Thursday, December 31, 2015

Should G.O.P. Voters Adhere to the “Buckley Rule”?

You might be saying to yourself, what is the Buckley Rule”? The late William F. Buckley”, editor of the National Review magazine and renowned pundit, once stated that the G.O.P. should “Nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable”. The key word is “ELECTABLE”.

Today, the G.O.P. has a great chance to win back the presidency from the Democrats since the the Democrats are about to “coronate” a flawed candidate by the name Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. That's why the “Buckley Rule” has been mentioned in the G.O.P. primary contest about who they will nominate as the most electable candidate to go against Hillary in the general election.

With the exception of George W. Bush, since 1992, the G.O.P. has nominated the least likely conservative candidates and lost all four times (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney) to Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. It seems that when the G.O.P. nominates candidates that are portrayed as “Democrat Lite”, the voters choose the “real thing”, the Democrat. It seems like the Republican “establishment” thinks the voting public, that is generally considered to be center-right, will not vote for a center-right conservative. How many more losses will they have to absorb before they realize that the “Buckley Rule” should be invoked for future presidential candidates? The question now is, who, out of the Republican field of candidates, is the most electable conservative candidate? At present, due to the over abundance of G.O.P. candidates, Donald Trump, is leading the field, and has the rabid support of about 30% of Republican voters, according to the recent polls. If that support keeps up, it looks like Trump will get the nomination, even though he will not have gained the majority of Republican voters. Of course, if the G.O.P. field gets down to a workable 2 or 3 candidates, you might see the dropped out candidates supporters turn to someone else besides Trump, thereby depriving the nomination to Trump.

Although Donald Trump has hit a nerve with many people who think that our country is going in the wrong direction, he has conjured up a strong following using the phrase “Make America Great Again”. That has resonated with his loyal followers, but in the general election, will that enthusiasm carry over to the general election to woo Independents and the once billed Reagan Democrats? That's where the general election will be decided. Both parties can rely on loyal voters (about 40% each) to come out to vote the party-line, but it will be the 20% of Independents and disaffected party regulars who will determine the 2016 election.

If Trump gets the nomination, will he be able to get those extra votes to win the general election? If, as he has shown so far, to “burn too many bridges” in his campaign for the Republican nomination, it might be a disaster in the making by pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.

If not Trump, then who? Who is the most conservative candidate who is electable and who could beat Hillary in a one on one? The one candidate who seems to have the least negatives and who might appeal to the greater number of Independents and Reagan Democrats, is Marco Rubio. Being very conservative, articulate and knowledgeable, he would be Hillary's worse nightmare in a debate. Whether it is Marco Rubio or not, I hope that whoever is the G.O.P. nominee, it will be the most conservative candidate who is electable. We can't let that failed former Bill Clinton enabler, failed Secretary of State, Alinskyite, with little to no accomplishments in her public life, get back into the White House. When the people (60% of those polled) have designated her to be a liar, dishonest, and untrustworthy, what kind of a president will that be in the eyes of the world? We can do better than that. VOTE REPUBLICAN !

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 27, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

STOP mis-using my White House!   
Now Children, primarily you children in the media, including White House spokes blokes, we’ve gone over this material before - - several times as a matter of fact.  So please pay attention as I attempt to ‘splain it to you, one more time.
STOP reporting that the White House this and the White House that.  The White House is a building; it cannot take action, it cannot think, it cannot speak, it cannot communicate in any way, shape or form.  Got it?  It’s a building made of brick and mortar that has been painted white. So, STOP attributing official statements to its masonry.  Quite the opposite of its current occupant, the building itself is mute.
We all know – that is, those of us who learned U. S. History in grade school know, that under the stewardship of several Presidents, i.e., Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding and more recently, Richard M. Nixon, this  stately Executive Mansion has suffered all manner of indignities.  Since Barack Hussein Obama and his band of uncouth minions have occupied ‘The People’s House’, it has been degraded noticeably and has fallen into a state of intentional disrespect by its occupants – the President and First Family.  It has been treated more shabbily than a trailer park on the wrong side of town.  It’s traditions and inherent dignity have been dismantled, swept out and replaced with Southside street rappers and a Chicago-style hip-hop culture that is nothing more and nothing less, than lightly-disguised thuggery, all dressed up like pimps & street-walkers.
Hence, when news anchors and official communiques make pronouncements and attribute them to, ‘The White House’ – let’s not be fooled, People  – every word of every report that emanates from the Mansion at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C., originates from the President & Incompetent-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.  To paraphrase BHO as if he were speaking to The White House, “You didn’t say that”.   Buildings can’t take action, they can’t think or speak.  
So puleez, STOP mis-using my White House.
                                                                                                     MORT KUFF   © 10-31-2015

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Who's a Bigot?

That word is bandied about willy-Nelly 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”.

So, if you disagree with another person or express a negative opinion of another person or group, you become a prime target as being called a “bigot”, especially if you are a Republican or a Conservative. That term “bigot”, along with the term “racist”, is 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 when they can't argue the facts, and back up their positions on the issues, especially when the debate is about race or religion.

The biggest practitioner of this labeling is none other than our “Liar in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. In his many comments about race and religion, he has blamed others, mostly Republicans, of engaging in hate speech because they protest the actions of certain groups relating to race and religion. It seems, no matter what the situation is, when it comes to race or religion, he always takes the sides 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 has that worked out so far? We are more divided, as a nation, than ever before.

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

Look at what our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, has proclaimed after the San Bernardino shootings 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”. Is she, and other bureaucrats, going to be the arbiters of what is or is not inflammatory speech? Does she not believe in the 1st Amendment?

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 statistics show that anti-Semitism 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 does Pres. Obama keep up the drumbeat about Islamophobia when there is little of any widespread animosity and hateful actions against Muslims? Does he 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” or “racists” in expressing our concerns that the San Bernardino massacre will be only the beginning of other Muslim terrorist attacks against our citizens and our country. The terrorists have said so, and we would be fools if we didn't take their threats to heart. Should we be labeled a “bigot” or a “racist” 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. These militant Islamic terrorists have stated that they want the world to be a universal Caliphate, with them in control. Should we be sheep being led to slaughter because we might be called a “bigot” or a “racist”? 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 is at stake. Speak up !

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Politically Correct Resentment

I am profoundly resentful of political correctness muzzling my right
to freedom of expression, for fear it will offend somebody, although
the proponents of this ridiculous burden do not have any qualms about
offending me with something that doesn't apply to them. Do as I say,
no as what I do.

A point of contention is the scuttling of many traditions celebrated since
the founding of our country, and those of the adopted traditions from
our legal immigrants, who through their sweat and labor and assimilation
into American society, help build our nation into the envy of the world.
These proud traditions are falling, because we are now told, we have
to assimilate into the cultures of whoever has entered our country legally
or illegally. Not criticize the country they fled from, and forego any hint of
patriotism lest we offend them.

We must abstain singing our national anthem in their presence, or pledge
allegiance to the flag and country. Celebrate Christmas, Easter or any
thing that has a religious connotation for fear they will be offended.
Desist from displaying anything pertaining to a particular tradition, such as
a Christmas tree, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Stars and Stripes, Crosses,
Star of David, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scene, etc.

There are no unlawful intruders into our porous borders. These future
democrats are to be referred to as undocumented citizens.


Conservative column from George Giftos



Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 17, 2015

The Democrat Party: The “Free Stuff” Party!

Some might ask, how can a political party with bankrupt policies, and ideas, get elected to public office? The political party in question is the Democrat Party., Of course, in some cases, the Democrats win because of the ineptness of the Republican Party, but mainly it is because they (the Democrats) promise “free stuff” from the public treasury that appeals to the “get something for nothing” group of “low information voters”. It happened in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, and it might happen again in 2016.

Who makes up the voting bloc that votes Democrat? Well, let's look at the coalition that generally votes for the Democrats. The coalition includes blacks (who vote 90% Democrat), Latinos (who vote 80% Democrat), Jews (who vote 70% Democrat), feminists, gays, government workers, union members, environmental extremists, the media, Hollywood, uninformed young people (indoctrinated in our public schools and universities), the “forever needy”, the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens (who vote in some cases without being a citizen) etc. Most of these groups, who's members are a small percent of the voting public, become a major force when organized by the left (a/k/a Democrats) as they then make up a sizable number of voters who are hard to beat in an election.

Many of these people are people receiving “free stuff” or are promised goodies or special favors from the government in order to get their vote. Look at some of the policies that the Democrats are in favor of. They generally want “open borders” (to appeal to the Latino voters) because the illegal aliens of today will become Democrat voters in the future; they are in favor of a big government (bloated government) bureaucracy who relies on the Democrats to keep them employed at jobs that in many cases are not needed to run an efficient government; they are in favor of letting convicted felons vote because they know the vast majority will vote Democrat; and they want to push programs that tend to be “Socialist” (over 70 Democrat members of Congress are members of the Democratic Socialists of America) which will drive up our national debt by granting more and more “free stuff”; and they are in favor of inefficient “green energy” programs (crony capitalism) while putting out of business many fossil fuel producers.

Look what is happening now, the Democrat candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are trying to outdo each other by offering massive tax breaks and “free stuff” in order to appeal to the voters. It reminds one of Oprah Winfrey giving away automobiles to her audience. Everywhere they go to they promise the audiences that they will get this tax break, this subsidy, this benefit, if they get elected. In fact, Bernie Sanders proposals are approaching the enormous figure of $18 trillion over the next decade. Hillary is just small amount less.

Look what has happened since Obama became president in 2009. Our government workforce has expanded exponentially, food stamp distribution has increased to 48 million people, people living at or below the poverty line is now at 50 million, the real unemployment rate, the U-6 rate, is over 10% , not the 5.1% as reported by the Labor Department, our labor participation rate is now at 63% (the lowest since 1977), and the average pay of the American worker has declined by over $3,000 since his inauguration. In addition, our credit rating was lowered for the first time in our history. That is the legacy of a bankrupt policy of the government giving away “free stuff” and promises based on lies in order to garner votes for the “next” election.

Now we are faced with giving “sanctuary” to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East in addition to the illegals coming from Central and South America. Our benevolence will cause more financial and social hardship on our citizens in addition to possibly accepting potential terrorists within our country. Are we stupid or what?

This coming presidential election will be a watershed moment for our country. Will we continue “down the road to perdition” or will we finally wise up and stop giving away “free stuff”? Let's hope sanity prevails.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 13, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

  Hillary promises to raise
the minimum wage to $12.
There.  That oughta do it.  Only a woman could be so compassionate. No other candidate, especially a male, could have the genius to come up with that gem of an idea.  
Doesn’t it make sense?  Entry level jobs that require little else in the way of qualifications, other than showing up to work are not worth even half that.  Ask any employer today, who requires relatively unskilled help to operate his business successfully, how he can sustain a minimum wage of $12. an hour for entry-level workers?  He can’t.  That means that either he is obliged to raise the price of his product, or watch his business slowly decline to the point where it doesn’t pay to open the door.  Only a Ted Kennedy, could have had the chutzpa to make a  blustery argument even when he was sober, for his perennial demand that the minimum wage be increased.  His logic:  “No one can support a family of four on today’s minimum wage.”  It never made sense then . . . it doesn’t make sense, now.
But now, Hillary, the smartest female dimwit on the national scene (it’s her turn, don’t forget) has taken up the good ‘ol Liberal, minimum wage harangue. Mrs. Evil makes precisely the same nonsensical Democrat arguments as the late (thankfully) Ted Kennedy.  I see now what has driven them both to drink.
                                                                                               MORT KUFF   © 11-4-2015

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Would You Want Hillary Answering the “Red Phone” in the White House at 3 AM?

That's a question that the voters are going to have to answer this next presidential election. Do you think Hillary would be head and shoulders above any of her opponents if that phone would ring? Does her past indicate that she has the “smarts” to handle the problems that most likely would be at the other end of that phone line?

Let's look at her past performances in foreign policy to judge her.

She spent 4 years as Obama's Secretary of State, were those years productive years for the United States? When asked by reporters to list her meaningful accomplishments as Secretary of State, she seemed to have a “senior moment” and a blank stare, but when she did answer she said that she visited over 100 countries and spoke with many heads of state. I guess you could say that if she wrote a book about her accomplishments as Secretary of State, it would be one of the shortest books ever published.

What did occur under her leadership at the State Department, here's a brief synopsis.

Early on she claimed to have instituted a “Reset Button” with Russia to start a new relationship with Putin and the Russians. How did that work out? We removed the missiles from Poland and the Czech Republic to try to appease the “Red Bear”, but Russia didn't reciprocate, in fact, they later on annexed the Crimea and invaded Ukraine. It looks like Hillary's “Reset Button” didn't work out as planned.

Under her watch, the “Arab Spring” was touted as a means of bringing stability to the Middle East. Have conditions improved in that area of the world? We undermined Pres. Mubarak of Egypt and had him deposed, as a result the Muslim Brotherhood took over (which lasted only a year). We laid down a “Red Line” in Syria that threatened Syrian Pres. Assad with “dire” consequences if he used chemical or biological warfare against his people. He used those weapons against his people, but there were no consequences. It was just an empty threat. All talk and no action, as usual.

Then we had the debacle in Libya, where Hillary was instrumental in pushing the idea of deposing the Libyan dictator, Moammar Khadafy. She did succeed, but what has it wrought - Libya is now a failed terrorist state and as a result 4 Americans in Benghazi were murdered (one of which was our Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens). Talking about answering the “Red Phone” in the White House, if Hillary wouldn't answer the phone when Ambassador Stevens called many times to ask for more security and received no response, who says she would answer the “Red Phone” for someone else?

These are just a few examples of why Hillary would be less than capable to be the person at the end of the “Red Phone” in the White House. This, coupled with the fact that over 60% of the people think that she is a liar, that she is dishonest, and is untrustworthy, would seem to make her the wrong choice for the position of President of the United States. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

So the election of 2016 will be a watershed moment in how the United States will be looked upon by the rest of the world. Lord knows, we have no place to go but up if we elect someone other than Hillary, who would be a continuation of the failed Obama doctrine of “leading from behind”. We can't let Hillary have access to that “Red Phone”, our national security would be at stake and the world would be less safe if that unfortunate happening occurred.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 6, 2015


If our sissy commander in chief, Barack Obama isn't capable of leaderships, maybe a
coalition under the leads of King Abdullah II of Jordan, President Abdel Fattah el Sisi
of Egypt and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, show him the way. The
 aforementioned do not play golf, fund raise or take selfies of themselves before
appearing on inane late night shows. You can be sure they know who the enemy is
and have no qualms identifying them by name.

They have the will to meet and defeat evil, but they lack the resources to be decisive.
We have the resources to assist them, but the President doesn't have the fortitude to
face and defeat the evil.

I may not have been in a heroic situation when serving my country, but I feel shame
 to  see second world countries carrying the ball, while the most powerful nation in
 the world, botch up the sacrifices made by our troops go down the drain, giving
 rise to ISIS because of the President's inaction.

Obama's 'RED LINE' is yellow!

Conservative column from George Giftos

Watch Judge Jeanine's fiery opening statement above.

"They're here and it’s time to stop pussy footing around, time to stop this 'politically incorrect' nonsense worrying about other people's feelings, pull out all the stops and start fighting for the survival of this country and our way of life." – Judge Jeanine Pirro

Judge Jeanine also criticized President Obama and his Administration for being overly protective of Muslims and their religion, while being ready to "denigrate all gun owners and take away our rights based on the actions of a few."

"If we are stopped from saying something against Mohammed, the Muslim religion, or Muslims in general, then Sharia law is already here," she said.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Is the Cure Worse Than the Malady?

Have you seen those ads on T.V. that attempt to educate you about a certain product that will either ease your pain or cure your malady, and then list about 20 possible side effects that might occur by taking that medication? It's downright scary that these listed side effects could cause you major health problems or, in the extreme, including even death. Come to think of it, who would like the trade-off of death over a cure? It's enough to scare the living daylights out of you.

Of course, the reason the drug companies go down the list of side effects is that they are covering their butts from the greedy, barracuda trial lawyers who will convince a disgruntled user of a drug medication to sue the drug company because they were unaware of the possible serious side effects of ingesting that medication, and that one of those side effects might have caused an adverse reaction. Look at the ads on T.V. regarding the malady called “Methothelioma”. How many law firms are trolling for victims on T.V., real or imagined, to get part of the award of monetary gain that some of our courts have determined they are entitled to? Fraud is rampant in many of these cases by people suing just to get a piece of the pie. The same thing is happening to the drug industry. So, that is why the drug companies are listing all these side effects so it might mitigate the claims by users of their products if they get an adverse reaction.

I've never seen so many medicines with funny sounding, hard to pronounce names that bombard the air waves, as what is being shown on T.V. today. Where do they dream up these names? In addition, the actors in these ads seem to be so happy that they found the cure for heart attacks, high blood pressure, diabetes, psoriasis, arthritis, breathing problems, and, of course, low libido in men etc. that it looks like a miracle cure, and that you the viewer could be happy just like the actor in the ad. I wonder if they'd be (the actors) so happy, in real life, if they were aware of the possible terrible side effects of those medications they are “hawking” on T.V.?

Just recently, someone mentioned to me that the ad agencies are the biggest purveyors of social “diversity” by overly including an over abundance of minorities as spokespeople for their medications that are advertised on T.V. I guess the “P.C. Police” have exerted their influence on the ad agencies and drug companies to have them show that they are inclusive by including an extraordinary number of minorities in their ads. It really doesn't matter who the actors are, but it does seem odd that a minority community would seem to dominate the airwaves representing the products that will cure the many maladies that affect all of us, regardless of race or ethnicity.

I'm sure there are pluses and minuses to all these medications that are shown on T.V., but with so many side effects, you wonder if the cure is worse than the malady.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 29, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

Of course, it does no good to run around shouting,
The French do not need to hear this.  They are hurting and they are well aware now, of the terrible human tragedy that has just been visited upon them by the inhuman insanity of IslamoTerrorists.  All the world except for the lunatic followers of Islam, feel for the people who are suffering the aftermath of that tragedy in Paris.  All the world should understand that this is not an isolated attack – it is merely the point of a poison-tipped spear being wielded by this growing mob of deranged, blood-thirsty morons who live only to hate and kill.  They are single-minded, sub-human  time-bombs who cannot wait to commit indiscriminate mayhem on innocents or with any good luck, martyr themselves.  They cannot be reasoned with, there are no receptors to accommodate logic or reason in their DNA.  That’s called, ‘Stupid’ – and that science is settled.

Sadly, the French characteristic that is  their oh-so-quirky national arrogance, had for generations, convinced them that they knew better – and they were not in the least concerned that their permissiveness with regard to the infiltration of militant Islamists could or would. ever get out of control.  The French have had a very long history of strict domination of their colonies around the world so, why would they be concerned about losing control of their own homeland?  That’s called, ‘arrogance’ and it is an extremely costly characteristic that seems to be endemic in the French culture.  If they don’t know now just how costly it can be – then, there’s no hope whatsoever, for the future of France.  That science too, is settled.

American citizens had better learn the lesson of France, Germany and all the other arrogant Europeans who are now reaping the results of their Liberalism and faux tolerance.  Here in our own country, we have an embarrassingly large segment of our population that are similarly smitten with European arrogance - they refer to themselves as, ‘Progressives’ -  we know them as, Democrats.    Counter-acting this bunch but, not so much, is another embarrassingly large segment of so-called, ‘Establishment Republicans’ that is afflicted with the very same insanity.
What part of, “I TOLD YOU SO” and “WE WARNED YOU” do they not understand?

          MORT KUFF    © 11-18-2015

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Are You a Climate Change Heretic?

You are a “heretic” if you are a person who disagrees with established beliefs or customs. It is commonly used to identify people who disagree with an organized religion. Those people are also sometimes called “deniers”.

In the case of “climate change” (a/k/a global warming), the people who challenge the theory of man-made global warming are called “deniers” just like the people who disavow the tenets of a particular religion. Therefore, some have determined that the advocates of global warming are really a religion cloaked in the feel-good term called “climate change”. If you disagree with their fanatical climate change theory, you become an “apostate” (definition: a person who forsakes his religion, cause, or party etc.) in that environmental religion.

Our present leaders, including President Obama and the vast majority of Democrats, are leading the charge in propagating and propagandizing the theory of man-made global warming, and Obama has even called it one of the greatest threats to civilization, not Islamic terrorism, but man-made global warming. The upcoming world wide climate conference to be held in Europe will be the showcase for all the misguided countries and leaders who have fallen for this unscientific theory. Science is never settled, even if Al Gore decrees it.

The theory of man-made global warming is not only a form of a religion, it is also a political weapon. In a recent issue of Newsweek, the cover story was entitled “Global Warming is a Hoax”. But, contrary to the cover headline, the following story in the article was was a pro-global warming piece that tried to discredit the “deniers”. There can and should be pointed out that thousands of researchers, scientists, and scholars have weighed in on the side of truth, and even professional mathematicians have joined the “deniers” by stating that there hasn't been any appreciable global warming during the past 18 years. We have reached the point where any person of intelligence can see through the “LIE” that most scientists agree that anthropomorphic global warming is real.

The question we should always ask ourselves as to why some scientists still support the hoax is that they are almost all entirely employed by governments or by institutions that depend on government funding. That is, by itself, is a dead give-away that there is something very political about this whole thing bordering on a religious aspect. The old saying, “follow the money” certainly applies in this case.

The “environmental wacko's” use the tactics of “doom and gloom” to frighten us into thinking that our planet, our way of life, our very survival is being threatened by an excess amount of CO2 in our atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels. These fanatics never mention the fact that CO2 is a plant and tree food or that living people exhale CO2 every time we breathe out. Also, they never mention that the greatest “pollutant” in our atmosphere is actually water vapor. Of course, they wouldn't mention that as it would undermine their livelihoods and in having grant money dry up to continue their vendetta against our capitalistic free enterprise system, which successful countries, like the U.S.A., live under.

Some of the prominent “heretics and deniers” of man-made global warming include, Dr Richard Lindzen, meteorologist and Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology and climatology at M.I.T.; Dr. Timothy Ball, former meteorology professor at the Univ. of Winnipeg; and John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, who has called man-made global warming “the biggest scientific scam in history”. They all pooh-pooh the so-called flawed data of the U.N. sponsored I.P.C.C., who were caught “cooking the books” a few years back in order to prove the bogus theory of man-made theory of global warming.

So yes, myself and many others can erroneously be considered “heretics” (and deniers) (with pride), not against formal religions, but against the religion of man-made global warming.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Barack Obama is not seeking "legacy"

By Sylvia Thompson

To the many gullible souls out there who truly think that Barack Obama is "legacy building" in his all-out assault on America, I implore you to bow out of the conversation because you are not seeing clearly.

The term legacy carries positive connotations of something bequeath that is to the receiver's benefit. Everything that Barack Obama does is calculated to destroy America, which he despises. This man no more cares about legacy than he fears being properly prosecuted by the white political leaders whose responsibility it is to remove him from office.

I focus on white leaders, because whites are still in the majority and they fill the majority of political offices. If the majority of political operatives were of some other ethnicity, I would lodge my complaint against that group. Ethnicity is an issue only because Obama is half-black and he uses that fact to intimidate guilt-conflicted white people. Otherwise, he would have been impeached and likely in prison for treason by now.

Barack Obama's sole aim has been, since he first entered politics and continues as he winds down this presidency, the complete destruction of America as it was founded.

It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans who must listen to elitist pundits on Fox news and elsewhere, and political drones in either party endeavor to make Obama's behavior fit a pattern of normalcy. Attributing his destructive policies to "legacy building" is either self-delusion on the part of the people who make that claim or cowardliness.

This is my take.

Obama's nuclear deal with Iran has nothing to do with legacy but rather to enable a Muslim nation to wage nuclear war with America and Israel – the two nations that he most despises. Does anyone wonder why Russians praise Vladimir Putin despite what the rest of the world might think of him? Putin cares about his country, that's why.

Obama despises the American military because traditionally it has been a mainstay of America's strength, and our strength infuriates him.

Imposition of a polluting homosexual, anti-Christian agenda upon the military ranks destroys unit cohesion and literally terrorizes male members with the prospect of sodomy rape. Such rapes have increased since the forcing of open homosexuality in the ranks, against the will of a majority of members I might add. Couple that with an infiltration of women, for whom all standards of strength must be reduced, and Obama attains his goal of emasculating and demoralizing the forces.

He could not care less about a legacy of making the forces more diverse. Besides, President Truman diversified the military as much as it should be when he integrated it. Obama's objective is its destruction.

Read the entire article from Sylvia Thompson at

Judge Jeanine Pirro's Opening Statement on November 21, 2015.

She Destroys B.H. Obama for putting American Citizens in Danger!

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Democrats Disguised as Journalists

For years, Republicans (a/k/a conservatives) have been complaining about a biased media that overwhelmingly seems to support Democrats (a/k/a liberals), with just a few exceptions. Fair minded people are well aware of the bias, but if they complained, they would then be scorned and be accused of whining by the very same media they were railing against. So, many conservatives would and have put their tail between their legs, in the past, and stifled their views on the obvious injustice of living with a biased media.

Just recently, during one of the Republican debates, this bias was shown, in all its glory, as the moderators of this debate (NBC personnel and commentators) used questioning techniques that wasn't trying to elicit meaningful information, but to arrogantly try to put the candidates being questioned on the defensive, and in some cases attempt to have them go after their opponents in a negative way. Their attempt backfired this time, as the candidates didn't fall for the bait and actually rebuffed the moderator's for their arrogant type of questioning, much to the delight of the audience who could see what the moderator's were trying to do. Boos could be heard on several occasions from the audience as the moderators tried to offer their inflammatory questions to the candidates. These moderators, representing CNBC (representing a notorious liberal network, under the aegis of NBC), could and should be classified as DEMOCRATS DISGUISED AS JOURNALISTS.

The attempt by NBC to get the candidates off message and to attack each other, sort of backfired on them as even some of the liberal pundits, like Carl Bernstein, called their behavior a disgrace. Of course, other liberal pundits, like Chris Matthews, sided with the conduct of the moderators and criticized the candidates for complaining. Imagine if they did that at a Democrat debate?

During the Republican debate, Sen. Marco Rubio made a very profound statement that the “main stream media” was the Super Pac of the Democrat Party. The audience erupted in applause, as it was quite obviously a valid statement by Marco Rubio. In addition, Sen. Ted Cruz also chimed in to more applause as to his observations as to the “modus operandi” of the moderator's questions to the candidates as being hostile and irrelevant (Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie also called out the moderators for their rude and biased questions). You could say that these rebukes by the candidates sort of toned down the hostile questions for the rest of the debate.

If you contrasted the Republican debate with the Democrat debate, it was like night and day. Very few hostile questions, if any, were asked of the Democrat candidates as it seemed the moderators were throwing “softball” questions at the Democrat candidates, while it was open season on the negative, inciting questions posed to the Republicans.

Of course, it is not just the cable and broadcast networks which exude this liberal bias, the print media is also complicit in this attempt to marginalize the Republicans and to brace up the Democrats.

Here in So. Florida, the 3 major newspapers are practically “in the tank” for the Democrats and with an obvious liberal progressive point of view. It seems that the Republicans can do nothing right and the Democrats can do no wrong. Every once in awhile they do print a positive story on the Republicans, but it seems like an after thought as they are probably trying to ease their guilty conscience. Fair and balanced is a term that seems to be forgotten by these purveyors of liberal bias. It will not get any better in the future as the journalism schools are turning out more liberal replacements for the liberal journalists who retire and die off. It seems that we are left with a “Hopson's Choice” (which is really no choice) and will just have to suffer with this blatant bias from now on into the future.

So, as to the headline, it is obvious from everything I mentioned in this editorial, that the vast majority of the media are really, DEMOCRATS DISGUISED AS JOURNALISTS.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Paris in November

What transpired in Paris on Friday is the ramification caused
by the buffoon in the oval office, due to his only strategy
ever set forth; evacuating our troops from Iraq, leaving the
whole area open to Islamic jihadists to create havoc that is
reaching far beyond the middle east.

Even in his statement to the world, he still purported ISIS
is contained. I would be open to know what his interpretation
of containment is. Everyone knew what would happen after the
withdrawal from Iraq, except him. And even after he was briefed
about ISIS in Syria, and on the move, he ignored military advice
to nip them in the bud with air power, while they were in the
open, but he waited until they became well formed and established
in key areas before he was forced to do it, even when the
timeline has become ineffectual.

It is apparent to others that he doesn't know what he is doing,
opening the door to Vladimir Putin and friendly nations to us,
looking for leadership elsewhere.

To the PCP, buffoon is politically correct to describe an ineffectual

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Mrs. Clinton v. Dr. Carson

I recently saw that great cartoon that someone sent me.

And then in the weekend's newspaper one of the political cartoonist drew a picture of Dr. Carson in a Burger King whopper outfit.  It brought home to me how the media has a double standard.  Two incidents - which were not proved untrue - that took place 35 to 50 years ago becomes relevant because Dr. Carson is a black, conservative Republican.  But let's take a look at just some of the whoppers told by Mrs. Clinton over the years.  And yet the main stream media continues to give her a pass.  Here are just a few of the Clinton lies.
  • Mrs. Clinton claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the world during 9/11 when it turned out she was safe at home.
  • She claimed that she was "under fire" with bullets flying everywhere when she landed in Bosnia.  However, the pilot said there were no bullets anywhere and they would not have departed if there was any danger.  In fact, a little girl presented her with flowers after she landed.
  • She claimed she never said the riots in Benghazi were caused by a political cartoon of Mohammad despite numerous videos contradicting her.
  • She claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary after he climbed Mt. Everest - but she was 6 years old when that happened.
  • She claimed it was by reading the Wall St. Journal that she, on her own, turned $1,000 into a $100,000 profit on her one and only foray in the cattle futures market.  However, the WSJ did not cover that market at the time.
  • She claimed she never received a subpoena concerning her emails and server although the House Committee produced the subpoena.
  • She claimed all of her grandparents immigrated to the U.S.  However, only one did.
  • She claimed that she and her husband were dead broke when they left the White House.  And yet below is a photo of the house they were able to purchase.  Most of us couldn't afford the taxes on such a house.

  • When she was a lawyer in the Rose law firm she did work for Castle Grande, which turned out to be a fraudulent venture.  She claimed she never worked on the project despite the law firm billing records showing she spent at least 30 hours on the project.
I could give many more examples.  The question I ask is:  when will the main stream media discuss Mrs. Clinton's lies?

I can hear the crickets chirping!

Contributed by James J. Pirretti

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 8, 2015

MORT’s meanderings

OBAMA:   Father knew best!

Balack Hussein Obama’s years of indoctrination in all things Islam, his exposure to radical, anti-American Socialistic hate mongering plus, an inordinately large dose of his Father’s obsession with anti-Colonialism – all these off-the-wall influences have combined to provide him with an outsized quotient of arrogance.  He stands alone in his uncanny ignorance that manifests itself whenever he delves into the nether world of micro-managing the military might of the U. S. Armed Forces.
President & Commander-in-Chief:  He is so taken with these titles that he is quite comfortable mucking up our military, making irrational decisions about Rules of Engagement policies and other inane strategies that are doomed-to-failure, all in the face of sound advice to the contrary from seasoned Generals with only their decades of directly-related combat experience to support their recommendations.  
Obama has never served a single day in a uniform of our Armed Forces and so, his aimless thrashing about in deadly serious military matters is an obscenity.  He is so obsessed with his own perceived Pope-like infallibility, that he can equate his time spent honing the corruptive skills of Community Organizing thuggery on the crime-ridden streets of Chicago, with the combined wisdom and combat experience of four-star Generals and Admirals.  And so, these top military advisors, each of whom has spent decades at training and leading our all-volunteer military in successful combat against enemy forces, have been shunted aside without a second thought by this self-centered, narcissistic demon who wallows in total denial of his gross inadequacies.
              Obama as Commander-in-Chief, is dangerous beyond all belief.
                                                       MORT KUFF   © 11-8-2015

        Allen West       Mort Kuff     Fred Thompson

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 5, 2015

What's the One Thing All These Cities Have in Common?

Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Newark, are the top 10 poorest cities in America, and the thread that binds all of them is that they are all run by DEMOCRATS . That's right, DEMOCRATS. Why is that? Let's take a look.

Almost all have a large amount of city employees with elaborate benefits and pensions for its retirees (the cost of which is bringing most of these cities to the brink of bankruptcy, if not already, in the case of Detroit). In order for these city politicians to get elected in these cities, the Democrat politicians offer very generous payouts to these employees thereby making the cities budgets unable to control costs. As a result of their mismanagement, many of the productive tax-paying residents have moved out to greener pastures, thus leaving behind the low producing residents who rely on the largess of government “goodies” for their survival, being supported by lower tax revenues.

Take the City of Detroit, at one time it was one of the richest cities in the country (it was the auto capital of the world) with over a million and a half residents. Today, many parts of the city look like Dresden, Germany (the bombed out city of Germany from World War II), and the population is now around 700,000 residents with a good percentage of them being poor. In addition, a few of the former Mayors are now doing jail time. All were DEMOCRATS, but the residents still vote for the Democrat candidate come election time. Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. You could say that Detroiters deserve what they voted for because they voted for these incompetent and felonious politicians, against common sense.

Besides the loss of tax revenue, because of the citizen flight out of these cities, the schools in these cities are graduating many functional illiterates, because the teacher's unions resist any reforms to improve the educational environment, and they get their power from the feckless politicians whom they endorse and work for during elections. The teachers vote between 80% and 90% for Democrats and contribute most all their political funds to Democrats, thereby expecting the politicians to do their bidding, and they do, when it comes to teacher's benefits along with “juicy” benefits to other municipal employees who also vote mostly Democrat. These “goodies” from the public treasury are causing some of the massive deficits in most of these cities.

Another factor which causes the outflow of tax-paying residents, is the high crime rates caused by a lack of police enforcement under the direction of the Mayor's and City Council members not backing up the police and law enforcement officials. The police are under siege today by radical anarchy groups that profess misinformation and misleading facts as truth, and a compliant media pushing their radical agenda. The bias in the media is quite evident and obvious.

A phenomenon in over 300 cities is the total disregard to law and order, especially in those cities that designate themselves as “sanctuary cites”. Illegal alien criminals flock to these cities knowing that they will not be arrested for their crimes, but in fact, will be sheltered from ICE and not be arrested as criminals or illegal aliens. The Democrats are the one's mainly behind this flouting of the law as the liberal politicians want to get the votes of Hispanics, and the hell with law abiding citizens who are paying the freight with their taxes.

So yes, it is very obvious that these poor cities, mentioned earlier, are on a downward spiral and unless they throw out their leaders (all Democrats and a smattering group of Republicans) they will continue being poor and dependent The answer is, THROW THE RASCALS OUT, regardless of party affiliation!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 1, 2015

The Abominable Key Tenets of Sharia

I do not comprehend this religion called Islam. From the effect
it is having on the world, I view it as a movement that was
conceived by a war lord born to violence and overseen by
psychopaths, divided in two factions in its concept, with no
regard for human life, especially women. Except for its very
few, there has been no outcry by other Muslims to condemn
the violence and terror attached to this religion. Especially in
our country.

Our Constitution is designed against a caliphate type institution
that would allow sharia law to exist. Where man and woman
walk side by side with each other instead of paces apart. Where
sharia Islam and democracy can never co-exist in harmony.
And many sharia abominate tenets are incompatible with Judeo-
Christian dogma. Doing a computer search of "The Key Tenets
of Sharia" will reveal some of these abominations.

Care must be taken in choosing our next leader carefully, to be
sure he or she will uphold the Constitution and not try to manipulate
or ignore what it stands for, and not fear that those who swore to
destroy us will be offended. We must win the battle of political
correctness against us from within, if we are to gain victory against
our adversaries and maintain our freedoms.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries with Robert Spencer on The Sean Hannity Show

Muslim Americans, even the ones born in USA wanted Sharia Law in USA, it's the same for Muslims all around the world, wanted Islam in non- Muslim countries.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Is Climate Change the New Marxism?

The radicals behind the movement that are championing “climate change” are mostly liberal progressives who want to undermine the only system that has brought about less poverty in the world - it is called “free enterprise capitalism”. In the United States it is the Democrats (a/k/a Democrat Socialists (Bernie Sanders), Progressives, and liberal Democrats) who are clamoring for these anti-free enterprise rules and regulations with the main intention of instituting “income re-distribution” and punishing the so-called “rich” and successful, the people who have created millions of jobs, and as a result they have become wealthy through their dedication and hard work. The liberal radicals have been demonizing the “anti-poverty” entrepreneurs for years, and are now using the emotional term “climate change” as their catchword for achieving their insidious goals of trying to rid the world of capitalism and free enterprise.

Look around you today, what do you see? Most public and private schools are staffed by by teachers and professors that preach the Utopian” (really should be called “Dystopian) economic philosophy of Socialism (a/k/a Progressiveism, Marxism and Communism). These radical educators have invaded the campuses of the U.S. in droves, with some estimates that 80% to 90% of the faculty members are radicals trying to inculcate their philosophy into the mushy minds of impressionable students who have not met life's challenges yet, and are susceptible to the liberal, radical propaganda put forth by these teachers and professors.

Look at the phenomenon of the voters of the U.S. who elected a president twice who proclaimed that he wanted to “fundamentally change” the U.S. even though he was voted the most liberal senator, as a U.S senator representing Illinois. The fact that he was black and articulate helped him, along with his political cronies, to take over the reins of government. In the almost 7 years of his presidency, he has not let his fellow radicals down, he has in many areas transformed our government into a European- styled country with his out-of-control (many deemed to be unconstitutional) dictates and presidential directives.

Well, has his transformative changes worked for the betterment of our country or have they hindered the economic and political growth of the U.S.? Let's take a look at what has happened over these past 7 years. Today, according to Obama and his fellow Democrats, they proclaim that the biggest threat facing the U.S. and the world is not “IsIamic terrorism”, but “climate change”. Can you imagine a sane person equating the march of Islamic terrorism across the world with “climate change” being the major threat to western civilization? Well, the Democrats, including their candidates for president, have actually stated that as a fact. How naive and out of touch with reality can they be? It looks like the “Rules for Radicals”, expounded by Saul Alinsky, philosophy has taken hold of the Democrat Party (both Obama and Hillary Clinton are acolytes of Saul Alinsky). Alinsky's rules have been used by Obama to push his radical socialist agenda forward. The results have been unspectacular, to say the least, and harmful to the United States.

Here are the sorry results, 93 million potential workers out of the workforce and not counted in the BLS unemployment rate of 5.1%, the true rate (the U-6 rate) is over 10%, 48 million people on food stamps, 50 million people at or below the poverty line, the GDP has hovered around the 1% to 2% growth rate when 4% should be the minimum growth rate for real progress, and one of the biggest budget busters facing us today is the Affordable Care Act, (Obamacare) that has covered only 10 million (mostly by government subsidy) out of the 40 million touted that would be covered when this monstrosity was debated and passed only by a Democrat Congress. The big costs of Obamacare will start to kick in starting in 2016.

So, when our “esteemed” leaders proclaim that “climate change” is our major national threat, they should be looking in the mirror to see who are the real threats to our country are – they might just see the real threats of our country in the reflection in the mirror – it is themselves.

This presidential election in 2016 will be pivotable for our country's survival. Do we continue “down the yellow-brick road” to disaster by electing more radicals or will we face the real threats facing us in a realistic manner? We must elect people to office who will not drag us down , both economically and politically, with the result of making us a copy of third world disaster cases like Venezuela and Cuba. You must vote Republican to save our republic.

Let's not continue following the Karl Marx playbook - free enterprise capitalism is the prescription for success not the tired failures of the tenets of Marxism as espoused by the Democrats. Climate change is just a smokescreen to undermine our capitalistic free enterprise system. Don't fall for it.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 25, 2015

How Hillary Clinton's Lawlessness Gets Ignored

Got Law? How Hillary Clinton's Lawlessness Gets Ignored.

This Bill Whittle should open your eyes! Hillary Clinton breaks the law, gets people who work for her killed, lies to the American people...and she's still a media darling? How is that possible? Is the the example of corruption that the Democrats set for the younger generation?

Judge Jeanine Pirro on - Benghazi Gate Hillary Clinton VS Congress

Bookmark and Share