MORT’s meanderings

How will we respond to the violence that is coming?

It is my assessment that the number-one threat facing our national security and hence, the number-one threat to the very survival of our liberty and traditional American way of life, is the encroachment of Islam-Shariah-Jihad.

And, the number-one tactic in the war Islam is waging against freedom-loving people worldwide, including the United States, is violence. The threat of violence and actual violent attacks are what the Muslim Brotherhood is all about. Examples abound in every country where Muslim populations have swamped urban areas and been allowed to intimidate local authorities into submitting to demands for ‘accommodation’. What the MB, CAIR and all the other Muslim groups mean by ‘accommodation’ is, a never-ending stream of demands for special recognition and special treatment for miscreant Muslims plus, assured building & occupancy permits for more and more mosques.

It is quite clear that neither this committed Muslim President, his sicko-psycho enablers or his Zombie followers are inclined in the slightest, to put up any kind of resistance to those who would violate, torture and murder U. S. citizens abroad. This means that top- down, this Administration is in denial, it is cowardly or, unapologetically sympathetic to the blood- thirsty methods of the ultra-radical movement know as, Islam-Shariah-Jihad.

We note with disgust, that given the behavior of Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder during Obama’s first term, the American people learned that violence against our citizens within our borders, would be tolerated without so much as the blinking of an eye. Further- violence, atrocities and even murder against our citizens and their property overseas, including attacks on our official Embassies, has been tolerated without blink, by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Her responses have been typical in that they are weasel-worded, obtuse and lacking in specifics. Worse yet, they are usually delivered so long after the fact, as to seem almost unrelated to the offensive event. .

Can we look forward to anything other than more strident stagecraft, more bluster and

more bloviating from John Kerry, presuming he whizzes through the Senate confirmation process as expected? It would have been difficult for this President to have chosen a more inappropriate, more incompetent, more delusional radical than Kerry (who by the way, served in Viet Nam). He and his three lavender Purple Hearts will hold sway over an ever more Swiss-cheese-like Diplomacy on the Potomac – all to the detriment of the already soiled reputation and national security of the United States. In response to the inevitable cries of, “Give him a chance” I say – “Instead of giving him the opportunity to dis-serve this nation as Secretary of State, make him the Ambassador to North Viet Nam. He is a perfect fit to buddy up with the VietNamNorth-dwarf President – treacherous and traitorous birds of a feather, so to speak.

And so, with the official attitude both at the Department of Justice and the Department of State being so totally wobbly and weak-spined, it is also inevitable that we’ll see more threats and more actual violence from the various, benignly-named Muslim organizations within our borders. And overseas, we’ll see continued violence and bloody attacks on our citizens and property by Al Qaeda and other Islamo-thug groups. Further, I predict it will all begin shortly following Obama’s Inauguration. When he swears to preserve and protect the Constitution, it will be yet another example of how he blasphemes the very principles upon which this nation was founded. The Muslim term for such deception is, ‘Taquiyya’. If you are not familiar with that term yet, get to know it.

My question is: “How will we respond to the violence that is coming?” We know for certain that it is headed our way. We know for certain who the perpetrators will be. We just don’t know exactly where or when they will strike. But, we are certain that it will be aimed at ‘soft targets’, with the objective of killing as many innocent Americans as they can. There isn’t any doubt that the bad guys are planning multiple attacks that will be timed to coordinate simultaneously with other events at wide-spread locations, guaranteeing the greatest human carnage and causing the most universal chaos possible.

Being the devilishly clever, evil miscreants they are, they will be testing how we respond by staging several ‘dry-runs’ before initiating their first multi-location terrorist event, here in the United States.

So, I repeat my question: “How will we respond to the violence that is coming?” There was once a time, in fairly recent memory, when it would have been reasonable to presume that somewhere within the complexity of our Federal Government, there were organized groups of people addressing themselves specifically to this kind of threat. Sadly today, we can’t be so certain. That is most unfortunate.

It is my long-held suspicion that chaos and civil disorder are exactly what Barack Hussein Obama and his group-think enablers want to see occur. And, occur with the accompanying human carnage mentioned previously. Why? Why? Because that is precisely the excuse Obama needs to put his ‘personal Police Force’ onto the nation’s streets. That is the condition ‘trigger’ he is watching for. It is all the reason he needs to invoke his presumed authority permitting him to send his army out to take control of all activity in the nation – in order to ‘maintain peace and tranquility’. Yeah, right.

Does this sound far-fetched to you? How many examples in recent history would you like me to cite? Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Gadhafi, Kim Jong il, Idi Amin, Assad, Chavez, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Amadinejad – to name a few. They all used violence to achieve their objectives. And, how did the people in their respective countries respond? It is a matter of record that whatever resistance they were able to mount, wasn’t sufficient to effectively deter the rise to omnipotent power by each of these despots.

Pray tell me, what is different about the approach to gain power by all the aforementioned despots – and Barack Hussein Obama’s mad dash toward total dictatorship?

Call him King, call him Monarch, call him Potentate or call him President - the result is the same – total control over each and every aspect of the lives of every man, woman and child in the United States of America. Is that what we want?

I ask you again: “How will we respond to the violence that is coming?”

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

To Frack or Not to Frack: That is the Question?

A new industry has evolved over the past decade or so, called “Fracking” (definition: it is a process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth). This method of capturing natural gas from shale, is gaining a vast source of valuable energy which could make the U.S.A. a natural gas exporter to the rest of the world. The resulting boom is transforming the American energy landscape. In certain areas of our depressed economy, the states that have encouraged “fracking” have been booming (No. Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas etc.) economically. Of course, with any successful discovery of a natural resource, the “environmental wacko’s” have come out of the woodwork to try to throw roadblocks in the way of exploring for this very valuable and affordable product, that is situated in abundance right here in our own country.

These perpetual naysayer’s of progress have come up with a litany of mistaken concerns trying to scare public officials into not giving the okay to drill for shale gas. The major charge these so-called “tree huggers” put forth is that “fracking” creates cracks in the rock formation that allows chemicals to leach into sources of fresh water. The fallacy of that argument is that the average shale formation is thousands of feet underground, while the average drinking well or acquifer, is a few hundred feet deep.

Another fear put forth by the environmentalists is that “fracking” releases toxic or radioactive chemicals. The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracturing the rock, is water and sand. The chemicals range from the benign such as citric acid (which is found in soda pop), to benzene. Most states have laws on the books to make the drilling companies comply with the strict rules relating to the use and disposal of the chemicals.

Other scenarios put forth by the environmental lobby to create a “doom and gloom” atmosphere in the minds of the public, is that “fracking” causes cancer, earthquakes, pollution from trucks transporting the gas, or that shale exploration is unregulated. Most all of these wild claims have no merit or scientific facts to back them up, as all new industries will have growing pains due to the progress it has brought to the state or area.

With all the scrutiny that this new energy source commands, the companies must make its production safe for the public, and they must make the case that “fracking” is a safe, inexpensive and valuable source of energy, which it is.

Since the environmentalists were an important source of political aid for Obama, the new industry might have to overcome some hurdles that the Obama Administration might try to impose on them, in order to appease the fanatics who are against all types of fossil fuel exploration, no matter how beneficial it is to the financial condition of the country. This process, along with the vast amounts of untapped oil and coal deposits still locked up by the Obama energy policies, could, if left to be explored and captured, could help us out of the financial bind that we find ourselves in at the present time. Common sense seems to be the exception rather than the rule that drives this Admistration’s energy policies.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s Meanderings

Obama’s Nominutz.

One thing is for ‘dang sure’ now that our ‘Lord & Masters, Barack & Hussein & Obama’ have been re-elected by the clueless, the careless, the corrupt, the cowardly and the cabbage-heads - - his future nomination of incompetents to the highest posts in our Federal Government, will continue.

I call them ‘Nominutz’. Anyone out there need clarification?

In a piece I wrote titled, “Obama’s endless supply of fruits & nuts” (12-3-2012) and in another piece titled, “Continuity of Incompetence is assured” (12-15-2012), I expressed my gut thoughts about this issue. I covered what I consider to be the inevitable imposition of Socialist lunacy at the top, guaranteed by Obama’s continued appointments from his endless supply of Nominutz, and their confirmation by a cowardly, complicit Congress. Did I hear someone mention a THIRD TERM?

**********

If interested in reading these articles, they can be accessed on one or more of the following sites:

‘ChuckOnTheRightSide.blogspot.com’

‘RealVerse.com’

‘NoTyrants.blogspot.com

(Look in the right-hand column for ‘MORT’s meanderings’) (Thanks for taking the time & trouble to read my KuffStuff.)

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

The Americans With No Abilities Act

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"

"As a non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me. I’ll finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Sen. Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

Hat tip to George Giftos

Did We Cut Off Our Noses to Spite Our Faces?

How could a president be re-elected after posting such a pitiful record of accomplishment? Historians will have to figure that one out in the future.

Well, it happened, much to the chagrin of myself and others who supported Mitt Romney for president against Barack Hussein Obama.

From all reports of the voting patterns of the election, it was reported that Romney received 3 million less votes than did McCain in 2008. How could that be? Most likely, for whatever reason, some voters stayed home and as a result, Obama was re-elected.

From what I can see, many conservatives seem to want to have a candidate that agrees with them on 100% of the issues, and if that candidate doesn’t meet their criteria, they won’t support or vote for that candidate, or they’ll just stay home. The Democrats don’t seem to have that “purity” problem, they’ll vote for the Democrat come hell or high water. That seems to be winning tactic for the Democrats, something that the Republicans should try to embrace in future elections.

I presume many of the stay-at-home voters never heard of the Reagan 80% rule for supporting a candidate for office? He said we should be able to support a candidate whom they could agree with on 80% of the issues, especially if the choice is someone like Obama.

Where were the likes of Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman in support of Mitt Romney during the campaign? Were they so disappointed in not getting the Republican nomination that they decided to take their ball out of the game and go home? It sure looked that way.

Due to their pique, they consciously or unconsciously, aided in the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama. In addition, the enthusiastic Tea Party supporters were conspicuously muted in their support of Romney. Why? What positions, that Romney espoused, were so unpalatable that they couldn’t give him their meaningful and enthusiastic support when compared with Obama? They might’ve not liked him personally or some of his views, but “why did they cut off their noses to spite their faces” and help in the re-election of Obama when the candidate they should have eagerly supported was head and shoulders above his opponent? Now we are saddled with 4 more years of someone who is trying to turn our country into the United States of Europe.

Who can we thank for this outrage?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann