Sunday, December 17, 2017

What Are The Rules?



For the last few months, we have been inundated with charges, accusations, and innuendos about some famous entertainers, politicians, and businessmen in powerful positions, who have been accused of the sexual abuse or harassment of women, what are we to believe? In the rush to judgment, many have claimed that any woman who has accused a man of improper conduct or activity, should be believed, no matter what. I know for sure that there has been sexual abuse upon women (ever since humans were living in caves), especially when men were in positions of power and women were the subject of that power, and those validated cases should be shown the light of day and the perpetrators should be liable for their indiscretions of abuse and harassment.

The murky water comes about when some of the charges of sexual abuse might not be all that cut and dried. There have been shown instances where these charges have been the result of vindictiveness, political considerations, and outright fantasy, and have been totally found to be made up out of whole cloth as retribution by the accuser. As a result, many men have had their reputations sullied and their careers shattered by sometimes untruthful accusations of sexual misconduct or physical abuse. WHAT ARE THE RULES?

Since time began and humans have inhabited the earth, the male of the species has been classified as the “predator” and the females have been classified as the “prey”. One reason might be that the male is physically stronger, in most cases, than the female. Women, over the ages, have therefore had to face a dominant male who sometimes abused that superiority of physical strength in his dealings with females (it is very pronounced in the Muslim religion).

So, what constitutes sexual abuse or sexual harassment? By the way, a sexual abuser can be an equal opportunity perpetrator, as women can also be charged with sexual abuse (ex: women in positions of authority, and women teachers etc.), but the overwhelming charges of sexual abuse is put on the shoulders of the male, in most cases.

It seems that we, in this day and age, that we are defining sexual abuse and sexual harassment down. Almost anything now can be considered sexual abuse such as telling a crude joke; having a nudie or a revealing swimsuit calendar on the office wall; a man innocently putting his hand on the shoulder or arm of the woman (not like in the case of Sen. Al Franken who was caught actually groping a woman); or even a 93 year old man in a wheelchair patting a woman on the butt; can be charges of sexual abuse or sexual harassment. In addition, sexual harassment is often dependent on the feelings of the woman involved. Asking a woman out on a date a second time after she had turned him down once, if she liked him, he could be classified as being “persistent”, but if she doesn't like him she might call it “creepy harassment”. In some cases, the man can't win by trying to be the pursuer (as society has deemed proper), because it depends on the woman, if she likes you, it's O.K., if she doesn't, it might be “creepy harassment”.

In some cases, women do lie about rape (and sexual abuse), ex: the Tawana Brawley case of crying rape when their was no rape; the Jackie Coakley case about a non-existent campus rape on the Univ. of Virginia that was posted in the Rolling Stone magazine; and the Duke lacrosse team case, that were all phony charges of rape and the accused were “tarred and feathered” in the media and the authorities, but were later exonerated after the men's reputations were ruined or dragged through the mud.

So, what are the rules between men and women regarding sex and power, and charges of sexual harassment and sexual abuse? Should an accused man (or woman) be given his/her right of “presumed innocence” or should the accuser and the media be given “carte blanche” that the charges be believed, no matter what are the circumstances as to fact or fiction?

We are now in a public feeding frenzy whereby the roles of men and women are being placed in a state of flux, fueled by an enormous dose of “political correctness”.

Abuse, both sexual and abuse of power in the workplace, should be prosecuted (as represented by Harvey Weinstein, Rep. John Conyers, Matt Lauer etc.), but instances of minor verbal and innocent touching among the sexes, or consensual sex between, both heterosexual and homosexual participants in a relationship gone bad, should not be the cause of felony accusations and slander and libel. One-sided guilt is not fair to anyone, especially to the person accused of misconduct. He or she should have their “day in court” to determine who is telling the truth.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann











Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 14, 2017

MORT’s meanderings


My take on the 2017 Christmas Décor at the White House.
Down through the years, the Christmas decorations at the White House have been increasingly beautiful. From the photos & videos I’ve seen, this year’s decor tops them all.  Despite the ludicrous rants of the All-Wrong-All-the-Time-Trump-Haters to the effect that Melania Trump is personally responsible for the worst-ever look at the White House, they are simply wrong.  They are as usual, simply dead-wrong.
I have no inside info however, I’m guessing that while she was assuredly given a heads-up briefing on the plans for Christmas decorations and had the opportunity to provide some input, the First Lady isn’t responsible for the placement of every wreath and bit of sparkle as the Trump-Haters would have us believe.   
What a comparison to the bah-humbug attitude toward Christmas that prevailed during the eight years of the previous President, his family and his administration.  If memory serves, ‘tribe Obama’ packed up and bugged out of town, all the way to Hawaii before the Spirit of the Christmas season landed in the White House.  
The 44th President Barack Hussein Obama, the devout Hypocrite wanted nothing whatever to do with any celebration that was so alien to his upbringing in the ideology of Islam.   The Judeo-Christian principles that guided the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution are unbelievably, the direct antithesis of Obama’s belief system.  And while the rest of the Nation traditionally celebrated the spirit of the Christmas season each year, Obama weirdly enough, chose to absent himself and his family from the White House. What does that tell you?
I confess to an overwhelming feeling of giddy exuberance when I see the exquisite decorations in and around the People’s House in the Nation’s Capital – knowing that this year, the exquisite First Lady and President Donald J. Trump are the respectful, patriotic residents who currently occupy my White House.   
I want to take this opportunity to thank the voters in Fly-Over Country for making this a very, very MERRY CHRISTMAS” in America.             
                                                                                              MORT KUFF © 12-11-2017     










Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Who's a Bigot, a Racist or a Fascist?


Those words are bandied about willy-nilly 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”. That same definition can be used for the terms racist and Fascist as well.

So, if you disagree with another person or express a negative opinion of another person or group, you become a prime target for being called a “bigot”, a “racist”, or a “Fascist”, especially if you are a Republican or a Conservative. That term “bigot”, along with the term “racist” and “Fascist”, are being 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 today, when they can't argue the facts, and are unable to back up their positions on the issues, especially when the debate is about race or religion. Even today, with no proof whatsoever, President Trump is called a “racist”, a “bigot”, or a ”Fascist” by the liberal left on a regular basis. Their hatred knows no bounds. Even some loony Democrats, like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.), are calling for Pres. Trump's impeachment, just because they don't like him personally and that he is president, and he is not a Democrat. I guess you could say there are no fools like old fools, and those Democrats fit that description.

One of the biggest practitioners of this labeling was none other than our former “Liar in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. In his many comments about race and religion during his 8 years in office, he blamed others, mostly Republicans or Conservatives, of engaging in hate speech because they protested the actions of certain groups relating to race and religion. It seemed, no matter what the situation was, when it came to race or religion, he always took the side 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 did that work out? We are now more divided, as a nation than ever before, thanks to the policies and rhetoric of Pres. Obama, and racial “bomb throwers” like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

The designation of the terms “bigot”, “racist” and “Fascist”, are becoming so hackneyed that it is like the boy who cried “wolf” too often, in that, after a while, 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 highly emotional terms, in that regard the far-left has been very successful in their mission. The term “political correctness” has been popularized as a result of this concerted effort to stifle “free speech”.

Look at what former Attorney General Loretta Lynch proclaimed after the San Bernardino shootings had 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”. Was she, and other bureaucrats, going to be the arbiters of what was or is not inflammatory speech? Did she not believe in the 1st Amendment? Where is the outrage today when these terms are used indiscriminately against others? Especially their political opponents.

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 government statistics show that antisemitism 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 did Pres. Obama and the Democrats keep up the drumbeat about Islamophobia when there was little of any widespread animosity and hateful actions against Muslims? Did they 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”, “racists”, or “Fascists” in expressing our concerns that the San Bernardino massacre, the shooting in the Orlando nightclub, and the mowing down, by a truck, of innocent civilians in lower Manhattan, for pointing out who were the perpetrators of these terrorist acts. These will not be the only Muslim terrorist attacks against our citizens and our country in the future. The terrorists have said so, over and over again, and we would be fools if we didn't take their threats to heart. Should we be labeled a “bigot”, a “racist” or a “Fascist” 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, World War 11. These militant Islamic terrorists have stated that they want the world to be a universal Caliphate, with them in control by using Sharia law. It's stated in the Koran. Should we be sheep being led to slaughter because we might be called a “bigot”, a “racist”, or a “Fascist”? 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 are at stake. Speak up ! Support the policies of President Trump as he tries to institute policies that will make us safer from future terrorist attacks. And, don't let partisan animosity toward our president, deter us from instituting practical solutions regarding this problem.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann













Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 7, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

   Who really controls the Internet?


I’m certain that my experience is not unique when it comes to feeling frustrated because a photo or a headline has led me to attempt to access a site – only to have a scary notice appear on my screen, warning me about accessing this site at the risk of such action causing great damage to my computer.
Who makes that decision?  Why is such a site permitted in the first place?  Who, why and how are sites blocked?  Without doubt, the decisions are based upon political considerations.
In addition to the two major political parties that dominate the news & views in this country, there are untold dozens of groups with a wide variety of axes to grind, viewpoints to counter plus,  ideologies to expound upon and single-issue causes to foster. One ponders, Who really controls the Internet?’  
Surfing the internet and navigating the plethora of intriguing sites while trying to dig beyond an arresting photo or title, can lead one to full-blown frustration, disappointment and disgust, blinding anger and extreme spikes in one’s blood-pressure.
Who, other than me, remembers the good old days of the reigning communications technology that was represented by ‘smoke signals’?  Have we really advanced all that much?
                                                                   MORT  KUFF  © 12-4-2017


















Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 3, 2017

No One is Above the Law?




Do you really believe that, or do you feel that there are some people who are really above the law? That's the question many are asking about Hillary and Bill Clinton. Some have compared the Clinton's to the “Great Houdini”, the great magician and escape artist, and who they say make Houdini look like a rank amateur. No law seems to touch them. No regulation seems to control them, and it seems no prosecutor wants to take the risk of holding the Clinton's accountable for anything. The only thing that was a negative consequence for the Clinton's, in the past, was that Hillary failed to win the presidency two times, which, most people feel, was her fault.

Can you imagine any of us doing what the Clinton's have done and getting away with it “scot free” with only a meaningless slap on the wrist?

The “modus operandi” of the Clinton's when they are caught with “their hands in the cookie jar”, is that they use their tried and true escape maneuver, “selective amnesia”. In other words, they “dummy up”. Is it logical that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, whom Bill collected $12 million for his memoirs, and Hillary who got $8 million for hers, which comes to $20 million, for the memories of these two lawyers who have repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. It sort of boggles the mind, doesn't it?

What's the latest sleazy situations the Clinton's have been involved in that doesn't meet the “smell test”?

To start off, as Secretary of State, Hillary, was, as government rules dictated, supposed to use a government sanctioned server for use in her duties as Secretary of State while using her e-mails, and for which she agreed to do by signing a form on day one of starting on the job, but, thereafter, she knowingly decided to use her “own server” for both her personal and government communications, some of which contained “classified government” information. She was investigated by the FBI for that breech of protocol, and on July 5, 2016, the FBI Director, James Comey, went on T.V. to bring forth what they had found in their investigation, and whether or not Hillary violated the law. Out of a 15 minute presentation by Comey, which during the first 13 minutes, he laid out a perfect case of why Hillary violated the rules, but in the last two minutes of his presentation, he stated that he would NOT recommend prosecution of Hillary because he concluded that Hillary did not “intend to violate the law” (by the way, the law, in this situation, does not require intent, and also, he was not authorized to make that determination, the Attorney General was). Even Houdini would've been amazed at that escape by Hillary.

Then there was the deal, approved by Hillary, that allegedly allowed for the sale of 20% of our uranium reserves to the Russians via a Canadian “friend”, who had heavily contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton, during that time, collected $500,000 for a speech in Moscow for a bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. In addition, a donation of $140 million was contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Do these events smell like a “quid pro quo”? Is the Pope Catholic?

The trail of corruption has continued right up to the inauguration of Donald Trump, whereby the Clinton campaign and the Democrat

National Committee paid $12 million ($9 million by the Clinton campaign and $3 million by the DNC) for a salacious “Dossier” by a company called “Fusion GPS”, who worked with some Russian operatives who came up with totally bogus information sliming Trump in an attempt to undermine him and his presidency. So far, no prosecution has taken place under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. You have to wonder why nothing has been done as yet?

So, with all these shenanigans by the Clinton's, and no retribution by the law, you could say that, as of now, that the Clinton's are above the law. Let's hope that justice finally prevails, and the Clinton's finally will be made to pay for their transgressions and hopefully fade away onto the scrap heap of history.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann










Bookmark and Share