The “Collusion Delusion”

After over a year of investigating Pres. Trump for collusion with the Russians, nothing has been found to justify the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians (zero, nada, nil). During the past year three members of the Obama security team, John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey, all said that they found no evidence that during the presidential campaign, and during the transition, that the Trump people or Trump colluded with the Russians. When Trump won the election (against all odds), the cry of the astounded Democrats was that it was impossible that Trump, a political neophyte, should've or could've won the election fair and square. They came up with the phony charge that the Trump team must have colluded with the Russians in efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign. There was no proof then, only assumptions, and there has been no proof now, even after one year, that the Russians colluded with Trump. The whole thing is a “collusion delusion”.

It seems that the Democrats and the “Never-Trumpers” (including some disgruntled Republicans), are throwing anything up against the wall hoping that something negative about Trump and his administration will stick, and which might then lead to his impeachment or resignation from office.

The only Russian collusion was not perpetrated by Trump, it was really perpetrated by Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Starting with the ridiculous “reset” button that Clinton used as a P.R. stunt with the Russians; the comment made to the Russian president by Pres. Obama, that after his re-election (in 2012) he would have more flexibility in dealing with the Russians; the signing off on the Uranium One deal by Hillary and Obama's other cronies, which turned over 20% of our uranium deposits to the Russians; to the fact that her husband, former president Bill Clinton, got a $500,000 speaking fee, around the time of the Uranium One deal, by a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin, in addition to a $140 million donation to the Clinton Foundation; to the total indifference of the Obama Administration to the Russian expansion in Ukraine and the financing and the encouraging of anti-Ukraine rebels; and finally, with the payment of $12 million to the Fusion GPS group, with ties to Russian operatives, by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to get salacious and negative information against Trump. These actions show that the real Russian collusion was not with Pres. Trump, but with the Obama Administration, the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Pres. Trump has called the whole Mueller investigation a “witch hunt”, and it looks like he was correct that this whole collusion scenario was a “put-up job” by Trump's enemies to undermine his administration, including high ranking officials in the Obama Justice Department and the FBI, two agencies that were supposed to be non-partisan and above the fray.

Now that the Trump-Russian collusion scam has turned out to be just that, the Democrats and the “Never-Trumpers” have latched onto the claim of a lack of mental capacity of Pres. Trump. It seems nothing will satisfy their addiction to bringing down Pres. Trump at any cost. The truth be damned.

Finally, the Justice Department. has started to re-open the investigation of the real scandals that have its roots in the “Washington Swamp”, the crimes committed by the Clinton's and Clinton flunky's in the government whose main job this past year was the undermining of the Trump Administration. Let's hope the Republicans do not get cold feet and that they continue to root out the “deep state” operatives that have caused so much division in our our government and in the politics of the country.

The “Collusion Delusion” hopefully will pass against Pres. Trump and will show that the real collusion with the Russians was between the Obama Administration, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the DNC.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Being an American is What You Contribute to Becoming One; Not How Much You Can Squeeze Out of It

Democrats a.k.a. sleeper socialists, have a myopic deficiency
differentiating their view between legal and illegal.
Perhaps I can offer some assistance so that they may not look
so ignorant when presenting their case about DACA/Dreamers
and any other immigration discrepancies.

If a person has a savings or checking account in a bank, he or
she is legally able to make a withdrawal, depending on how much
money was deposited.

If a stranger goes to the same bank and takes money from it at
gunpoint, this is not legal.

A person born in the United States is an American. A person who
has applied for admission into the United States and after meeting
all required criteria, including swearing allegiance to it is a
naturalized citizen and an American.

Gate crashing by crossing our borders, avoiding requirements of
the law of our country, then availing themselves of entitlements
meant for our own needy citizenry is illegal. When the fact of their
illegitimacy is revealed, they resent it and take to the street in
protest, waiving the flag of the country they came from.

Our southwest contains many non- simulating, non-English speaking
barrios within sanctuary cities which contain havens for Mara
Salvatrucha 13 (MS 13) one of the most vicious gangs in our country
and the world.

They are not Americans and they will never be, because of the
circumstance of their arrival.

Being an American is what you contribute to becoming one, not how
much you can squeeze out of it.

Conservative commentary by George Giftos

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

The story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, is one of Aesop's fables. It is a tale about a boy who gave false alarms too many times so that future true claims were disbelieved. The moral of the tale is that it shows how liars are rewarded, even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.

This tale could be used to explain what is happening in our country today.... in the irresponsible use of the term “racist” (or racism or other inflammatory terms). It seems if you are on the left side of the political spectrum, if somebody challenges your views, you immediately cry “racism”, whether it is present or not.

It seems that this highly emotional term is used to shut down debate, especially if it concerns a challenge to liberal orthodoxy or opinion. The “racial arsonists” including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus etc. have been using this anti-free speech method of political dialogue for years in promoting their theory of “black victimology”.

It has gotten so bad that in recent years that that charge has become a hackneyed prime example of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, by using the term “racism” (or racist) indiscriminately in trying to promote their agenda of assigning guilt to others (especially others who disagree with them and especially if you are “white”).

A prime example of this highly emotional attack on free speech, is the constant attacks against President Trump by the far-left liberals (a/k/a Democrats) and some anti-Trumper Republicans. No matter what Pres. Trump says (or tweets) or does, he is accused of being a “racist” or worse (including the words Fascist, incompetent, stupid, and the ever present accusation, congenital liar). In the eyes of his enemies, he can do nothing right ( ex: if he came down from the mount with the 10 Commandments under his arm, his critics would criticize him for not having 11 Commandments). Another example of this irresponsible use of the term “racism”, was when Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) was given a first-class plane seat, that was purchased by an “ordinary” person, by the airline company. When the person who bought the seat complained, Cong. Jackson-Lee claimed it was because she was black (i.e, racism). By the way, when the “bumped” woman first complained she didn't know who got her seat. Who in their right mind believes the congresswoman and her charge of racism?

During the debate on the Trump tax and reform bill in Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said that passage of this bill was tantamount of being another “Armageddon” (another boy crying wolf statement). How many believed that giving 80 to 90% of taxpayers more money in their pockets would be “Armageddon”? Only die-hard anti-Trumpers and Democrats would agree with that outrageous statement by Nancy Pelosi.

So, in conclusion, the fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” has relevance today, especially in our political dialogue and political climate. Over-the-top criticism of your political opponents shows that the people using these highly emotional terms have not learned their lesson as set forth in Aesop's fable.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s meanderings

Democrats Watching President Trump’s State- of-the-Union address, looked like petrified rats watching the approach of a Cobra snake.

It was fascinating but sad, to see the Democrat members of Congress including the usually raucus Black Caucus, sitting silently like stone-faced statues, as the President spoke.  They just sat motionless, staring off into space, utterly stunned.  It was a weird phenomenon to witness.

Senator Sourpuss Schumer appeared ashen-faced, confused and at times, disoriented.  Nunzy Pelosi has never been seen to sit in silence for so long.  She appeared frozen in place, afraid to budge – as if she had just soiled herself.  

There were countless opportunities for the Democrats to stand with the crowd or at least to applaud half-heartedly, when the President waxed eloquent with patriotic references or when he touched on issues for which they’ve been loudly advocating.  Absolutely nothing he said in the hour-plus speech that had brought the rest of the chamber-full of Americans to their feet time after time, moved the Democrats to show the slightest sign of agreement.  Their hatred of President Trump was mute but, palpable.  What a treasonous statement it made.  

           

                  “Hello, America:  Did you see what I saw?”

                                                                        

                                                                                   MORT KUFF  © 1-31-2018

TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL?

Remember, Shakespeare once put forward the phrase, “To be or not to be, that is the question”? Well today, with the price of gasoline hovering around the price of $2.50 to $3.00 per gallon, the debate has been joined between two political ideologies, “to drill or not to drill”, that is the question today. On one side, are the people who want to tap our plentiful natural resources to get more oil, natural gas, coal, plus investing in clean nuclear power. On the other side, are the ardent environmentalists and the leaders of the Democratic Party, and many of their naive followers. Today, we use approximately 25% of our energy usage on imports from foreign countries. With Pres. Trump in charge of our energy policy, that percentage will decline sharply. We will become energy independent.

To me, as a commentator on the passing scene, I fall on the side of exploring for and using our natural resources to help in alleviating our thirst for energy and for us to not have to rely on foreign sources of energy for our energy needs. With us spending over $700 billion a year to foreign countries, many of whom are not our true friends, such as Canada (our friend), Venezuela (not our friend), Saudi Arabia (a so-so friend), Mexico (another so-so friend) etc., for obtaining much of our badly needed energy, it is a “no-brainer” to utilize what we have on land (including fracking) or off the continental shelf, to help us lessen our need for these unreliable sources of energy and keep most of that $700 billion right here in the good ole U.S.A.

Yes, the critics are correct, that we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems completely, but by being less dependent on others, and by giving us a larger energy supply, of “home grown” energy, it will keep our country safer by not having to rely on some unstable, and unreliable sources of energy in areas that are very volatile and hostile to the U.S. So, besides being a supply problem, it is also a national security problem. Of course, we must look for and develop alternative forms of energy to help wean us off carbon based fuels. But, it is not economically feasible, at this time, to make believe that we can substitute our energy needs with solar, hydro, wind etc. We should develop all forms of energy, including nuclear, not exclude one or the other, but all. We need bold leadership, in this area, to go for the “whole enchilada”, more oil, more coal, more solar, more wind, more hydro etc., etc. We can do it all, just like we did in putting a man on the moon in 1969.

Who is opposing our quests for exploring for new sources of energy? Besides ex-President Obama, our former “Liar in Chief” (and his two flunky's Biden and Kerry), we have some outside forces using their enormous influence and wealth to thwart our energy efforts to become energy independent. Thank God that Pres. Trump has given the O.K. to complete the Keystone and Dakota pipelines. Did you know that Obama benefactor and billionaire, Warren Buffet, has lobbied against approval of the Keystone and Dakota Pipelines, quite obviously because his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway, is the owner of the Burlington Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) which owns most of the rail lines in the U.S. that connect to western Canada, and they haul 80% of the crude from Canada to the Midwest and Texas. Buffet could stand to lose $2 billion plus a year if the pipeline is constituted and implemented. The longer it is delayed, the more money his company makes. In addition, we have another billionaire environmentalist “nut job”, Tom Steyer, who has pledged $100 million to Democratic candidates who will oppose the pipeline and endorse other “green projects” that Steyer endorses. So far, he's had difficulty getting the Democrats from the “red states” to endorse his proposals because they don't want to alienate the voters of their state who rely on fossil fuels for filling their state's coffers with energy taxes, most of whom are against the extreme environmental agenda of that “limousine liberal”, Tom Steyer.

Unfortunately, most Democratic candidates have bought into the scam of “global warming” (a/k/a climate change) as pushed by that non-environmental scientist, Al Gore. They all seem to be afflicted with that medical condition called “Cranial Rectal Inversion”, and the Democratic candidates seem to have a natural tendency to succumb to this malady more so than Republicans.

If you agree with me, you must get rid of the “rascals”, who have this medical condition called CRI, and you must vote into office, people who will represent you and your needs, and not just the needs of the “nay saying” Democrats and their political party, and their partners in the extreme environmental movement. So to answer the question, it is not whether to “Drill or not to Drill” , it is when, where, and how soon we can drill to tap our vast resources of natural energy right here in our own back yard. The sooner the better.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann