MORT’s Meanderings

Barack Hussein Obama:

a petty person; a peevish president


Unfortunately, I’ve picked up a bad habit as a result of listening to the endlessly droning- on speeches of the just re-elected, President “Me-Myself-and-I”.

My bad habit is, that I often lapse into writing in the ‘first person’. For example: “I was taught early in life to expect and be tolerant of imperfections in my fellow man.”

Normally, that would be a good thing however, in the case of this President, tolerance of his royal imperfections push really hard at the limit of my tolerance. I have a few reasonable standards of character and behavior that I believe, I have every right to expect from a President of these United States.

For starters, I don’t expect him to pontificate as if he were the Pope.

I don’t expect my President to be snarky and so overly-impressed with himself that he feels it necessary to inject himself as the central figure in every situation he addresses. Case in point: Today, he droned-on far too long while speaking at the memorial service for the late Senator Inouye. He spent most of his speech attempting to bask in the reflected glory of the just-deceased, highly-decorated WWII veteran and 50-year member of the Senate. How unseemly for any president to usurp such a solemn and sad occasion to splash himself with the reflected honor of another man.

How one who has never worn the uniform of any one of our armed forces can so deliberately insult those who have and those who now wear the uniform, by arrogantly alluding to his nominal title as Commander-in-Chief, is equally unseemly. It is in spirit and in fact, egregiously unconscionable. But, that’s how he thinks of himself; that’s who he is.

Barack Hussein Obama is a pitifully small person. All too often, he comes off as a petulant juvenile. Predictably, he displays his ill-tempered side when he is confronted with his short-comings that include: a reluctance to make decisions even in the face of national security emergencies or matters concerning the life and death of U. S. citizens. He bristles at questions pertaining to his ugly, disgusting and blatantly anti-Semitic hatred for the State of Israel, its Prime Minister and elected representatives.

Plus, there is the enigma of his demonstrably professed love of all things Muslim & Islamic that is grossly out of all proportion when viewed in the context of Presidential conversation. We, that is the United States of America, are a nation that was founded and established based upon the Biblical principles of Judaism and Christianity. This President has set about to ‘fundamentally change America’ by use of the nefarious tactics of negating or intentionally ignoring those principles. Were the voters who were mesmerized by this articulate candidate of color and who elected this man in the first place, aware of what he meant by his mantra - ‘Hope & Change’?

What is more to the point at this writing, is whether these same voters who cannot help but be aware now of his true intent, are still so mesmerized that they are willing to accept the disastrous consequences of his re-election? Or, are they so clueless that they haven’t understood and still do not understand those consequences?

Among other terms that are explicitly descriptive and painfully accurate when making reference to the character of Barack Hussein Obama - - Vindictive, Hypocritical, Mean, Spiteful, Fearful, Narrow-minded, Contemptuous, Vengeful, Insolent, Belligerent and shamelessly Boastful.

Wow, that’s quite a litany of negative characteristics I’ve just laid out. One might ask, “Hey there Mort, haven’t you anything positive to say about Obama?” “NO.”

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Do We Need More Gun Control Laws?

You could've almost predicted the knee-jerk reponses by the left-wing gun control fanatics who want to ban all or most guns. They seem to feel that by disarming all citizens (including the vast majority of responsible gun owners) they will solve the problem of wanton killing.

Everybody deplores the senseless killings in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colorado, Ft. Hood, Arkansas, and in Arizona (the Gabby Giffords shooting) etc., but would the banning of guns have prevented these horrendous killings? Only a cock-eyed optimist would have said that would be so.

Step back a little and look at the situation without the emotional fervor that these killings engender. By claiming that it is the gun that is at fault instead of the crazed "nutjob" who pulled the trigger, is putting your head in the sand and living in la-la land.

Instead of banning guns, wouldn't it be wiser to arm certain people in order to try to mitigate the senseless toll of innocents that occur with little fear of reprisal as they perform their dastardly deeds on innocent people?

Look what has happened in the City of Chicago. So far this year, over 446 children have been shot, this has happened even though the City of Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in place on the books in the country. It seems the good, law-abiding citizens of Chicago are at the mercy of the criminal element, who seem to have no problem getting guns, even with those strict gun control laws in place. Why are schools in Israel almost free from similar attacks like what happened in Connecticut? One reason is that teachers and security guards are armed with weapons and they are trained to use them, couldnt we do the same thing here in the U.S.A.?

Aren't teachers educated and responsible enough to be able to be a line of defense immediately if their school comes under attack? By the time police could react to a shooting or any other attack with a weapon, it might be too late to save a goodly number of victims. Of course, arming teachers wouldn't or couldn't have stopped a deranged individual intent on causing harm to others, but they could've mitigated the damage that this crazed individual(s) could do before the police arrived.

We arm our airline pilots today, with no adverse effects, the same could be for teachers, security personnel, and others in facilities that also might be targeted by either foreign or domestic terrorists or deranged individuals.

Although I'm against the banning of guns, some added restrictions might be in order such as, closing some of the loopholes on the purchase of firearms, especially at gun shows, a more thorough background check to try to weed out any psycho's who might want to purchase a firearm, and requiring prospective gun owners to take a gun education course, like what the NRA sponsors today.

Maybe, by working with the reputable gun organizations like the NRA, some sensible rules can be put into place regarding the the sale of rapid fire so-called "assault weapons"? I'm sure that reasonable people, with differeing points of view regarding guns, can join together to address the concerns of both sides. Let's bring common sense back into the discussion and leave the emotions out of the discussion. The old expression of "if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have guns" really does make sense. Remember, the country of Switzerland, requires all its citizens to be armed and the crime rate throughout he country is practically zero. Maybe that amazing result is trying to tell us something?

Since I don't own a gun or never have owned a gun (except a Red Ryder B-B gun as a child) my views are not colored to favor one side or the other, but I try to use common sense in expressing my views on this very emotional topic.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Would Obama Be President if He was White?

To some, that would be a “racist” question because anything negative you would say about him is a “racist” statement, but what would your answer be to that question?

Was Obama elected because of the policies he espoused, or because he was a symbol to assuage the guilt of a good portion of the voting public (the white vote), and of course, he was the favorite son of the minority communities who voted overwhelmingly for him (blacks 95%, Hispanics 71%, Asians 73% etc.)?

There is no doubt in my mind that emotion was the major factor in his election and re-election, facts and common sense were put on the back burner and the results of his presidency, so far, has shown that to be true. We are still in the economic and foreign policy funk that he found in 2009. We are no better off today, even with all the wasteful spending he has instituted and the debt he has piled up.

What did Obama have to offer the electorate to make him so attractive to the voting public? He had a minimal amount of experience in government, economics, and in executive positions (in fact, none). His major accomplishments, if you call them that, was as a college lecturer (who taught Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”) and being a Community Organizer in Chicago‘s inner city. He was an unknown with a “silver tongue”, but the one aspect of him that stood out for him was that he was “black” (actually only half black).

His whole life, up until he ran for president, was being associated with radical people. His parents (including his step-father) were radical socialists, his mentor in Hawaii during his teen years was Frank Marshall Davis, who was an avowed Communist, his grand-parents were left-wing radicals, his professors, who he associated with in college, were left-wing, his mentor in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an avowed anti-Semite and anti-American socialist, and his close friend and person who launched his political career, was an admitted terrorist and radical socialist, Bill Ayers. These were the people he grew up with and who shaped his thinking up till he was first elected president. Shouldn’t these associations have been a pre-cursor as to what his policies would be as president?

Of course, these obvious associations and his core beliefs didn’t matter to the main stream media who embraced him as their “Messiah”, and to other like-minded radicals. They had a “double-header” in Obama, a person of color and a radical thinker who would try to “transform” America into their way of thinking in order to bring to America a form of European-style Socialism, a system that has been tried (the “nanny state“), but has failed miserably (look at countries of Europe today, most are on the verge of bankruptcy).

So my question at the beginning of my screed, would Obama be president today if he was white, deserves some critical evaluation other than just being a “racist” remark or question. A responsible observer of the passing scene would have no other conclusion but that the answer to that question would be “no”, and that we are suffering the consequences of that decision now and will for the next four years. It goes to prove that by electing Obama, the heart, in many cases, supersedes the brain, and we, the citizen, must endure the fickleness of the voting public, much to our chagrin and angst.

God bless the U.S.A.!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s Meanderings

Continuity of incompetence is assured.

The machinations of evolving the decision to select his nominee for Secretary of Defense being made by Obama, the Great Decision-Maker-in-Chief, are almost palpable. Decisions like this are far more difficult than just voting, ‘Present’.

One thing we can count on – whichever of the incompetents, among them Chuck Hagel, John Kerry or a grotesque dwarf named, ‘Honey-Boo-Boo’ – the choice will be one that does nothing to improve our national security. A replacement for Leon Panetta is just that - the replacement of a proven incompetent by another incompetent with absolutely no experience – none, nada. So much for what should be the primary consideration, that is - who would be the best person to oversee our national security?

On the other hand, if one is concerned that the new Secretary of Defense will be dutifully compliant and sufficiently malleable to carry out the mandate of this President – that of neutering our military and reducing it to a state of total incapacity to defend our national security – then the choice of incompetents becomes simply, a beauty contest.

The integration of females with male crews on aircraft carriers and other fighting units, was the first break in the centuries-old tradition of ‘men-only’ sent to the front lines to wage war. There are pros and cons in the argument as to how best to allow females to serve in the armed forces, on a par with males. So, when it comes to the make up of the front-line teams we send to defend our liberty, we find ourselves still awaiting a Solomon to bring forth his wisdom. In the meantime, ‘men-only’ seems to be the best option.

The nullification of the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ way of handling ‘gays in the military’, was a resounding victory for those who choose the ‘alternate’ lifestyle. But, it has proven to be a severe impediment to the absolute necessity for coherence in the military from the smallest units, i.e.- aircrews or infantry squads, to companies, battalions and armies.

And as if these complications weren’t enough, we now have a recently re-elected President who has a terribly skewed view of what the military is all about. He views it as a tool to bring about social justice. Or (facetiously, of course), as a source of labor for tilling the White House vegetable garden under the supervision of the First Lady. Look no further than the latest advertising slogan imposed upon the U.S. Navy’s recruiting program: “The U.S.Navy, a Force for Good”.

Since when is a military force that has been created solely to break things and kill people in its sworn duty to protect and defend this nation and its citizens – since when is such a killing machine to be described in a namby-pamby term like, a ‘Force for Good’?

C’mon man, we might as well dress our armed forces in pink ‘camo’, adorned with lace & pink ribbons and send them out with sling shots as weapons and badminton shuttlecocks as ammo. Such a ‘Force for Good’ is guaranteed to defeat the blood- thirsty forces of Islamist terrorists and keep our shores safe from harm. Thanks Obama – you sure know a lot about leading from behind and defending this nation. Not!

And so my children -

“Ask not what is best for our country – rather, ask what is best for the enemies of the United States”.

Does it really matter who is the next Secretary of Defense? No, it doesn’t. Obama has rigged the system so that the continuity of incompetence is assured.

Now, let’s get onto more important decisions - - where shall the President plan to vacation next?

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Is The Electoral College Ready For The Scrapheap?

Whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney won the last election does not relate to this inquiry as to whether we should change the Electoral College as a means of determining the winner of the presidential election.

We have 50 states in our union, so why should only 10 states be in play and the other 40 neglected by the candidates? Is it fair to all our citizens to be ignored or not appealed to in trying to get their vote for the very important position of President of the United States?

Originally, the Electoral College was put in our constitution because of concerns of the smaller states, rightfully or wrongfully, that the larger states would control the election of the president.

A change was initiated in 1969 to abolish the Electoral College and it passed in the House, but it got only 55 votes in the Senate which was 12 votes shy of the 2/3 of the votes needed for passage. The proposal, therefore, died in 1970 as it could not generate the 67 votes needed for passage. Even if it passed the Congress it would’ve needed 38 states to ratify it, and according to a N.Y. Times survey of states, at the time, only 30 states were for it, 6 states were unsure, 6 states were leaning opposed, and 8 states were solidly opposed.

Today, with all the modern polling techniques refined down to the last voter, the campaigns can figure out what states are in play for their candidate and which states are not. With that in mind, some states, who overwhelmingly favor one party over the other, are ignored by the non-preferred party candidate as being a waste of time, effort, and financial resources.

States like California, New York, and Massachusetts etc., which are overwhelmingly Democratic are ignored by the Republicans because they don’t feel they have a chance of winning those electors, but also the Democrats won’t campaign to any great extent because they have those electors already sewed up. The same is true for the Republicans who can count on states like Texas, Alabama, Georgia etc. who are overwhelmingly Republican.

I’m sure there were many voters in the 40 non-swing states, that didn’t get much play from the candidates, who didn’t vote because their votes, in their minds, weren’t meaningful in determining the electors in their states.

I feel that if we use the popular vote total from all 50 states, we would get more voters out on election day (only about 50% of registered voters actually vote today) as they would feel that their votes actually counted in choosing the president.

At the time the Electoral College was proposed and implemented, there was a genuine fear that the most populous states would control the election of the president, but today, with our population spread out across the land from ocean to ocean, it seems that the fairest election would be the candidate who got the most votes, and the candidates wouldn’t just be interested in the so-called “swing states”. I’m sure, some of the outrageous campaign spending by both parties, would be spread out among the rest of the states and not just spent in the “swing states”.

It’s worth a consideration, don’t you think?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann