Sunday, March 18, 2018

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 were involved in?

Suppose Hillary Clinton was elected president, how would she have been able 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 being 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, including paying for Chelsea's wedding, 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 was so well connected in policy positions within the government (or being an ex-president as Bill Clinton was) 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 he possibly have to tell those 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. And yet you still have the Clinton toadies still making excuses for their shady deals in their quest to become multi, multi millionaires. With all the nefarious deals and practices over the years from Arkansas to Wash. D.C., the Clinton's still are walking free and getting accolades from their fellow Democrats. Those are the same people who are now criticizing Pres. Trump as being corrupt. It seems that whenever the Democrats point the finger at Republicans for illegal practices, they are just pointing out the things they have been doing by themselves over the years.

The Clinton's should follow the advice of the late 5-Star General Douglas MacArthur, by just “fading away” as they have left a stain on America which will last for generations.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 15, 2018

MORT’s meanderings

There is an edifice located on 23rd St.,NW in
 Washington, D.C. that is widely known as, ‘The
 State Department’. . . it was formed on July 27, 1789, some 229 years
 ago and today, employs about 13,000 people and operates in 180 countries 
with a budget that is upward of $36 Billion (with a ‘B’) taxpayer dollars. This
 Department is charged with the responsibility to advise the President, lead the
 nation in foreign policy issues, negotiate treaties and agreements with foreign 
entities and represent the United States at the United Nations.  A big job.

Since the Founders of this nation that included such capable men as George 
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin to name just a
 few, the average level of skill practicing the art of diplomacy on behalf of the USA,
 has sadly and unfortunately, declined appreciably.  Among the recent, lack-luster 
Secretaries of State are two women, the bumbling Madelyn Albright and the
 infamously corrupt Hillary Clinton, each of whom added less than nothing to 
improve that lineage. Following those unsuccessful acts, we were forced to 
endure the blustering, cowardly and spectacularly incompetent presidency of 
Barack Hussein Obama, coupled with the dubious aid of his Secretary of State
 - the all-time arrogant boob, John F. Kerry.  Together, they managed to concoct
 and pull off the greatest example of a diplomatic disaster the World has ever 
witnessed - the Great Iran Nuclear Surrender & $ Giveaway. It is way beyond
 the worst, ever.

Now, to the utter shock, dismay and extreme discomfort of the Dept. of State’s
 career bureaucrats and Foreign Service Officers around the world, they learn that 
 they’ve been put out to pasture by President Donald J. Trump. ‘The Donald’, who
 is universally recognized as the greatest negotiator since the genius diplomat, Ben
 Franklin himself, has elected to sidestep the middle-men & middle-women of
 ‘State’.  Current Secty of State Rex Tillerson, led by President Trump, will take on
 the direct diplomatic negotiations with the world’s leading bad guys. Guess who 
comes out on top after these tussles? I can’t wait for the fur to fly.
                                                                        MORT KUFF    © 3-10-2018

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 11, 2018

Diversity =s Perversity

The catchword in liberal circles today is the term “diversity”. A few years ago the catchphrases were: affirmative action, racial preferences, and racial and ethnic quotas. Since those terms were not warmly embraced by many in the general public, the “diversity” proponents have latched onto the term “diversity” as a more moderate acceptable term to overcome the negatives that those other terms conveyed.

The term, “E Pluribus Unum”, was and is a traditional motto of the United States that appears on the “Great Seal” and on some of our currency. This motto was never codified by law, but it was the “de facto” motto of the United States until 1956 when the U.S. Congress adopted the phrase “In God We Trust” as the official motto. So, even from the beginning of our democratic republic, the main idea of the founding fathers was “unity” not “diversity”.

No one that I know, decries a person or persons venerating their heritage, their ethnicity or family traditions, in fact, we encourage it, but we all must remember that to be an American, a person must adhere to the traditions, the language (English), the laws (both federal and state) that have made us the pre-eminant country in the world today. Balkanization (the act of being isolated from others in your own community) of the populace is not conducive to a harmonious society. People coming into our country should strive to assimilate into our society and not set themselves apart from other Americans. As the original motto of the U.S. Stated, “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) was propagated by our founders, it was the blueprint for the success of the United States.

Another phrase that points up the fallacy of the concept of “diversity” is the phrase, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”. Many civilizations in the past have succumbed by not having “unity” as their guiding principle. The fall of the Greek Civilization and the Roman Empire are good examples of countries imploding from within rather than by mostly foreign invasion. Look at our recent history where “disunity” has caused revolt and unrest. The division that existed in Canada, between the English speaking and French speaking provinces, was a major cause of contention among those provinces where, at one time, one part wanted to secede from the country to form their own country. That division has been mitigated in recent years. Also, the division that existed between Protestant Northern Ireland and Catholic Ireland, was a violent separation, which lasted almost 100 years. Tensions are less today, but they still exist. And look at Europe today where “diversity” has been the rule the past decades or so, and now most of the countries are suffering because the immigrants that have migrated to their countries, to create “diversity”, have not assimilated and have caused havoc among the permanent residents. Predictions are that Europe will be no longer Europe the way we know it now, as the immigrant population will become the majority unless a major turnaround can occur. The “diversity” concept has bitten them in the butt big time.

So, the headline of our editorial, “Diversity =s Perversity” (perversity being defined as an action that is counter to what has been expected or desired; being contrary to the norm), should be a wake up call for America to not get caught into the trap of thinking that “diversity” instead of “unity” should be the direction our country should take. Our country is and has been a “melting pot” since its inception, within reason, as previous immigrants, by and large, assimilated into society. As a counterbalance to “diversity”, we should all be united by adhering to the precepts of one language, one constitution, and one rule of laws, as the unifying concept that will continue to make and keep America the greatest country in the world. We should all be Americans, not Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Asian -Americans, German-Americans, Jewish Americans etc., etc., we should all be just plain, good old, patriotic Americans.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Nothing is Absolute Except Death

There are individuals who live outside the law and no matter
what restrictions or restrains you place on the NRA, it will
have no effect on these people.

Liberals offer no constructive solutions to stop tragic events
such as the recent ones, other than to dismantle the Second
Amendment and ways for demising the NRA.

The statistics supporting other methods of violence does not
receive the attention as does the liberal agenda on the war
against the NRA, therefore it is a blur in the mainstream media
coverage. it lacks the punch of sensationalism they look for.
Nothing is absolute except death, so common sense, not
emotion is required from both sides of the controversy to
reach consensus.

The quality of life has deteriorated and it has lost its worth in
complacency. Perhaps another deep depression as the one we
went through in the 1930s, will bring us back to reality. When
we respected the value of life.

Miss use of firearms was attributed to gangsters and very rarely
attributed to the general public. The Motion Picture Production
Code of 1930 (Hays Code) kept immorality and violence at bay.
Implementing a similar code can be one idea in restoring civility
and normalcy during these chaotic times, but it is doubtful the
Liberal PC police force will allow it, because it will work against
their interpretation of the First Amendment.

The tragedies we are going through are not limited to gun violence
alone. The evil and deranged use many implements to harm
others, so, does this mean many items we use in our course of
living must be outlawed?

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment, but it needs to be
refined in order to take into consideration creations not in
existence when our Founding Fathers formulated it.

My personal opinion fails to understand why a military type
weapon is necessary for a civilian to posses. The argument
about protection against a tyrannical government taking
over doesn't cut it, because if that ever happened, access
to military arms would not be difficult to obtain.

For the tree huggers and sanctuary city types, whose
advocacy can be as dangerous as a perpetrator's deed; when
seconds count, help usually arrives in minutes. This is why it
makes sense to train and arm certain volunteer personnel in
a facility, who are in the immediate area.

The President and I do not suggest 60 year old kindergarten
teachers pack heat.

Meeting with diversified groups for feedback and ideas, the
President hopes the country together, will find a solution to
the horror befallen in our schools and workplace.
If liberals can't offer more than banning guns and the NRA,
"Put a sock in it!"

Conservative commentary by George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 4, 2018

What Crimes Did the President Commit?

It's been almost a year since the probe of Russian influence in our election and the implied involvement of President Trump and his aides, and as of now, the probe has turned up nothing, nada, and nil. What a waste of time and money this Russian collusion fiasco has been, as the motivation behind this probe was really not the finding of any Trump collusion, it was an exercise of trying to undermine the Trump Administration and to eventually impeach him or to have him resign.

With all the leaks coming out of the special counsel's office that try to implicate President Trump with the Russians, the opposite seems to be the case, it was the Clinton campaign and the Democrats who were the one's colluding with Russian operatives.

In all good conscience, why would the Russians want Trump elected? His campaign of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” was decidedly anti-Russian, whereas the actions of Hillary Clinton, her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrats were the one's whose hands were all over the Russian meddling. Remember, Hillary and the Russian “reset button”; the claim by President Obama, in 2012, when speaking with the Russian president, “Tell Vladimir that I'll have more flexibility after my re-election”; the signing off by the State Department (which Hillary was the Secretary of State) of the “Uranium One” deal that gave Russia access to 20% of our uranium supply; to Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank with ties to the Kremlin; the over $2.5 million donation to the the Clinton Foundation around the time of the Uranium One deal; and finally, the Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee paying that muck-raking organization, Fusion GPS, by getting spurious “dirt” on Trump from a Russian operative, to be used against Trump, which was proven to be bogus and salacious. So, where was the Russian collusion, was it with President Trump or was it with the Democrats and the Clinton's?

It seems that the Democrats still cannot understand why and how Hillary lost the election to a political neophyte, Donald Trump. It seems that the answer, by them, that it had to be something nefarious done by the Trump campaign that made the election turn out the way it did. That seems to be the motivation behind the “witch hunt” of Trump and the Russians that is now in progress? It's the Russians, the Russians, and the Russians.

So far, the Special Counsel, under Robert Mueller, has 2 indictments under its cap, both had nothing to do with Russian collusion or President Trump. The organized vendetta against President Trump and the misinformation used against him reminds me of the quote by Adolph Hitler from his book, “Mein Kampf” which stated as follows: “ If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough it becomes the truth”, that seems to be the “modus operandi” of the feckless Democrats, the Clinton sycophants, the biased media, and the compromised panel of investigators of the Special Counsel's team. This charade should be ended so that President Trump can get back to the business of “Making America Great Again”. It serves no purpose to continue “beating a dead horse” when much more pressing problems that face us, as a country, are with us on a daily basis. We don't need this worthless distraction to continue.

Again I ask, “What Crimes Did the President Commit”? You make the obvious call.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share