Thursday, April 30, 2009

“If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It”

TODAY'S EDITORIAL: “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It”

President Obama made the following statement a few months ago, “My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I’ll hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it”.

He reiterated, in his last press conference, that he wants to “remake” America.

Those statements brought back to my mind what my mother used to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. That advice should be heeded by our “Apologist in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. It means that if we are the best, the only change will be for the worse and it looks like he’s trying to take us down that road.

The “Obamamaniacs” say that their man has a mandate to change our country (by the way, is 52% of the vote enough to have a “mandate”?). What kind of change does he want? He’s on his way to spend us into oblivion with money we don’t have so all we’ll be left with is “change” in our pockets, and “hope” ( the other Obama catchphrase) that things will change for the better.

He is the “Pied Piper of Cluelessness”, but as the liberals always say, “ It really doesn’t matter”. Look at your 401K or your IRA and say it really doesn’t matter.


Editorial comments by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"


Maybe it’s a generational thing or that my taste in music is woefully lacking in artistry, but using the jargon of the younger generation, the so-called music of today “sucks”.

I use the word music, but in reality, what passes off as music today is not music, but grunts, groans, guttural sounds, chanting, and obscene sexist gibberish.

I can visualize Hoagy Carmichael, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Bobby Darin, and yes, Elvis, turning over in their graves for what is being passed off by phony press agents, and bogus impresarios, as music today.

Hip Hop, Rap, Heavy Metal, New Wave, Alternative etc. is being sold by the “artists” who seem to have difficulty putting together a proper English language sentence. The culture of the new “artists”, glorifies crime, abuse of women (where are the feminists?), social chaos, and incitement to commit violence.

Is this good for our society to be bombarded with this pseudo-music? Of course not!

Remember, when our parents were complaining about Rock ‘n Roll, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the Beatles? Aah, for the good ole days!

Times were a changin’ back then, but the music had a melody and two people could dance to it – sometimes very close and snugly. You could sing or hum along, tap your foot in rhythm to the lilting sounds sung or played by professional singers and musicians. It seems that the people who listen to the music of today, look like they need to be high on drugs or alcohol in order to appreciate the noise that is being promoted as music. Maybe I’m too hard on the new millionaires such as Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Jay Z, Eminem etc., but what do they offer society in any redeeming way? The silence will be deafening in trying to answer that question.

How many of the “songs” today will be performed six months from now or even years from now, like the standards of yesteryear, like “Stardust”, “Take the “A” Train”, “Melody of Love”, “Blue Suede Shoes” and yes, even “Rock Around the Clock”, which are still performed today at weddings, and at middle-aged and senior citizen get-togethers?

The young people today are missing out on a worthwhile, wholesome activity - singing and dancing together to tunes that have a melody and rhythm that does have some redeeming values.

Esteemed black entertainer Bill Cosby, as opposed to the “Rhyming Reverends”, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, has decried what is happening in the minority communities when it comes to what the youth are buying as music today, and who they look up to as role models. Ludercris is revered, and Justice Clarence Thomas is reviled. What a country!

Of course, Bill Cosby is not “politically correct”, because he is genuinely concerned with the uplifting of his community and of America in general. For all his sincere and worthwhile efforts in this regard, he is vilified and called an “Uncle Tom” by some in the black community, who cannot face the problems that Bill Cosby so aptly describes in his very forceful presentation and manner of speech.

Let’s hope the songwriters of today, who have musical talent, will not get discouraged, and those in the future with a real musical gift, will somehow turn out some decent music that all ages would appreciate, to combat the “music” that is dumbing down America today.


Submitted by Chuck Lehmann

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Must Watch Video

This is a Must Watch Video.
This is scary. People should know about what is happening to our culture.
If you do not understand THE REALITY OF ISLAM spreading around the world, YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!

Submitted by Grace Cleaver
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles

Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

( - The Central Intelligence Agency told today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles. Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.” According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.” KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Does Evil Exist

One day, a professor of a university decided to defy his pupils.

Please click above Link for Slide Show

Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

A Question To My Liberal Friends:

I’d like to ask my liberal “Woodstock Wuss” friends, who are besides themselves over our so-called “torture” techniques that we have used on terrorists, and ask them the following question.

Suppose one of your children or grand children were taken hostage by some terrorists, who have threatened them with harm or even death. Suppose we capture one of the terrorists who knows where his fellow terrorists are holding your loved ones. He refuses to talk. Knowing that “water boarding” most likely would extract from that terrorist the information needed for a rescue of your family members, would you authorize the use of “water boarding” to save them from harm or possibly death?

I’m curious if your “outrage”, over this harsh technique, might be modified just a bit? Nobody dies from “ water boarding”, and there are no residual physical effects to the person who is “ water boarded”, so what’s your problem? Is it just another case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) to use him as a scapegoat to cover up or divert attention from the lack of leadership, being shown, on the part of the Messiah, our President Barack Obama? I think I know what your answer is, but you won’t admit it.

Written by: Chuck Lehmann
Chuck on the Right Side

I Voted Democrat

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."


Contributed by Jim Pirretti
"who is definitely not a DEMONcrat"

Monday, April 27, 2009

Think You Could Endure Waterboarding?

This is a great video on the techniques of waterboarding. To me, that doesn't show torture, but it really is enhanced interrogation to get valuable information.

Please click Link above to view the Video.

Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Sunday, April 26, 2009


There was a Pied Piper who said We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it! *And the people said, Change is good!

Then he said, We are going to tax the rich fat-cats, *And the people said, "Sock it to them!"

and redistribute their wealth. *And the people said, "Show me the money!"

And then he said, Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody *And Joe the plumber said, "Are you kidding me?"

And Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. *And one lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?"

And she was banished from the kingdom! Then someone asked, "With no foreign relations experience, how will you deal with radical terrorists?"

And the Pied Piper said, Simple. I'll sit down and talk with them and show them how nice we really are and they'll forget that they ever wanted to kill us all! Then the Pied Piper said, I'll give 95% of you lower taxes. *And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes!"

So the Pied Piper said, Then I'll give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay! *And the people said, "Show me the money!"

Then the Pied Piper said, I'll tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes! *And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed.

And he said, I'll mandate employer- funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage. *And the people said, "Gimme some of that!"

Then he said, I'll penalize employers who ship jobs overseas. *And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"

Then the Pied Piper actually said, I'll bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket! *And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal!But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates."

So the Pied Piper said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses,we'll bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over! Then he said, illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing *And the people said, "Ole`! Bravo!" And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes,raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy slowed even further. Then the Pied Piper said, I am the Messiah and I'm here to save you! We'll just print more money so everyone will have enough! But our foreign trading partners said, Wait a minute.Your dollar isn't worth what it was. You'll have to pay more. *And the people said, "Wait a minute. That's not fair!"

And the world said, Neither are these other, idiotic programs you've embraced.You've become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you'll play by our rules! *And the people said, "What have we done?"

But it was too late.

If you think this is a fairy tale, open your eyes and ears. Its happening RIGHT NOW!
Submitted by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"


The following is a link to a NY Post article entitled “100 Days, 100 Mistakes.”

Please Click Link Above.

Good reading!

Contributed by: Jim Pirretti

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Daffy Duck the Next Justice of the Supreme Court

From Kevin James on Town Hall [with a few comments from Jim]:

Listening to the mainstream media, cable news shows, Democrats and the Left all practice “racial profiling” and “identity politics” to the highest degree in their debate over who should replace Justice David H. Souter on the Supreme Court – while conveniently avoiding that pesky term “qualifications” – I am convinced that President Obama’s choice is obvious. “Daffy Duck” should replace Justice Souter.

Here are seven (7) reasons why:

1. We have never had a duck sit on the Supreme Court. I am sure that our nation has a history of insensitivity toward “duck rights.” [My two cents worth: this would also please P.E.T.A.]
2. Daffy is a black duck. Therefore, Daffy’s selection will satisfy those calling on the President to select a minority.
3. Daffy could be a gender neutral duck. While I recognize that we have assumed for more than a generation that Daffy is male, the name “Daffy” could be short for “Daphne”, and although Daffy almost always appears without clothing, I don’t know of anyone that can actually prove Daffy is male. This only adds to the satisfaction of those calling on the President to choose a minority.
4. Daffy is a disabled duck. Daffy has a severe speech impediment. Although Daffy’s lisp could become fodder for the late-night talk show circuit and “Saturday Night Live” when Daffy asks important questions of high-profile attorneys during Court hearings and has back-and-forth debate with those lawyers, it will certainly be worth any potential embarrassment as Daffy’s selection will satisfy President Obama’s goal stated on Friday that he wants a Justice “with ‘empathy’ for ‘people’s hopes and struggles.’” [Mr. James really means that Daffy is physically challenged. The word disability is not politically correct. We wouldn’t want to offend the ADA lobby.]
5. Daffy is a professional victim. Over the years, Daffy has been hunted, shot at, de-feathered and wrongfully imprisoned. For left-wing satisfaction level, see number 4, above.
6. Daffy is a member of the Hollywood elite. A long-time employee of Warner Bros., Daffy’s Hollywood connections will definitely please Democrats and the party will almost certainly see a spike in fundraising from the entertainment industry. This will satisfy those who want the President to choose a “high profile, clear-cut liberal” as set forth in the Los Angeles Times story on May 2.
7. After many years as a successful actor, Daffy has not only mastered the art of memorizing a script written by professional writers, Daffy also has great command of a teleprompter. This will please the President.

Contributed by James J. Pirretti

"Chuck on the Right Side"


That phrase has been popularized by radio and T.V. talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, to try to explain, as a policy of his shows, that he will not allow people to say anything that is biased and/or patently untrue in order to gain an advantage against another person during a discussion or to push an agenda that is obviously untrue and misleading. The dictionary definition of “spin” is: to provide an interpretation or a bias of a statement or an event, especially in a way as to attempt to sway public opinion their way.
To listen to the political bombast that is being constantly shoved in our faces, the “spin” in political rhetoric today, is alive and well and getting worse with each passing day. It’s difficult for the average citizen to know what is a fact and what is a biased interpretation of those facts.
Well, what are some of the topics where “spin” seems to be in play on a regular basis. Here’s a sample:

The Democratic politicians in the Congress and the President are proclaiming, with a populist slant, that they will not raise taxes on our lower and middle income citizens, and that they will only raise taxes on the “rich”. That is definitely not true - it is a “spin” in it’s most blatant form. By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which they say they will do, they will impose on the lower and middle income taxpayers an extra tax burden because the rates will revert back to the pre- tax cut rates of 2002, which will cause a tax increase to the people in those income tax brackets. No matter how you “spin” it, you can’t make silk out of a sow’s ear. The same thing with capital gains taxes. Almost 50% of reportable capital gains in 2006 that was reported by taxpayers, those capital gains were reported by taxpayers with incomes under $75,000 – hardly what you would consider “rich” in today’s economic climate. The Democrats want to raise the capital gains tax from the present 15% to 20% . No matter how you “spin” it, that is a tax increase, pure and simple, and on the lower and middle income people to boot. That “tax cut” touted by President Obama and his lackeys in Congress, is not a tax cut but a tax rebate, a form of welfare. So when he says that 95% of the people are getting a tax cut, he is not telling the truth. Welcome to Chicago-speak, c/o your President.
Another area where “spin” seems to be flagrantly used is in the area of race relations. The political activists ( sometimes called “race hustlers”), like the “Rhyming Reverends”, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, can say the most outrageous racist statements and get away with it, while their “white” counterparts get vilified for doing and saying similar things from a “white” person’s perspective. Just let a “white” person or politician say something negative about a black person, either real or imagined, and they get a charge of “racism” thrown at them - case closed, argument finished, the “spin” has crucified that “white” person to “racial hell”. Is that fair?

The P.C. police are out in force and using “spin” for all it’s worth and we are the victims. Political correctness has also raised its ugly head in the area of illegal immigration. We are told to not call illegal aliens, illegal aliens anymore, we must call them “undocumented workers”. That’s like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. How ridiculous is that? The “spin” by the open border advocates, is that the U.S. couldn’t survive without all the “illegal immigrants” that are in our country. Who says so? The amnesty crowd, that’s who, and they “spin” their tales of woe about discrimination to the illegals to gain sympathy for the people who have violated our laws, have caused an undue burden on most of our public services, including our prison system, our educational system, our health care system, and our welfare system, all of which is estimated to cost the taxpayers over $380 billion a year, and much of the money they earn is sent back to their mother country, mostly tax-free. Try to “spin” your way out of that. California is an economic basket case as a result of our lack of border enforcement and the stupid policy of having “sanctuary cities” in Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just two. The taxpayer citizens of California are fed up and are voting with their feet to leave the state. Who’s going to be left in the state to make up for that revenue loss? Would it be illegal aliens? Just a guess on my part.

We, as informed citizens, cannot let “spin” dictate how we live our lives. We must stand up to these “Disciples of Deceit” and tell them to take their snake oil somewhere else because the “spin stops here!”

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

A Short Course in Brain Surgery -- U.S. Health System vs Canada

A Short Course in Brain Surgery -- U.S. Health System vs Canada

Is Canada's health care system something we should adopt here in the United States? Watch this video and see if that's what we should adopt as our health care system. President Obama and the Democrats are pushing hard for us to adopt a single-payer system modeled after the Canadian system. Watch this eye opening video, it's quite an eye opener.

Please click above link to watch Video

Submitted by: Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Can Tolerance Breed Intolerance?

The gay community in America is constantly griping about the lack of tolerance on the part of the public that is against gay marriage, but in the process they have become very intolerant of the views of the people who disagree with them.

Where is it written, that because you don’t agree with certain policies, from a personal or religious perspective, that you should be vilified and held up to scorn and to be accused of being intolerant of the views of others?

The flap over the choosing of the Rev. Rick Warren, to give the invocation at the inaugural, is a classic case of the intolerance of the minority against the views of the majority. All kinds of vicious vituperation has been directed at Rev. Warren and to Pres.-elect Barack Obama, for making the innocuous choice of a popular pastor delivering an invocation at a grand public event, the swearing in ceremony of the President. Conversely, you didn’t see the opponents of gay marriage heaping scorn and rage at the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at the end of the swearing-in ceremony, and who happens to be in favor of gay marriage. Which side is most tolerant?

What the gay activists should realize is that in every case when the proposition of defining gay marriage has been brought before the voting public for a vote, the majority of the voters have affirmed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Should all who believe that way, be classified as a bigot and of being intolerant of others, especially after the votes affirming Prop. 8 in California, and Amendment 2 in Florida?

The only times that the law has been interpreted to be on the side of the “ gay marriage” proponents, is by judicial fiat by mostly unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who are pushing their own social agenda upon the opposition views of the majority of the voting public.

For thousands of years, it has been established that marriage be between a man and a woman, and most all religions come down on the side of that view. The gay community has the right to petition the government to change the law, but if the people reject that petition, they shouldn’t be subject to the slanderous and libelous attacks on their strongly held views. The equating of the changes we made in our country to change the laws on race relations, do not, in my opinion, translate to the sanctioning of gay marriage as a furtherance of that concept. There is no comparison between sex and race. According to social commentator Dennis Prager, “ There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races, therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational, on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational, separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not”.

How much more healthful would our politics be if those who are so convinced of the rightness of their views, would have equal faith in the decency of their fellow Americans - and in their openness to be persuaded by clear, fair, and honest argument?

So let’s not descend into the verbal gutter by accusing others, you disagree with, with being a bigot or worse. Tolerance should be a two-way street and the people who tout the principle of “ tolerance” ( the gay community), should practice what they preach.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"


The now famous words by Martin Luther King Jr. about judging a man, not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character, really resonated with me in describing the object of this column, “ A Real American Hero”, Lt. Col. Allen B. West (ret.) U.S. Army, who is a real American hero who just happens to be African-American. Last year, a Jewish friend of mine, invited me to attend a debate between Lt. Col. West and Ron Klein, the Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress in the 22nd C.D. in 2008. The topic was to be on terrorism and how it affects us here in the U.S.A. The debate was sponsored by the Zionists of America and was held at a Temple in Delray Beach. At the last minute, Ron Klein backed out and Lt. Col. West had to proceed all alone. I didn’t know what to expect, as I never heard him speak before. As he began his talk on the topic of terrorism, I was immediately impressed with his demeanor and grasp of the subject matter. His knowledge of the Muslim religion and how it has evolved over the centuries was very informative and eye opening with the breadth of his historical insights that he referred to, all without notes. With a crowd of approximately 100 on hand, you could hear a pin drop in the audience, which I would estimate as being made up of mostly Democrats. The comments from the attendees, after his talk, was overwhelmingly positive and laudatory. Afterward, I wanted to know what made this excellent speaker tick, so I Googled up his name on the internet and was pleasantly elated to find a biography of a true American hero. Lt. Col. Allen West (ret.) U.S. Army, has earned two master degrees after he graduated from the Univ. Of Tennessee in 1983. He was sworn in as an Army officer immediately after graduation in 1983. During his career in the military, he spent over 36 months in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan. During his tour in Iraq, he had the occasion of interrogating a captured terrorist, one-on-one, and was able to glean valuable information from the terrorist that prevented an attack upon the troops under his command. He takes great pride in the fact that he didn’t lose one soldier under his command while in Iraq during his deployment. After his tour in Iraq, he returned to the service of his country as a consultant to the Afghan Army and as a training advisor to its military. Upon reading about him on Google, it was apparent that his soldiers, who were interviewed, all had the highest regard for his leadership in battle and praised him to the hilt as a man of excellent character and integrity. In recognition of his service to his country, the Army awarded him the Bronze Star medal, Meritorious Service medal, 3 Army Commendation medals, one with valor, plus others too many to mention here. I’ve heard him speak many times since , and came away with the same conclusion as I reached before, during my first encounter, at the Temple in Delray Beach. All I can say is that we are fortunate to have a man of his exemplary caliber running for Congress in our area - the 22nd C.D. again in 2010. He lost by a whisker to incumbent, Ron Klein in 2008. He went from a complete nobody and unknown, 8 months before, to within 5 percentage points of victory to an incumbent with well over a million dollar “ war chest”. The Obama phenomenon was generally considered to be the difference in Lt.Col. Allen West’s narrow loss. Things will be much different in 2010. He is already campaigning and meeting people in the district. Response to his candidacy has been very well received and the prospects for him winning is improving every passing day. If you ever get the opportunity to meet or see him, you will be just as impressed with him as I am. He is a regular guest on the Joyce Kaufman Show at 850 AM WTFL. Meeting Lt. Col. West, if you get the opportunity, will show you what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by judging the man’s character and not the color of his skin as the determining factor of evaluating his place in a free society.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
James J. Pirretti said...

Jim Byrd has posted a great satire on his blog.

Here it is.
"Department of Homeland Security Releases Images of Radical Right-Wing Extremists

Apr 20th, 2009 by jimbyrd

Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, at the behest of Barack Obama, released images of radical right-wing subversives that threaten the very existence of Hope and Change, and quite frankly, scares the bejesus out of Obama and the Democratic Party. The images were obtained after entering highly unambiguous data into the Homeland Security and FBI super-computers to generate specific images to match the ideas and activities of the Obama administration’s new criteria for radical extremists. This project was rushed so as to coincide with the radical and morally unsettling tea parties that pervaded the sanctimonious fabric of this great nation on April 15th.

A sampling of data entered into the government’s super-computers for a match are as follows: documented evidence of supporting tea parties; anti-gun control position; belonging and actually adhering to the Christian faith; anti-abortion position; any participation with the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, Coast Guard or anyone who may put this country before their own life; opposes high taxes; and has expressed issues with an oppressive national government or rulers. The algorithms were programmed to either detect any one of the above transgressions, or worst case, ties to all the above. After mere nanoseconds, the computer printed out the top ten problematic individuals that pose credible threats to this country, the Obama administration, the Democrat Party, and most importantly, Hope and Change. The top ten nefarious perpetrators are:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Ben Franklin
Alexander Hamilton
Samuel Adams
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Billy Graham
David Petraeus

If you know any of these individuals, anyone who quotes their radicalism, or anyone who may be a follower of their dogma, please call, without hesitation, Janet Napolitano at 202-282-8000."At first I was concerned about being labeled a right wing extremist. However, I would be honored to be in the company of the above indivduals.

Jim P. suggested this Post

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama

Message from Chuck:
Dear Prof. Watson: As per our previous conversations, this article by Michelle Malkin, a conservative pundit, seems to effectively point out that civility and tolerance seem to be lacking in our public discourse, even after the election of Pres. Obama. Where is the reaching out to the opposition? Does threatening them with lawsuits or congressional inquires make for more civility or will it just ratchet up the anger of the opposition? In the past, I questioned you, as the Coordinator of the American Studies Dep't. at Lynn Univ., why, in your public statements in the press, do you always refer to former Pres. Bush as being a liar and a complete failure as a president? Is that professional liberal-speak for I despise him because he's a Republican, and that he doesn't adhere to the politically correct agenda of the liberals in the press and in academia? The final chapter on the Bush presidency hasn't been written yet, and may very well be critical about his legacy in office, but compared to what we are witnessing now with the outrageous spending and gutting of our whole economic system under Pres. Obama, George W. Bush might emerge in history as a visionary who was wrongly slimed by his detractors, especially prominent professors who profess objectivity and fairness in their professional life, but in real life do just the opposite. You seem to be very silent when it comes to criticizing Pres. Obama, except for his escalation in Afghanistan, especially for his actions in regards to apologizing for America all over the world, for embracing brutal, zany dictators under the guise of opening up a dialogue, and by bending over and grabbing his ankles for the far-left loons in Move On .Org, Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, and the trade unions etc., irregardless of your political leanings. Objectivity is the trait all historians should be striving for. I'll be looking for more of that from you in the future.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"

Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama

Another Iran Hostage

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009
War On Terror: Can it be a coincidence that just as we soften relations with Iran, the terror state imprisons a U.S. journalist for "espionage"? Tehran knows: A hostage is a bargaining chip.
The two most infamous times the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran humiliated the U.S. involved hostage-taking by forces under Tehran's influence.
From 1979 to 1981, 52 U.S. Embassy personnel were held captive by Iranian students for 444 days. They were released only minutes after the inauguration of President Reagan, who had made it clear he would take swift action against the "barbarians" in Iran.

Saberi: No Reagan this time.
Then in 1986, the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra affair erupted, involving attempts to free six U.S. hostages held by the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group Hezbollah. Tehran ended up getting weapons from the U.S. in a botched arms-for-hostages deal, some of the financial proceeds of which went to help Nicaragua's Contra freedom fighters.
The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — supreme ruler of Iran for two decades, an architect of the country's 1979 Islamist revolution and close adviser to the Ayatollah Khomeini — knows the value of an American hostage.
Roxana Saberi is a 31-year-old former Miss North Dakota of Iranian descent who for the last six years has worked in Iran as a freelance journalist for the BBC, Fox News, National Public Radio and others. On Saturday, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for espionage after being first arrested in February for the heinous crime of buying a bottle of wine.
An Iranian judiciary spokesman on Tuesday suggested Saberi's sentence might be reconsidered on appeal. Khamenei calls the shots in the courts, as he does for the rest of Iran's government.
In 2007, for instance, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the regime's former top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, arrested for spying, Khamenei wasted little time ordering Iran's judiciary to dismiss the charges.
Perhaps Khamenei will soon commute Saberi's sentence, currying international favor as Iran marches steadily toward nuclear capability. Or maybe he'll reduce her jail time, then seek concessions from the U.S. in nuclear talks. Or maybe he'll let her go to buy more time to build a weapon or produce bomb-grade fuel.

Still, one can't help wondering: Would this talented young American woman be sitting in a squalid Iranian jail cell right now as a potential human bargaining chip if the U.S. hadn't extended an olive branch to this murderous regime?

"Chuck on the Right Side"

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Hugo's words of encouragement for Obama

Hugo Chavez Says Venezuelan Socialism Has Begun to Reach U.S. under Obama

By Edwin Mora

( - Inspired by his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared on Sunday that Venezuelan socialism has begun to reach the United States under the Obama administration.“I am coming back from Trinidad and Tobago, from the Americas Summit where, without a doubt, the position that Venezuela and its government has always defended, especially starting 10 years ago, of resistance, dignity, sovereignty and independence has obtained in Port of Spain, one of the biggest victories of our history,” Chavez said. “It would seem that the changes that started in Venezuela in the last decade of the 20th century have begun to reach North America,” he added.

click the Link HERE for full article from

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Are These Proposed Laws Undemocratic?

Coming up on the agenda of the Congress are two proposed acts that some have characterized as being undemocratic. Let’s see what the commotion is all about.
The first piece of legislation is the reintroduction of the “Fairness Doctrine”, which was first introduced by the F.C.C. ( Federal Communications Commission) in 1949, but wasn’t really enforced. In 1967, the F.C.C. incorporated it into F.C.C. regulations. It’s purpose was to mandate broadcasters to air contrasting views regarding controversial matters.
In 1987, the F.C.C. abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote and it was upheld by the Appeals Court for the D.C. circuit. Part of the court decision read, “ the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters….”.
Since that time, with the growing popularity of conservative talk radio and some T.V. shows, the Democrats in Congress have threatened to reintroduce this Fairness Doctrine, spearheaded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Chuck Schumer. This proposal has met strong opposition by libertarians and conservatives who say it as an attempt to regulate or mandate certain types of speech on the airwaves. This is considered to be a direct attack on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If liberals don’t like what views are being communicated on the radio or T.V., they could just turn the dial and change the station, or they could start their own media outlet to present their own views on various controversial topics. The problem is, liberal talk radio and T.V. are not popular with audiences, and therefore are financial busts. A good example is the ill-fated
“ Air America” ( bankrolled by George Soros) a broadcasting basket case.
The other piece of “ legally challenged” proposed legislation is the ill-named “ Employee Free Choice Act”, which will do away with the “ secret ballot” in union representation elections. In its place will be instituted a “ card check” procedure whereby a union may gather signatures of workers in a business or industry, by having the workers check a card to say they want to have the union represent them as their bargaining agent. Sounds benign, but upon closer scrutiny, the possibility of intimidation by union organizers upon confronting the worker is a real possibility. Whether the worker wants the union or not, it will be difficult for him/her to refuse to sign when pressure is put on him by the union and fellow pro-union workers. The
“ secret ballot” is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and most people agree ( about 70% according to a poll) agree that it should be retained as being the fair and right thing to do. Even liberal icon and former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, has come out for defeat of this proposal, by saying it is unconstitutional.
The motivation for this piece of legislation is a payback to the unions, by the Democrats, for the tremendous financial and physical support the unions have given them to help them in their quest for electoral victories. It also means more dues paying members for the unions after years of declining membership.
President-elect Obama has said he wants to be a uniter and not a divider, but if the Democrats pass these proposed acts, and he signs them, it will cause a tremendous backlash from the Republicans, Independents, and even some liberals.
The old saying, “ Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong”, certainly applies in these cases of vindictive ( Fairness Doctrine) and pro-active ( Employee Free Choice Act) pieces of legislation.

Written by Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"