Should G.O.P. Voters Adhere to the “Buckley Rule”?

You might be saying to yourself, what is the Buckley Rule”? The late William F. Buckley”, editor of the National Review magazine and renowned pundit, once stated that the G.O.P. should “Nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable”. The key word is “ELECTABLE”.

Today, the G.O.P. has a great chance to win back the presidency from the Democrats since the the Democrats are about to “coronate” a flawed candidate by the name Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. That's why the “Buckley Rule” has been mentioned in the G.O.P. primary contest about who they will nominate as the most electable candidate to go against Hillary in the general election.

With the exception of George W. Bush, since 1992, the G.O.P. has nominated the least likely conservative candidates and lost all four times (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney) to Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. It seems that when the G.O.P. nominates candidates that are portrayed as “Democrat Lite”, the voters choose the “real thing”, the Democrat. It seems like the Republican “establishment” thinks the voting public, that is generally considered to be center-right, will not vote for a center-right conservative. How many more losses will they have to absorb before they realize that the “Buckley Rule” should be invoked for future presidential candidates? The question now is, who, out of the Republican field of candidates, is the most electable conservative candidate? At present, due to the over abundance of G.O.P. candidates, Donald Trump, is leading the field, and has the rabid support of about 30% of Republican voters, according to the recent polls. If that support keeps up, it looks like Trump will get the nomination, even though he will not have gained the majority of Republican voters. Of course, if the G.O.P. field gets down to a workable 2 or 3 candidates, you might see the dropped out candidates supporters turn to someone else besides Trump, thereby depriving the nomination to Trump.

Although Donald Trump has hit a nerve with many people who think that our country is going in the wrong direction, he has conjured up a strong following using the phrase “Make America Great Again”. That has resonated with his loyal followers, but in the general election, will that enthusiasm carry over to the general election to woo Independents and the once billed Reagan Democrats? That's where the general election will be decided. Both parties can rely on loyal voters (about 40% each) to come out to vote the party-line, but it will be the 20% of Independents and disaffected party regulars who will determine the 2016 election.

If Trump gets the nomination, will he be able to get those extra votes to win the general election? If, as he has shown so far, to “burn too many bridges” in his campaign for the Republican nomination, it might be a disaster in the making by pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.

If not Trump, then who? Who is the most conservative candidate who is electable and who could beat Hillary in a one on one? The one candidate who seems to have the least negatives and who might appeal to the greater number of Independents and Reagan Democrats, is Marco Rubio. Being very conservative, articulate and knowledgeable, he would be Hillary's worse nightmare in a debate. Whether it is Marco Rubio or not, I hope that whoever is the G.O.P. nominee, it will be the most conservative candidate who is electable. We can't let that failed former Bill Clinton enabler, failed Secretary of State, Alinskyite, with little to no accomplishments in her public life, get back into the White House. When the people (60% of those polled) have designated her to be a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy, what kind of a president will that be in the eyes of the world? We can do better than that. VOTE REPUBLICAN !

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s meanderings

STOP mis-using my White House!   

Now Children, primarily you children in the media, including White House spokes blokes, we’ve gone over this material before - - several times as a matter of fact.  So please pay attention as I attempt to ‘splain it to you, one more time.

STOP reporting that the White House this and the White House that.  The White House is a building; it cannot take action, it cannot think, it cannot speak, it cannot communicate in any way, shape or form.  Got it?  It’s a building made of brick and mortar that has been painted white. So, STOP attributing official statements to its masonry.  Quite the opposite of its current occupant, the building itself is mute.

We all know – that is, those of us who learned U. S. History in grade school know, that under the stewardship of several Presidents, i.e., Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding and more recently, Richard M. Nixon, this  stately Executive Mansion has suffered all manner of indignities.  Since Barack Hussein Obama and his band of uncouth minions have occupied ‘The People’s House’, it has been degraded noticeably and has fallen into a state of intentional disrespect by its occupants – the President and First Family.  It has been treated more shabbily than a trailer park on the wrong side of town.  It’s traditions and inherent dignity have been dismantled, swept out and replaced with Southside street rappers and a Chicago-style hip-hop culture that is nothing more and nothing less, than lightly-disguised thuggery, all dressed up like pimps & street-walkers.

Hence, when news anchors and official communiques make pronouncements and attribute them to, ‘The White House’ – let’s not be fooled, People  – every word of every report that emanates from the Mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C., originates from the President & Incompetent-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.  To paraphrase BHO as if he were speaking to The White House, “You didn’t say that”.   Buildings can’t take action, they can’t think or speak.  

So puleez, STOP mis-using my White House.

                                                                                                     MORT KUFF   © 10-31-2015

Who's a Bigot?

That word is bandied about willy-Nelly by mostly liberals (a/k/a Progressives) generally describing their political opponents. First off, what is the definition of a bigot? It is defined as: “A person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong”.

So, if you disagree with another person or express a negative opinion of another person or group, you become a prime target as being called a “bigot”, especially if you are a Republican or a Conservative. That term “bigot”, along with the term “racist”, is used by liberals to alter the dialogue when a clash of ideas and opinions are being debated. That is the “modus operandi” of the far-left when they can't argue the facts, and back up their positions on the issues, especially when the debate is about race or religion.

The biggest practitioner of this labeling is none other than our “Liar in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. In his many comments about race and religion, he has blamed others, mostly Republicans, of engaging in hate speech because they protest the actions of certain groups relating to race and religion. It seems, no matter what the situation is, when it comes to race or religion, he always takes the sides of the blacks (or other minorities) and the Muslims (to the exclusion of all other religions). Pres. Obama was supposed to be a “uniter” not a “divider” when he first ran for office. Well, how has that worked out so far? We are more divided, as a nation, than ever before.

The designation of the terms “bigot” and “racist” are becoming so hackneyed that it is like the boy who cried “wolf” too often, that he wasn't taken seriously when a true dire situation arose. Those over-used words are used to end all conversations about race and religion as many people are shut down and shut up as they they don't want to be labeled with those terms, in that regard the far-left has succeeded in their mission. The term “political correctness” has been popularized as a result of this concerted effort to stifle “free speech”.

Look at what our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has proclaimed after the San Bernardino shootings occurred, and the attackers were identified as Muslim terrorists. She said that the U.S. Justice Department would “take action” when anti-Islamic speech “edges towards violence when we see the potential to lift....that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”. Is she, and other bureaucrats, going to be the arbiters of what is or is not inflammatory speech? Does she not believe in the 1st Amendment?

After the 9/11 terror attacks by militant terrorist Muslims, there was no wide-scale violence against Muslims, even though the terrorists were all Muslims. The most recent statistics show that anti-Semitism is a far bigger problem than anti-Islamic bias in this country. The statistics show that 60% of biased acts reported were perpetrated against Jews, and only 13% targeted Muslims. So why does Pres. Obama keep up the drumbeat about Islamophobia when there is little of any widespread animosity and hateful actions against Muslims? Does he have an agenda?

People are fearful, and rightly so, about the lives of their families and neighbors who are potential victims of these ruthless, demented, and fanatical terrorists, who most often happen to be Muslims. Yes, most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim and we shouldn't be called “bigots” or “racists” in expressing our concerns that the San Bernardino massacre will be only the beginning of other Muslim terrorist attacks against our citizens and our country. The terrorists have said so, and we would be fools if we didn't take their threats to heart. Should we be labeled a “bigot” or a “racist” for pointing that out? Hitler laid out his plans in his book “Mein Kampf”, but the free world sloughed off his boastings as the rants of a fool, and look what happened. These militant Islamic terrorists have stated that they want the world to be a universal Caliphate, with them in control. Should we be sheep being led to slaughter because we might be called a “bigot” or a “racist”? Only a fool would settle for that scenario. Speak up America, and don't let “political correctness” keep us from telling the truth. Our lives and our country is at stake. Speak up !

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Politically Correct Resentment

I am profoundly resentful of political correctness muzzling my right
to freedom of expression, for fear it will offend somebody, although
the proponents of this ridiculous burden do not have any qualms about
offending me with something that doesn't apply to them. Do as I say,
no as what I do.

A point of contention is the scuttling of many traditions celebrated since
the founding of our country, and those of the adopted traditions from
our legal immigrants, who through their sweat and labor and assimilation
into American society, help build our nation into the envy of the world.
These proud traditions are falling, because we are now told, we have
to assimilate into the cultures of whoever has entered our country legally
or illegally. Not criticize the country they fled from, and forego any hint of
patriotism lest we offend them.

We must abstain singing our national anthem in their presence, or pledge
allegiance to the flag and country. Celebrate Christmas, Easter or any
thing that has a religious connotation for fear they will be offended.
Desist from displaying anything pertaining to a particular tradition, such as
a Christmas tree, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Stars and Stripes, Crosses,
Star of David, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scene, etc.

There are no unlawful intruders into our porous borders. These future
democrats are to be referred to as undocumented citizens.

MERRY CHRISTMAS and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Conservative column from George Giftos



 



 

The Democrat Party: The “Free Stuff” Party!

Some might ask, how can a political party with bankrupt policies, and ideas, get elected to public office? The political party in question is the Democrat Party., Of course, in some cases, the Democrats win because of the ineptness of the Republican Party, but mainly it is because they (the Democrats) promise “free stuff” from the public treasury that appeals to the “get something for nothing” group of “low information voters”. It happened in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, and it might happen again in 2016.

Who makes up the voting bloc that votes Democrat? Well, let's look at the coalition that generally votes for the Democrats. The coalition includes blacks (who vote 90% Democrat), Latinos (who vote 80% Democrat), Jews (who vote 70% Democrat), feminists, gays, government workers, union members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood, uninformed young people (indoctrinated in our public schools and universities), the “forever needy”, the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens (who vote in some cases without being a citizen) etc. Most of these groups, who's members are a small percent of the voting public, become a major force when organized by the left (a/k/a Democrats) as they then make up a sizable number of voters who are hard to beat in an election.

Many of these people are people receiving “free stuff” or are promised goodies or special favors from the government in order to get their vote. Look at some of the policies that the Democrats are in favor of. They generally want “open borders” (to appeal to the Latino voters) because the illegal aliens of today will become Democrat voters in the future; they are in favor of a big government (bloated government) bureaucracy who relies on the Democrats to keep them employed at jobs that in many cases are not needed to run an efficient government; they are in favor of letting convicted felons vote because they know the vast majority will vote Democrat; and they want to push programs that tend to be “Socialist” (over 70 Democrat members of Congress are members of the Democratic Socialists of America) which will drive up our national debt by granting more and more “free stuff”; and they are in favor of inefficient “green energy” programs (crony capitalism) while putting out of business many fossil fuel producers.

Look what is happening now, the Democrat candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are trying to outdo each other by offering massive tax breaks and “free stuff” in order to appeal to the voters. It reminds one of Oprah Winfrey giving away automobiles to her audience. Everywhere they go to they promise the audiences that they will get this tax break, this subsidy, this benefit, if they get elected. In fact, Bernie Sanders proposals are approaching the enormous figure of $18 trillion over the next decade. Hillary is just small amount less.

Look what has happened since Obama became president in 2009. Our government workforce has expanded exponentially, food stamp distribution has increased to 48 million people, people living at or below the poverty line is now at 50 million, the real unemployment rate, the U-6 rate, is over 10% , not the 5.1% as reported by the Labor Department, our labor participation rate is now at 63% (the lowest since 1977), and the average pay of the American worker has declined by over $3,000 since his inauguration. In addition, our credit rating was lowered for the first time in our history. That is the legacy of a bankrupt policy of the government giving away “free stuff” and promises based on lies in order to garner votes for the “next” election.

Now we are faced with giving “sanctuary” to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East in addition to the illegals coming from Central and South America. Our benevolence will cause more financial and social hardship on our citizens in addition to possibly accepting potential terrorists within our country. Are we stupid or what?

This coming presidential election will be a watershed moment for our country. Will we continue “down the road to perdition” or will we finally wise up and stop giving away “free stuff”? Let's hope sanity prevails.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s meanderings

  Hillary promises to raise

the minimum wage to $12.

There.  That oughta do it.  Only a woman could be so compassionate. No other candidate, especially a male, could have the genius to come up with that gem of an idea.  

Doesn’t it make sense?  Entry level jobs that require little else in the way of qualifications, other than showing up to work are not worth even half that.  Ask any employer today, who requires relatively unskilled help to operate his business successfully, how he can sustain a minimum wage of $12. an hour for entry-level workers?  He can’t.  That means that either he is obliged to raise the price of his product, or watch his business slowly decline to the point where it doesn’t pay to open the door.  Only a Ted Kennedy, could have had the chutzpa to make a  blustery argument even when he was sober, for his perennial demand that the minimum wage be increased.  His logic:  “No one can support a family of four on today’s minimum wage.”  It never made sense then . . . it doesn’t make sense, now.

But now, Hillary, the smartest female dimwit on the national scene (it’s her turn, don’t forget) has taken up the good ‘ol Liberal, minimum wage harangue. Mrs. Evil makes precisely the same nonsensical Democrat arguments as the late (thankfully) Ted Kennedy.  I see now what has driven them both to drink.

                                                                                               MORT KUFF   © 11-4-2015

Would You Want Hillary Answering the “Red Phone” in the White House at 3 AM?

That's a question that the voters are going to have to answer this next presidential election. Do you think Hillary would be head and shoulders above any of her opponents if that phone would ring? Does her past indicate that she has the “smarts” to handle the problems that most likely would be at the other end of that phone line?

Let's look at her past performances in foreign policy to judge her.

She spent 4 years as Obama's Secretary of State, were those years productive years for the United States? When asked by reporters to list her meaningful accomplishments as Secretary of State, she seemed to have a “senior moment” and a blank stare, but when she did answer she said that she visited over 100 countries and spoke with many heads of state. I guess you could say that if she wrote a book about her accomplishments as Secretary of State, it would be one of the shortest books ever published.

What did occur under her leadership at the State Department, here's a brief synopsis.

Early on she claimed to have instituted a “Reset Button” with Russia to start a new relationship with Putin and the Russians. How did that work out? We removed the missiles from Poland and the Czech Republic to try to appease the “Red Bear”, but Russia didn't reciprocate, in fact, they later on annexed the Crimea and invaded Ukraine. It looks like Hillary's “Reset Button” didn't work out as planned.

Under her watch, the “Arab Spring” was touted as a means of bringing stability to the Middle East. Have conditions improved in that area of the world? We undermined Pres. Mubarak of Egypt and had him deposed, as a result the Muslim Brotherhood took over (which lasted only a year). We laid down a “Red Line” in Syria that threatened Syrian Pres. Assad with “dire” consequences if he used chemical or biological warfare against his people. He used those weapons against his people, but there were no consequences. It was just an empty threat. All talk and no action, as usual.

Then we had the debacle in Libya, where Hillary was instrumental in pushing the idea of deposing the Libyan dictator, Moammar Khadafy. She did succeed, but what has it wrought - Libya is now a failed terrorist state and as a result 4 Americans in Benghazi were murdered (one of which was our Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens). Talking about answering the “Red Phone” in the White House, if Hillary wouldn't answer the phone when Ambassador Stevens called many times to ask for more security and received no response, who says she would answer the “Red Phone” for someone else?

These are just a few examples of why Hillary would be less than capable to be the person at the end of the “Red Phone” in the White House. This, coupled with the fact that over 60% of the people think that she is a liar, that she is dishonest, and is untrustworthy, would seem to make her the wrong choice for the position of President of the United States. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

So the election of 2016 will be a watershed moment in how the United States will be looked upon by the rest of the world. Lord knows, we have no place to go but up if we elect someone other than Hillary, who would be a continuation of the failed Obama doctrine of “leading from behind”. We can't let Hillary have access to that “Red Phone”, our national security would be at stake and the world would be less safe if that unfortunate happening occurred.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

SISSY

If our sissy commander in chief, Barack Obama isn't capable of leaderships, maybe a
coalition under the leads of King Abdullah II of Jordan, President Abdel Fattah el Sisi
of Egypt and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, show him the way. The
 aforementioned do not play golf, fund raise or take selfies of themselves before
appearing on inane late night shows. You can be sure they know who the enemy is
and have no qualms identifying them by name.

They have the will to meet and defeat evil, but they lack the resources to be decisive.
We have the resources to assist them, but the President doesn't have the fortitude to
face and defeat the evil.

I may not have been in a heroic situation when serving my country, but I feel shame
 to  see second world countries carrying the ball, while the most powerful nation in
 the world, botch up the sacrifices made by our troops go down the drain, giving
 rise to ISIS because of the President's inaction.

Obama's 'RED LINE' is yellow!

Conservative column from George Giftos

Watch Judge Jeanine's fiery opening statement above.

"They're here and it’s time to stop pussy footing around, time to stop this 'politically incorrect' nonsense worrying about other people's feelings, pull out all the stops and start fighting for the survival of this country and our way of life." – Judge Jeanine Pirro

Judge Jeanine also criticized President Obama and his Administration for being overly protective of Muslims and their religion, while being ready to "denigrate all gun owners and take away our rights based on the actions of a few."

"If we are stopped from saying something against Mohammed, the Muslim religion, or Muslims in general, then Sharia law is already here," she said.

Is the Cure Worse Than the Malady?

Have you seen those ads on T.V. that attempt to educate you about a certain product that will either ease your pain or cure your malady, and then list about 20 possible side effects that might occur by taking that medication? It's downright scary that these listed side effects could cause you major health problems or, in the extreme, including even death. Come to think of it, who would like the trade-off of death over a cure? It's enough to scare the living daylights out of you.

Of course, the reason the drug companies go down the list of side effects is that they are covering their butts from the greedy, barracuda trial lawyers who will convince a disgruntled user of a drug medication to sue the drug company because they were unaware of the possible serious side effects of ingesting that medication, and that one of those side effects might have caused an adverse reaction. Look at the ads on T.V. regarding the malady called “Methothelioma”. How many law firms are trolling for victims on T.V., real or imagined, to get part of the award of monetary gain that some of our courts have determined they are entitled to? Fraud is rampant in many of these cases by people suing just to get a piece of the pie. The same thing is happening to the drug industry. So, that is why the drug companies are listing all these side effects so it might mitigate the claims by users of their products if they get an adverse reaction.

I've never seen so many medicines with funny sounding, hard to pronounce names that bombard the air waves, as what is being shown on T.V. today. Where do they dream up these names? In addition, the actors in these ads seem to be so happy that they found the cure for heart attacks, high blood pressure, diabetes, psoriasis, arthritis, breathing problems, and, of course, low libido in men etc. that it looks like a miracle cure, and that you the viewer could be happy just like the actor in the ad. I wonder if they'd be (the actors) so happy, in real life, if they were aware of the possible terrible side effects of those medications they are “hawking” on T.V.?

Just recently, someone mentioned to me that the ad agencies are the biggest purveyors of social “diversity” by overly including an over abundance of minorities as spokespeople for their medications that are advertised on T.V. I guess the “P.C. Police” have exerted their influence on the ad agencies and drug companies to have them show that they are inclusive by including an extraordinary number of minorities in their ads. It really doesn't matter who the actors are, but it does seem odd that a minority community would seem to dominate the airwaves representing the products that will cure the many maladies that affect all of us, regardless of race or ethnicity.

I'm sure there are pluses and minuses to all these medications that are shown on T.V., but with so many side effects, you wonder if the cure is worse than the malady.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann