Sunday, November 27, 2016

Are Enormous Speaking Fees and Huge Donations Really Camouflaged Bribes?

We all know that taking money by a politician or a government official from someone in order to get a favorable government action, is a felony and is called a bribe. Well, suppose the payment of money is in the form of an enormous speaking fee to a spouse or a generous donation to a certain charitable foundation that a particular politician or government official runs or has an interest in, should that be considered a bribe or a “quid pro quo”? Does that sound like a situation that the Clinton's are involved in?

Suppose Hillary Clinton was elected president, how then would she be able to to deal with foreign countries, foreign leaders or oligarchs that have contributed millions of dollars to her spouse, Bill Clinton, and to the Clinton Foundation? Do you think that those countries that have donated millions of dollars to Bill Clinton (and Hillary Clinton after her stint as Secretary of State), and the Clinton Foundation, did so out of the goodness of their hearts or do you think they expected something positive in return for their largess? Is the Pope Catholic? Of course.

If you think about this unholy alliance between donor and donee, many of whom are banned by law from donating to a politician or government official directly, could this be called a clever dodge of the law by circumventing the law already on the books? By paying a large speaking fee to a spouse or donating a huge sum to a charitable foundation, that is operated by the politician or government official, and then getting special favors, could that be called a bribe? Any astute and fair minded person would say that this just doesn't smell right.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton, over the past 15 years have gone from being broke (which they claimed they were in 2001) to now be worth over $150 million. In addition, the Clinton Foundation is estimated to have around $2 billion in working capital , of which it has been estimated that the Foundation donates about 10% to charities in the U.S. and around the world. How did they make all the money, did they start a successful business, did they sell a product or idea, or did they inherit all those millions of dollars? The answer, of course, is that they sold “access” to the government which they had ties to and money to spend. Many people have claimed that the Clinton Foundation is just a Bill and Hillary “slush fund” used to pay big salaries to cronies, to pay for travel around the world and a host of other non-charitable expenses, while the Clinton's have claimed a million dollar charitable donation to the Clinton Foundation on their income tax return. That's like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other pocket.

Could you believe that anyone, who is so well connected in policy positions within the government (or being an ex-president as Bill Clinton is) would be worth from $200,000 to $800,000 for a 30 minute speech to various companies and countries within and outside of the United States? What words of wisdom could they possibly have to tell these companies and countries other than deal with me and something good will happen to you. Shouldn't that be called a bribe or a “quid pro quo”? You make the call.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 24, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

Thank Hillary for her dis-service.
Whenever I wear my NAVY cap, invariably someone will address me and say, “Thank you for your service.”  I’m always gratified and always respond, “Thank you; it was my duty and it was my honor.”
After an overly long career of documented dis-service to the legal profession and to those who chose her to represent them in her many positions and elected offices, I believe that Hillary should be recognized publicly for her abysmal record of dis-service to her former clients, constituents and to all the citizens of the United States.
As a young devotee of Saul Alinsky and his message of social revolution as espoused in his infamous book, “Rules for Radicals”, Hillary set her sights on doing things the wrong way, playing fast and loose with the truth, learning and applying all the short cuts to power and wealth and on honing her skills as a left wing, ‘radical’ politico.
Her record as an unprincipled lawyer; an unabashed suck-up to connected people starting with Bill Clinton; and her adventures in collusion as First Lady to ‘Bill’ when he was Governor of Arkansas then, as First Lady to ‘Slick Willie’ when he became President of the United States, is an indelible dark stain on the concept of ‘ethical public service’.
Following her unbecoming behavior as ‘First Lady’ during the Clinton years in the White House, she captivated the Liberal Democrats of New Yawk with her wit and charm and so, they elected her to represent them in the U.S. Senate. After her dynamic service in that deliberative body that included the highlight legislative achievement of re-naming a U.S. Post Office, she somehow imagined herself as qualified to run for the Presidency.  She was flattened by the Chicago street thug and Community Organizer, the half-black / mostly Muslim activist who became the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.
In his infinite wisdom upon becoming the President, Obama anointed Hillary as Secretary of State. Her record of corruption and pay-for-play in which she compromised this nation in every conceivable way, shape and form by her misguided and ill-conceived diplomatic bungling, is a textbook on how not to serve as the nation’s chief diplomat. Her resounding defeat in her recent attempt to gain the Presidency is unprecedented in the history of this nation’s elections. It proved the fallacy that, ‘It was her turn”. And, it capped her utterly disgusting career of public dis-service.                                         
        MORT KUFF  © 11-13-2016

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 20, 2016

What a Disgrace!

Out of all the government agencies over the years, the military and the F.B.I. were considered the most responsible and honest in the U.S. government bureaucracy. Since the election of Obama, that perception of honesty and integrity has sort of eluded the once noble F.B.I. after this latest debacle about Hillary's use of a private e-mail server and the F.B.I.'s decision not to recommend an indictment.

F.B.I. Director James Comey, had a reputation for honesty and integrity, but it seems that he got caught up in the Clinton's “web of deceit”, and sold out for political purposes.

As an example, right after the 4th of July weekend, James Comey gave a review of the testimony and evidence of the questioning of Hillary Clinton by the F.B.I. (Director Comey did not attend the questioning) and his decision to indict or not to indict Hillary Clinton for “gross negligence” in using a private e-mail server in the conduct of her business as Secretary of State.

For the 1st 13 minutes of a 15 minute presentation, Comey laid out a forceful array reasons (including lying and obstruction of justice) why Hillary Clinton was guilty of violation of federal statutes. During the last 2 minutes, be did a complete 180 degree turn and said that he would not make a recommendation to indict her. It looked like the “fix was in” and that he “folded like a cheap camera” for blatant political purposes. Is that too harsh a criticism of Director Comey's decision?

Let's review as to what happened leading up to Director Comey's decision.

It has been verified and admitted to by Hillary Clinton, that as Secretary of State, Clinton used a private e-mail server (and 13 phones, not one like she first claimed) in conducting her business as Secretary of State, contrary to agency and government rules and regulations. In fact, when she was sworn in as Secretary of State, she signed a paper agreeing to use the the secured government e-mail server for conducting government business. She ignored what she signed and immediately, upon assuming her duties, used a private server and thereafter repeatedly lied about it, even after her stint as Secretary of State. Did she violate the law, contrary to what Comey determined, and therefore should have faced charges of “gross negligence” (a felony)?

Here's the law that pertained to her actions of using a private e-mail server in conducting her business as Secretary of State, contrary to agency rules and regulations.

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 (b)

“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroy the same, shall be fined under this title, or imprisonment of not more than 3 years , or both: and SHALL FORFEIT HIS OFFICE AND BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OFFICE AND BE DISQUALIFIED FROM HOLDING ANY OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES”.

Isn't that what Hillary was guilty of? How could the F.B.I. Director Comey come to any other conclusion other than by recommending an indictment of Hillary Clinton?

Just prior to Comey's announcement, there was a suspicious meeting between Hillary's husband, Bill, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Comey's boss) on a tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. For what reason was this meeting for? Immediately after that meeting, Director Comey made that bizarre decision. All circumstantial evidence points to that the “fix was in”.

Subsequently, it has been revealed that even President Obama (using a pseudonym) communicated with Secretary Clinton on her private unsecured e-mail server, thereby making him an accessory to the crimes Hillary was being investigated for. By proceeding with an indictment, he would most likely be called upon to testify about communicating with his Secretary of State on an illegal private server. He couldn't let that happen as it would tarnish more, his already flawed legacy. It looks like Director Comey was given the “word” - don't recommend indictment or all hell would break loose and you will be the one responsible for a candidate for president having to quit the race.

The feasible conclusion is, the F.B.I. compromised it's fine reputation by letting politics determine policy. Shame on the F.B.I. and Director Comey. What a disgrace!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Another First Amendment Visit

Abuse of the First Amendment has been the subject of many of my writings in the past, and the need to look into honing its interpretation and application, where one side retrofits it to their devices and denies it to its opponent. It has become evident a neo liberal motion has invaded the democrat party, denying its protection to any one not in sync with their socialist agenda.

Under their code of political correctness, to express an opinion contrary to theirs is racist, misogynistic and bigoted.

The right to demonstrate against anything you feel harmful to your quality of life is one of the cornerstones of the First Amendment. No where in the First Amendment, or any other government document does it allow harm or destruction of anyone’s body or property as a freedom to express oneself. A majority of demonstrations we are being subjected to are fraudulent and motivated by organizations hostile to our American values and way of life. Example of this is the millennials taking to the streets, because their “Free Stuff” party lost a legitimate election, motivated to action by the leftist influences of professors who cut their teeth in the radical sixties.

Missing in the crowds were those who stayed home to use their brain in finding solutions to any discourse, while those rioting in the streets are the brain dead, resorting to violence for changes that can never be permanent.

The na├»ve are easily maneuvered by the anarchists infiltrating their ranks, who believe their efforts are humanitarian and keeping our borders closed is not humane. They don’t see the danger of undesirables among good people filtering through to create havoc, as is happening in Europe. Their plight is survival, but it is not bigotry to be cautious and deny entry for anyone who follows the tenets of a religion advocating Sharia law that is contrary to our laws, that negates the rights and protection by any of our amendments. Like most of us, our president elect, Donald Trump is not versed in the lingo of politicians and diplomats, so plain talk is not acceptable for elitists, so our words are open for them to ridicule and twist. By the demonstrations we are witnessing, it seems to be working.

Apparently it was OK to back a liar and non-indicted felon, who in the words of the FBI, was careless and negligent with state secrets, and by her ineptness, is responsible for the death of 4 of America’s best in Benghazi.

I ask any of you who are angry over the election results, if one of the four murdered in Benghazi was your son, would your vote be different? If your answer is no, you are a very sick person!

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Overwhelming Stench of Corruption is No More in Wash D.C.

Donald Trump, love him or hate him, is now the new sheriff in town. He pulled off the miracle of the century by promising that, by electing him, he would “drain the swamp” and get rid of the overwhelming stench of corruption that now permeates the center of our government in Wash. D.C. The elites and the members of the establishment, both Democrat and Republican, who have despised him, will now will have to adjust their ways of doing business. He accomplished this miracle with a main stream media being solidly and viciously being massed against him and his policies, and a small group of disgruntled Republican RINO's, who couldn't see the forest for the trees.

The “Typhoid Mary” of American politics, Hillary Clinton, has finally been shown the door before she could do any more damage to our democratic republic. Never did the voting public have a more clear choice to say, “no more Clinton corruption” now or in the future.

Donald Trump made a very conciliatory victory speech, which received much praise from both friend or foe, reaching out to all the American people regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or gender. Being the smart, intelligent person that he is (contrary to how he was pictured in the biased media), he will be the real uniter and not the divider, like our present leader was supposed to be these past 8 years.

Since Donald Trump was not beholden to any of the various special interest groups, like his opponent was, he will be able to do what is right and not what is expedient for the American people. What a breath of fresh air that is!

Now Donald Trump will have to produce for the American people, who gave him a mandate by returning, for him, a Republican Senate and House of Representatives, but after watching him tirelessly campaign the past year and a half, who doesn't think he won't succeed in his quest to “Make America Great Again”? He has been a tremendous success in most all of his endeavors. He does what only others talk about. His ego, which he has been criticized for, will be his motivating force to succeed as President for all the people. Don't underestimate him.

Yes, Trump is sometimes rough around the edges and sometimes he says things that get him in trouble, but you can't say that he doesn't put his heart and soul into what he believes in. He will not be all talk and no action like some of our feckless politicians have shown a propensity to say and not do.

The fumigating gun has or will arrive in Wash. D.C. to eradicate the “stench of corruption” that persists in the workings of the elites in the halls of Congress and in the bureaucracy that feeds off of it.

God bless President-elect Donald Trump, and may he succeed in bringing back the thoughts and ideas that our “Founding Fathers”, who have given us the means of righting our ship of state that has been off-course these past 8 years.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 6, 2016

The Clinton's “Modus Operandi”

“Modus Operandi” is a Latin word that that is defined , mainly by law enforcement personnel, as to determine the usual way that a criminal(s) performs a crime. In addition, it is a pattern or method used by criminals over and over in the commission of their crimes. For the past 30 years that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been in public service, they have, as their “modus operandi”, been able to skirt the law in ways, that are obvious to a discerning individual, that they have broken the law, but have rarely been held accountable for their actions. They seem to be above the law. One law for the Clinton's and one law for the rest of us poor “schlubs”.

Peggy Noonan, noted political columnist, has pointed out, in a recent column, what she called the “Clinton Scandal Ritual”. She said that the Clinton's “modus operandi” in facing charges of wrongdoing in their lives is to lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, and stall for time. When time passes, call the story (the scandal) “old news” full of questions that have already been answered. For them, this tactic has worked wonders as they have avoided jail time over and over again, whereas an ordinary person would not have been so lucky in disobeying the law and getting away with it like the Clinton's have.

The list of Clinton scandals over the years include the following.

Hillary once claimed that she parlayed a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 windfall, just by reading the Wall Street Journal. She got personal help, it was revealed later, by one of her husband's friend, as Bill Clinton was then the Arkansas Attorney General, as a favor (a quid pro quo?). When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he was accused by cabaret singer, Jennifer Flowers, of being his mistress for 12 years as Bill was married to Hillary. He denied any such thing, but years later in a deposition, he admitted that the affair was true. It was not a crime to have an affair, but his blatant denial to the American people was an example of how they were so disingenuous, even back then.

While President Bill Clinton was in office, Hillary and Bill fired the White House travel office staff under a phony reason of malfeasance, and put in their place their friends from Hollywood. The travel office staff sued and won their case in court and were ordered reinstated.

Toward the end of Clinton's second term, Clinton was accused of having an affair with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, in the Oval Office. He denied the affair on T.V. to the nation, but admitted it later when confronted with evidence to the contrary. During a deposition in that case it was found that he lied to a grand jury, and was forced to pay another victim of his sexual abuse, Paula Jones, an $850,000 fine and the loss of his law license. You could say it was basically a slap on the wrist because he was a Clinton.

When they left the White House, they removed about $200,000 worth of White House furnishings, of which they were forced to return approximately. $120,000 of the items after it was revealed what they had illegally removed. No other penalty was assessed.

The “unpunished crimes” continued after they were leaving the White House. Bill Clinton, as he was leaving office, pardoned a number of unsavory characters including swindler Marc Rich (a fugitive from the U.S. and a Clinton campaign contributor), pedophile Mel Reynolds, a convicted former congressman, and a group of convicted Hasidic Jews from New Market, N.Y. , as a “payoff” to that community to vote for Hillary in her upcoming election for senator from N.Y. The town of New Market, a solid Republican town,voted for Hillary, 1,408 to 8 (another quid pro quo?)

In the years since, as Hillary became Senator and eventually being appointed Secretary of State after she lost the presidential primary and the general election was won by Barack Obama, the selling of access to government rapidly increased to make the Clinton's multi-multi millionaires. Enormous speaking fees (ranging from $250,000 to $800,000) paid to Bill, and to Hillary, after she left the State Dep't., and donations to their Clinton Foundation came from all over the world, even from extremely poor and corrupt nations who eventually got favorable treatment on business dealings they had with the U.S. government. It has been charged that the Clinton's got wealthy by selling access to our government and not by producing a product or a service, or promoting a new idea of how to make a profitable company and creating jobs.

Eventually, the extent of the crimes the Clinton's committed will come out, but don't count on them paying any consequences for their illegal actions for as I stated before, there are two sets of laws, one for the Clinton's and one for the rest of us.

These were just a few examples of the “modus operandi” of how the Clinton's have skirted the law for their own selfish benefit over the years. Let's hope that the voters don't make the same mistake they made in 2008 and 2012, by electing a “grifter” like Hillary Clinton (and Bill Clinton, as you get two for the price of one) to be president of the United States.

Conservative Commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 3, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

Trump described Hillary as a ‘puppet’.

As it might possibly have escaped your notice, I’m informing you that we are sadly, living in a nation that has had its American-English language re-defined by that brilliant linguist, Barackus Hooz-insane Obummer.  This faux-educated charlatan-buffoon has taken it upon himself to re-define many long-established terms and has turned them upside down to mean something far afield from the original definitions that have appeared in print in widely-accepted dictionaries for so many decades.
Recently, during what has laughingly been called, ‘The Last Debate’, Trump described Hillary as a ‘puppet’.
Permit me to role-play as the ‘Great Re-definer-in-Chief for just a moment.  I would submit this re-definition of ‘puppet’ in Hillary’s case as,  ‘POOP-ette’.   Are there any questions?

     MORT KUFF   © 10-21-2016

Bookmark and Share