Sunday, December 30, 2012

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

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 27, 2012

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

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 23, 2012

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

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 20, 2012

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

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 16, 2012

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

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 13, 2012

MORT’s Meanderings

Why Mr. President, why?

One of the first things a budding trial lawyer learns is, never ask a question to which he doesn’t already know the answer. I’m not a lawyer so, I’m not bound by that rule.

My question: Why, Mr. President, why? - - would you run for the Office of the President of the United States, if you didn’t sincerely want to address the nation’s problems and do something constructive about re-dressing them?

As a SINO (Senator In Name Only) you had at least, the occasional experience of dealing with other ‘members’ who held opposing viewpoints to your own. Granted, you voted ‘Present’ more times than you voted For or Against legislation. Even then, you avoided the tiresome process of working with others or making a decision.

In retrospect, it is quite apparent that you are a single-minded chap whose only concerns are those that are self-centered. Your history is one of a concerted effort toward advancing yourself to positions of increasing power, leading to the ultimate office that permits you to exercise dominance over any and all opposition. Rather than availing yourself of opportunities to exchange viewpoints with other duly- elected representatives of the people in order to reach mutually-agreeable solutions, you choose to bully others into submission. That is the way of the Chicago street thug. That is the way of the Community Organizer. That is the way of the Muslim Brotherhood. That is your way, Mr. President, Sir.

That is not the way of a truly patriotic American President who believes in the Constitution of the United States. It is not the way of someone who understands the meaning of leadership and actually knows how to lead. A true leader doesn’t think in terms of ‘leading from behind’. And so, when you issued that statement, you provided us with a crystal-clear insight into your perverted way of thinking. And, it is ugly, Sir.

Your warped philosophy, born of your life-long indoctrination in failed Socialist ideology – stinks! Your objective of imposing dictatorial, tyrannical controls over every aspect of American life, deceptively obscured in your pathetically pandering catch phrase – “Hope and Change”, is unfortunately, enjoying temporary political success. Lincoln said it best: “You can fool some of the people all the time.” Time will bring about, change. One wonders why you would kick, claw and scratch your way to the Presidency if you weren’t seriously interested in solving the nation’s problems, using the tools provided by the tenets of the Constitution? Why would you seek the highest office if it weren’t for the opportunity it would provide to improve the lot of the American people? Hmmm?

Why would you use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to pit various segments of the American population against each other, rather than using that voice to bring all elements of the American people together in an effort to make us more unified, to make us stronger?

Could it be that you had and still have, ulterior motives? Could it be that you had in mind all along, to bring about a total reform that is based upon Socialist policies? Could it be that you had in mind all along, to affect a stealthy transformation of our three equal branches of the Federal Government into a Shariah-compliant system with a hierarchy of Imams as its final authority? Or, might the leader in our future be someone as – let’s just say for instance – someone like Muhammud Morsi, newly-ensconced head of the Muslim Brotherhood? Hmmm?

Could it be that you are more inclined to enjoy the speech-making rather than the hard work part of being President of the United States? Could it be that you want more than anything other than life itself, to enjoy the perks of the Office? Could it be that freely spending other people’s money brings with it an intoxication that you find impossible to resist? Could it be that this is your raison d’etre, your very reason for being?

Could it be that you prefer the trappings of a Potentate as opposed to those of a mere President? Do you believe that extended vacations in exotic locations, with your family and a corps of personal servants and security details that will cost tax-payers millions of dollars during these times of national economic crisis - are due you because of your prodigious effort while criss-crossing the nation in pursuit of your re-election? Hmmm?

Obviously, we all know these answers to the question, “Why Mr. President, why?

Conservative commentary by MORT KUFF

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Even then, Alexis de Tocqueville Knew!

Funny how a person, 177 years ago, by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and diplomat, could’ve foresaw what has happened during the year 2012 with the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama.

The strategy of making many citizens (potential voters) dependent upon the government for much of their sustenance, was parlayed into reality by the Obama campaign in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

It seems that the Obama campaign, headed by David Axelrod, decided to target certain groups that were ready to be exploited. These special interest groups included Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, college students, gays, Jews, families with incomes under $30,000, and union members. A relentless barrage of ads and appeals were made to motivate these groups into thinking that only Obama cared about their needs and wants and that his opponent, Mitt Romney, did not care. Romney was depicted as an “evil” exploiting capitalist whose only interest was giving rich people tax breaks and making the middle-class and poor people poorer.

Through the office of the President, he implored Blacks to support him because he was Black (he actually set up a group called “Blacks for Obama”) and that by being Black himself, he could empathize with their special problems. He did this a couple of years back by signing off on giving Black farmers a total of $1.2 billion (Pigford vs. Glickman) which was adjudged by many to be a form of racial reparations, and he had a program to give poor inner city people cell phones and he increased the food stamp program along with other “goodies” from the federal treasury (the Blacks voted 95% for Obama); he targeted Hispanics by instituting the “Dream Act” which made it possible for children of illegal aliens to get reduced tuition in colleges, and he implied that he was going to get them some form of amnesty (which he didn’t do in his first four years) in the future (the Hispanics voted for Obama at a rate of 71%); he appealed to gays by changing his previous position on gay marriage and by refraining to enforce the Clinton era “Defense of Marriage Act”; he appealed to college students by offering to lower the interest rate on student loans and by making Pell grants more available; he adopted a moratorium on half the payroll taxes thereby giving workers more take-home pay; and he promised the members of the unions (which gave 95% of their campaign donations to Democrats) that he will push for more laws (even if by circumventing the Congress by use of Executive Orders) favorable to increasing union membership in his next term. He owes the unions big time for their financial aid and for their campaign workers on the ground, especially in the battleground states.

Being the President, he was able to do many of these things by presidential decree (Executive Orders) that Mitt Romney could not do. It looked like he was President “Santa Claus” as he handed out all those presents to his loyal followers and gullible voters.

So, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated 177 years ago, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been two hundred years”. We are in that time frame now.

After the election, Mitt Romney commented on the facts mentioned above and he was roundly criticized for being a sore loser - what, for telling the truth? Also, Bill O’Reilly said similar things and was also criticized with venom by the Obama supporters and by even some Republicans. They must’ve hit a nerve to get such an “outraged” reaction. Sometimes the truth hurts, and they can’t stand the truth (as Jack Nicholson said in the movie, “A Few Good Men”).

I wonder if de Tocqueville had someone like Obama and the Democrats in mind when he made that famous statement 177 years ago?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Eenie meanie mynie moe, who's the Racist of them all?

Accused of being racially bigoted is any Caucasian who dares criticize the President's blunders, and to any black conservative, they label him an Uncle Tom for assimilating into society for a better America.

The 'they' are the congressional black caucus, black radicals who want to get whitie and the guilt ridden rich white liberals from New York's upper west side, Malibu and any other liberal enclave of the pseudo do-gooders who patronize the poor, uneducated, chip on the shoulder nanny state domiciles, making themselves feel good. The 'they' in truth, are the greatest patrons of bigotry and racism against those who they accuse.

In a hypothetical scenario, if or when President Obama submits U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's name to congress for Secretary of State; predictably any attempt to secure the truth with an honest answer of what happened in the Benghazi debacle will be futile, with the left accusing Republicans of racial, gender and political motivation to beat up on a black women, affirms my personal belief and accusations stated above.

I hold in highest esteem Uncle Toms, such as Dr.s Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice and scores of other black Americans who didn't waste their time moping and blaming others for any plight they may have had. They didn't use up their energy wallowing in self pity. Instead, it was put to good use to show it can be done. Dreadlocks militants and skin heads are the garbage of society President Obama stirs up with his class warfare policies, dividing the country into what he thinks levels the field.

Human topography is no different than the geographic landscape. There are highs and lows. There are valleys and peaks, just as in the human condition. The panhandle is a flat stretch of real estate that can be called an even and level field. We all know what happened in the 30's with the dust bowl. The even and level field became arid and inhospitable. It was unproductive as far as the eye could see, because of the greed and ineptness of its custodians This is what will happen with Barack Obama's socialist vision.

Without incentives and sound judgment, the economy field will lay waste and not become fertile again until somebody who knows what he is doing intervenes. Money alone is not the fertilizer to bring it back. It needs the ingenuity of its people and trust in God. The President is stifling recovery by shutting down entrepreneurship topography by trying to make everything flat so no one rises above the other.

One stencil to paint all Americans the same is a disaster in the making and the end of individualism, tradition and morality. His plan melts good and evil together so no one will feel deprived or guilty for doing their own thing. He speaks of fair share only when it pertains to the successful. There are things other than money when speaking of fair share, so when is the bottom rung of society going to contribute to this fair share thing?

Conservative commentary from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Who’s He Going To Blame Now?

When President Obama takes his oath of office as the next president in Jauary, who is he going to blame for the lousy economy he was left with by the previous president?

After four years as president, will Obama be able to avoid taking responsibility for an economy stuck in neutral or will he still be blaming his predecessor, George Bush?

Being as arrogant and narcissistic as he is, I can envision that he will try to govern the same way he did during his first term, an attitude of “my way or the highway”. That type of governance is not conducive to getting things done for the good of the country. He doesn’t have a mandate, as he only got 51% of the vote, that means that almost one-half of the country didn’t agree with him or his policies. Yes, elections do have consequences, but a good leader tries to bring consensus among the rival parties. He does not seem to understand that you get more cooperation for getting what you want with honey rather than with vinegar.

The voters sent back to the Congress a majority of Republicans, hopefully to put a restraint on the Marxist/Socialist policies that is most likely going to be pushed by President Obama in his second term. You could say that this is going to be the “last line of defense” against the “transformative” policies of the Obama Administration.

It was amazing that President Obama was able to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat, by convincing the majority of voters that social issues were more important than the “bread and butter” issues of getting jobs and revitalizing our economy. Most likely the voters will regret their perfidy as our wounded economy doesn’t make a comeback like it should.

Eventually, President Obama is going to run out of scapegoats, especially George Bush, and he’ll have to face the fact that he has no one else to blame but himself.

But, being the narcissist that he is, he will try to blame someone or something else for his failed policies - as he is incapable of making a mistake, in his mind. And as for the voters, it is now too late to undo the mistake of re-electing him for four more years, we must now support the opposition of Obama’s policies and hope we can mitigate the damage he will try to do in these very fateful next four years.

God bless the U.S.A.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share