. Since Obama took office in 2009, the following has taken place; up to 48 million people are now collecting food stamps (up 14 million from when he took office); almost 50% of the people pay little or no income tax; the unemployment benefits for out of work employees was raised from 26 weeks to 99 weeks; free phones were given to poor people (mainly to people in highly Democratic inner-cities); the disability rules for people collecting SSI were eased so that many more people could collect disability payments, even if the disability was minor or even non-existent (by fraud); the mortgage rates were lowered to accommodate non-credit worthy home buyers even after the mortgage debacle of 2008; etc., etc., etc.

All these “goodies” were handed out prior to the election of 2012 by President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats. You could say that Obama was doing a good job of imitating Santa Claus by making millions of people more dependent on government largess. The areas of the country where most of the people were collecting most government assistance, went Democratic overwhelmingly.

We as a country, have been taking in about $200 billion in revenue per month and we spend about $350 billion per month. That means that roughly 40¢ of every federal dollar spent has to be borrowed. The undeniable fact of business is that a greater number of people are living off government welfare programs that are being financed by tax paying citizens. That’s what’s driving Europe’s economic problems and it’s what is driving ours. The true tragedy is that just to acknowledge that fact is political suicide, as presidential contender, Mitt Romney, found out.

We really can’t blame the politicians. It’s the American people who will crucify a politician who even talks about cutting their favorite government handout.

Obama and the Democrats have been very successful in carrying out this ploy, even when it comes to hiring government employees. We now have approximately 4 million people on the federal payroll with the overwhelming number voting for the Democrats who they feel will not cut back on the government programs they have been hired to work for. In and around Washington D.C. the people, most of whom are government workers, voted 70% for Democrats and 30% for Republicans. It seems like the proverb, “Don’t Bite the Hand that Feeds You” really has been taken seriously by these government workers.

The major losers are we, the nations taxpayers, who have to foot the bill in paying for all these political “goodies”. Maybe it’s time that we do bite the hand that feeds us, just for our long-term survival.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

LEADERSHIP

Since Barack Obama became president and through the efforts of others,
whenever anything turns out right like the demise of Osama bin Laden,
it is always 'I', but if anything fails or turns sour, it has always been,
'THEY'.

Nothing is ever his fault, but everything good is always because of him.
Many times second chances makes it possible to correct first time mistakes.
Suggesting this as an example, if former Florida Rep. Alan West was to run
as the second black president, it will restore the faith of the people
because, he is a true leader, having led his troops by example, encountering
the same peril and hardship of his men; not by experiment and bribery.

President Obama is not and never was a leader, because there is no example
attributed to him to follow.

He cannot be called a leader when four of our very best lost their life for
country under his watch, with no feasible explanation, except that he turned
in early to make a political fund raiser in Las Vegas, crucial to his
re-election.

Shooting baskets, golfing, entertaining his celebrity friends and contributors
with lavish state dinners and inviting them on his perpetual vacations while
our sons, daughters. sisters. brothers, mothers, fathers, husbands and wives
put their lives on the line for their country, in sometimes 120% weather, is
not leading by example.

Barack Hussein Obama has been the most un-American president in our
country's history!

Conservative commentary by George Giftos