Thursday, September 29, 2016

Watch Who You Are Calling a Clown

We are often fooled in how a person's public persona appears
to us under different circumstances. I found an example of it
when I recall how Maria Rosario Pilar Martinez Molina Baeza,
"Charo" for short, was perceived by many people as a flake
when doing her cuchi cuchi on TV. In a matter of fact she is
an intelligent business woman and a multi talented one, when
as a child she studied guitar under Andres Segovia and is now
considered one of the foremost classic Flamenco guitarists in
the world.

Errors are evident because of political inexperience, that the
liberal media and pundits are exploiting to forcing us to believe
Hillary Clinton's opponent is a cuchi-cuchi, when as a matter of
fact, Donald Trump is a skilled administrator and a successful
business executive who also hosted a highly regarded TV

If Hillary, a.k.a. liar, could do a cuchi-cuchi, maybe people might
like her, but alas the only thing she's good at is lying. An attribute
many of her followers respect.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 25, 2016

United We Stand, Divided We Fall!

That phrase has been attributed to that fabled Greek story teller, Aesop, and by a passage in the bible (Mark 3:25) which stated, “And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand”. As a Republican, I think that phrase has enormous meaning, especially in the upcoming presidential election. Quite few disgruntled Republicans, have stated that because of differences between themselves and the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, they will not vote for him or endorse him for president. The Democrats, on the other hand, join together no matter what their differences are and prepared to win the next election. The Republicans, some not all, seem to carry their differences to the extreme and do just the opposite out of principle.

I believe that our country is basically a center-right country, but we Republicans consistently lose elections to center-left candidates representing the Democrats. It seems to be that we are always grabbing defeat out of the jaws of victory. Are we that stupid? The answer is probably YES!

Most of us agree that politics is a “contact sport” (figuratively not literally) and most realize that most all politicians are loose with the truth and facts when trying to get elected or re-elected. The Republicans realize that losing the election to Hillary Clinton, would be a disaster, but some “ideological thick heads” would rather win the battle, but lose the war. They totally ignore the admonition by the late president, Ronald Reagan, who came up with the idea of the 80% solution to political differences. He said that if you can agree with a Republican candidate on 80% of the issues as opposed to 0% to 10% of the issues supported by his opponent (most likely a Democrat), you should vote for that Republican candidate. I'm sure most all Republicans can agree with 80% (or more) of what Donald Trump has proposed and is running on, so why withhold your vote over some personal or petty differences? Just the one fact that Trump has said that he would nominate conservative, originalist Supreme Court judges, should be reason enough to cast your vote for Trump. The other issues most Republicans can and should agree with are closing the border and tightening up our immigration policies, becoming energy independent, lowering marginal tax rates for all taxpayers, promoting school choice, less government regulation, and taking most of the special interests out of politics. All those items Trump agrees with, so, why the reluctance to swallow your pride and give Trump your vote?

So, for a few items or personal foibles that you don't agree with Trump on, you'd rather see Hillary Clinton win? To me, that is the height of stupidity, with all due respect. Do you really want 4 more years of the failed Obama policies, or 2 or 3 more liberal Supreme Court justices on the Supreme Court to overturn some items in the 1st and 2nd Amendments? If yes, that's what you will get if Hillary Clinton gets elected, a flawed candidate with more baggage than Macy's has in its luggage departments. It's almost like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Remember, united we stand, divided we fall.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 22, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

The result of no education is ignorance.
Everyone got that?  Anyone in the class still unsure about what this statement means?
     All right, let’s proceed.   
Super-Liberal former President of Princeton University Woodrow Wilson, was elected President in 1913, long before the term Liberal was conceived. From all that I’ve read, he proved to be an intellectual snob, an avowed anti-black racist and the first leader of this nation to champion the Socialist ideology.  What a guy.  The Russians engaged in a revolution in 1917 that saw Socialism and Communism gain power over that vast society.  That ideology when translated into action by a series of tyrannical leaders in what was eventually named, The Soviet Union, proved to be totally impractical and was the first failure on a grand scale of that pipe-dream.
Innumerable political feather-brains have been mesmerized by the Socialist ideology, believing in its pipe-dream premise.  A bit of education in World History would, or should, be enough to convince reasonable young people that this system simply doesn’t work.  Lacking in such education, the result is a preponderance of ignorance.
Similarly, a reading of factual papers written contemporaneously about the actual proceedings and the men who founded this nation would, or should, be sufficient to convince reasonable Americans who have the slightest curiosity about the subject – that The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are the most perfect documents ever conceived by man to effectively and fairly govern himself and all other men of good will.  No education in American History? . . bad!
We live in an age when there has been a marked drop-off in the number of young people who regularly attend faith-based services thus, there are far fewer chances  for people to acquire and absorb the practical and beneficial aspects of religions that teach principled, moral behavior.  Once again, the result of no education is ignorance.
And finally, those who have not had the good fortune to have served in one of the branches of our United States Armed Forces, have been deprived of an education in discipline, teamwork, pride in service and love of country that can be gleaned in no other way.  Without this specific experience, there is no way to fully understand what the Military is, what it does, or the vital importance of its existence. Sadly, for anyone to have missed this unique education means quite frankly, that they are more than likely to be ignorant of the full understanding of ‘Patriotism’.  No education = ignorance.
        MORT KUFF  © 8-28-2016

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Like it Never Really Happened!

That's the advertising phrase , “Like it Never Really Happened”, that the cleanup disaster company “Serv-Pro” uses to remind customers of their services. To hear and watch the media talk about the presidential campaign, you'd think that Hillary Clinton has led an exemplary life with little or no conflicts of interest or breeches of law. The media acts like a paid “Super Pac” of the Democrat Party, Democrats good, Republicans bad. They seem to completely overlook all of Hillary's indiscretions over the past 30 years, it's “Like it Never Really Happened”.

It seems that every 4 years the Democrats trot out the same old scenario, the Republicans are sexists, racists, bigots, homophobes, nativists, and a host of other epithets to demonize the Republicans (and now Trump). It seems that those damning words are okay, according to the media, if directed at the Republicans, but when Trump calls Hillary Clinton a bigot, the media goes crazy in pseudo-indignation and alarm. A perfect example of hypocrisy in action.

For example, CNN in their political reporting, brings up Trump in about 80% of its political stories, mostly all negative or confrontational. Interviewing Trump, or any Republican for that matter, will elicit pointed, biased questions to make the Republicans look insensitive, uncaring, and “stupid”. When a Democrat is interviewed (not Hillary, as she avoids most all interviews with a passion) the questions are generally considered “softball” questions to prop up their agenda, which is Liberal/Progressive. The bias is quite obvious and extensive to any fair-minded person listening to the give and take of the interviews.

Take this scenario, Trump makes a speech reaching out to the black and Hispanic communities, groups which he was criticized for by not addressing those communities concerns by the Democrats and the media in the past. But, instead of getting credit or praise for extending an “olive branch”, he was called a panderer, a phony, and for being insincere. You could say that Trump is damned if does and damned if he doesn't - a no-win situation that seems to be applied to Trump and the Republicans and not the Democrats. They call Trump a flip-flopper, but never point out that Hillary has flip-flopped on many issues including gay marriage, NAFTA, TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, and the war in Iraq, among other instances. It seems that she can do no wrong in the eyes of an adoring media. It is a “see no evil”, “hear no evil”, or “speak no evil” scenario that is so obviously blatantly biased that it that it is laughable, if it wasn't so sinister.

From now until the November election, all the focus of the media (the “lame stream media”) will be on demonizing and destroying Donald Trump personally and not debating the state of the economy (which has had worst recovery since the 1940's – ex. a 1.1% GDP for the 2nd quarter of 2016)), the racial unrest in Democrat controlled cities, stemming the flow of illegal immigration, and the turmoil in the world exacerbated by the policies of our country as directed by Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats. It seems like nothing really happened during the reign of Obama and Clinton to cause this disastrous climate in our country and around the world.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Misfits, Deplorables and Slime

No doubt there are people down on their luck and in dire need.
In many cases a circumstance not of their own making; perhaps
due to the economic policies of our government.

The liberals claim to be compassionate and caring while
disparaging efforts of conservatives for not emptying the
shelves and their pockets for assistance to them.

Among the needy are a slew of misfits flying under the banner
 of need, who don't qualify for assistance. Most are registered
democrats benefiting under the DNC entitlement umbrella.

They belong to paid groups, like Black Lives Matter and Occupy
Wall Street by behind the scene manipulators, responsible for
filling many of the seats of government with other misfits, like
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and
a few in the Black Caucus.

At the top of the list is a former Senator and Secretary of State,
running for POTUS, who by her past record or lack of, is
proving to be the head misfit!

Hillary Clinton's remark calling half of the backers and voters
for Donald Trump, a basket of deplorables is unconscionable.

In no way can using the term "misfit" be equated to her insulting
terminology, "deplorable" to describe patriotic, hard working,
responsible Americans and the people dedicating their service to
benefit our safety and quality of life.

It can be said, the tactics of many wealthy, influential advocates,
on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign, can be termed slimy, by
distorting or denying the truths about her outrageous scandals;
new ones that seem to be surfacing everyday.

What's deplorable is 35 years of Hillary Clinton missteps.
Who sounds more presidential is starting to pivot toward Donald
Trump, with a noticeable change in his demeanor and his offerings
that are not stale.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Blinded to the Facts!

Whenever I write about liberal Democrats (of which I was one many years ago), I am constantly reminded of a phrase that sort of describes them to a tee, it goes like this; “They are blinded to the facts by their loony liberal ideology”.

The term “cognitive dissonance” aptly describes their public pronouncements, and what they really know to be true, which is not what they said in public. Saying one thing, but believing something else. Many of the liberal Democrats are educated people who adhere to the “party line”, even though they know that what they are saying doesn't meet the “smell test” of verifiable facts.

A blatant example is when overly partisan Democrats continually state that lowering taxes to a reasonable level will cause huge deficits and a diminished flow of revenue to the government treasury. It is a well known fact that when marginal tax rates are lowered, the actual tax collections to the government coffers go up dramatically (ex: when JFK, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush lowered the tax rates, the revenue to the government went up). They always claim that our deficit increased during those periods of the lowering of the tax rates - that is correct, but it was not because we lowered the tax rates, it was because the Congress, with the complicity of the President, continued to spend more than we took in in revenue. What the liberal Democrats don't seem to grasp (or don't want to understand) is that the top 10% of income earners, who pay approximately 70% of our income taxes, have the means to take advantage of tax loopholes, or to move their money and their investments to places where it will generate more “bang for the buck”, in other words, they will vote with their feet to go to greener pastures with their money thus depriving the government of needed tax revenue. Even with that evidence, the liberal Democrats will not admit the obvious, but will stick to their erroneous beliefs because “they are blinded to the facts by their loony liberal ideology”.

This same “blindness” is evident by the liberal Democrats adamant denial of our country being able to become energy independent. It seems they are beholden to the “environmental wacko's” who are part of the collection of “special interests” that exert influence on the Democrat Party hierarchy. We have more natural energy resources within our own country than any other country in the world, but here we are importing 40% of our energy needs from foreign countries, thereby giving some of those countries billions of our dollars that should be spent right here in our own country. We should be an energy exporting country instead of an energy importing country if the restraints by the liberal Democrats, didn't throw “monkey wrenches” in our quest for energy exploration within our own borders. Are we stupid or what? Why don't the the liberal Democrats admit they are wrong and join the Republicans in unleashing our exploration and reclaiming of our energy so we can reverse our outlay of money to other countries, some of whom can be considered our political enemies.

So, as I've laid out, the liberal Democrats, as of now, are “blinded to the facts by their loony liberal ideology” and they must readjust their thinking (which they won't do), as to tax policy and energy policy, to help lead us into the 21st Century, and to return us to our former position as the pre-eminent country of the world. It looks like that will mean installing a new president ( not Hillary Clinton) to undo what the present occupant in the White House has done in his two terms as president. It won't be easy as he has done irreparable damage with his Alinsky-type, Marxism/Socialism.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement - Clinton Calls Trump Supporters Deplorables

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 8, 2016

MORT’s meanderings

Obama gets his kicks by humiliating
true-blue, patriotic Americans.  It’s an old Middle-East game and he loves to play it.
Want an example?  Take his speech to the 2016 Democratic National Convention on Wednesday evening, July 27, 2016.  He raved on with lie after lie and exaggeration after exaggeration about the tremendous accomplishments he said ‘happened’ on his watch over the past seven-and-a-half years.  Bald-faced, 180-degree opposites of the facts but, who cares – it was Obama and he was on a roll, making one of his infamous  speeches full of lies, like cockroaches running crazy-wild when the lights are turned on.
I won’t bore myself by itemizing the long litany of untruths he spewed forth, with no apparent shame at what he knew were absolute lies.  Lies that he knew could be fact-checked by delving into the history of his terms as President but, he also knew with a certainty that no Democrat or member of the mass media would ever bother to do that.  He knew and they knew he was lying and spreading bullshit by the megaton, with a Progressive Democrat bulldozer.  Doesn’t matter, this was Obama speaking.
What he said that must be listed as one of the all-time ultra-outrageous, lunatic statements in the annals of history was, that Hillary is the best-qualified candidate for the Presidency, of anyone who ever ran for the office of President of the United States.  He went on to dump more drek on the already high pile of drek, by saying that this assessment includes the qualifications of both Bill Clinton and himself. He blithely implied that both SlickWillie Clinton and SlickMuslim Obama were truly something quite special but, that Hillary’s qualifications even superseded theirs.  
It was obvious that Obama was getting his kicks by continuing to expand upon his off-the-wall ravings, knowing full well that he was lying like a rug and that he was  tossing a huge blanket of humiliation over the entire audience in that Convention Halll and the many millions of TV watchers all across America.  
If you noticed the greatly-reduced water pressure as you took your morning shower, it was because millions & millions of gullible Americans were also taking super-long, hot showers, trying to cleanse themselves of Obama’s bullshit.
              MORT KUFF   © 7-28-2016

Editor’s Note:

The Liar in Chief, President Obama, was speaking in Laos and found an Anti-American group to listen to his insidious view of America. Obama found time to disrespect the very People whom elected him twice even though he must be the most incompetent President of all time.  

Obama made the statement twice, as he called Americans “lazy.” Not lazy because they continue to vote for Corrupt Democrats who forcibly extract money from those who earn money while handing it out to Black Lies Matter Groups and others like them. No, said Obama, Americans are lazy because they don’t care enough about the environment, and because they aren’t considerate enough of foreign countries. The very same foreign countries who take money from America at the drop of a hat all the while helping Terrorist groups get stronger.   

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Was There a Quid Pro Quo?

The definition of of “Quid Pro Quo” is: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something of value”. Do any prominent people in our political system seem to be engaged in the practice of a “quid pro quo”? Does the name Clinton come to mind?

Well, if not, maybe it should. It seems that every time the Clinton's got paid for a speech or a donation to the Clinton Foundation, something good happened to the donor (mostly financial). That smelled something like a “quid pro quo”, don't you think?

When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Hillary declared that she and Bill were “broke” (mainly because of legal fees to fight Bill Clinton's legal woes regarding his philandering and lying before a grand jury). Well, since that time up until the present, the Clinton's net worth has reached more than $150 million. What did they do to amass such wealth in such a short period of time? Did they invent a product, did they introduce a marketable service concept, or did they inherit money in order to be able to generate such a windfall of riches? The answer, quite obviously, is “NO”, they offered themselves, their contacts, and their insider trading among the political and business elite to become extremely wealthy.

The best selling book, by author Peter Schweizer, called “Clinton Cash”, laid out a whole lot of instances where the Clinton's used their influence to get things that other “mortals” couldn't get. Even though Bill Clinton was no longer in office, he was an ex-president, and Hillary was a senator representing New York, and then in 2009, Secretary of State in the first term of the Obama administration, and with her eyes on running for president in 2016. The Clinton's also set up a “slush fund” called the Clinton Foundation, which was set up to perform humanitarian good works around the world. Quite a lofty goal, if they followed through.

From 2001 to the present, the Clinton's used their positions to “feather their nest” financially by getting large speaking fees (from $200,000 to $750,000 per speech) for themselves, and donations to the Clinton Foundation, as “cash cows” to spread their influence around the U.S. and around the world.

Just recently, it has been revealed that during her (Hillary) stint as Secretary of State, Hillary intervened with the IRS on behalf of the behemoth bank UBS, located in Switzerland, in mitigating the problems UBS had with the IRS about foreign bank accounts of Americans. The problem was solved as a result of her intervention, and immediately a donation by UBS ($600,000) to the Clinton Foundation was made, and speaking fees was paid to Bill Clinton (totaling$1.5 million). Was that just a coincidence, or was it a “quid pro quo”?

Another instance in which the Clinton's got involved in was with the cell phone giant company, Ericsson, a Swedish company doing a lot of business in the U.S. Ericsson was accused of dealing with Iran while economic sanctions on Iran were still in effect. Ericsson paid a large speaking fee to Bill Clinton and made a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and voila, the problem they had by violating the sanctions on Iran were settled in Ericsson's favor. Did the position that Hillary held as Secretary of State have anything to do with the outcome? Was this just another coincidence or was this this just another “quid pro quo”?

The list of shady deals as described in the book, “Clinton's Cash”, goes on and on. Were the actions of the Clinton's in creating financial windfalls for themselves and their cronies, if looked at by any impartial observer, would they feel that a “quid pro quo” was attached and in play? And now we have Hillary running for president with a honesty and trustworthy rating at a minus 60%. I think the electorate may have finally seen that both Bill and Hillary are inveterate grifters, and shouldn't be sent back to the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Hillary and the Truth

The liberal media has done everything they could to restore the credibility of Hillary Clinton. All of a sudden, they have conveniently overlooked all of the lies she has told over the years. The real question: would you put in office someone who is a habitual liar? Often politicians will stretch the truth but good old Hillary Clinton has brought this to a new standard. Never has a politician lied on so many subjects both superficial and important. Here are just a few of the lies she has told:

1. Clinton claimed that when she left off the White House she was “dead broke.” Even the left-wing, liberal Politifact found that statement to be false.

2. During the 2008 campaign Clinton said that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia in the 1990s. Video later showed this claim was false.

3. She claimed that “all of my grandparents” were immigrants. It turns out only one grandparent was an immigrant.

4. She claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary after he was acclaimed for climbing Mt. Everest. The only problem is that Sir Edmund accomplished this when she was six years old.

5. Not too long ago Clinton claimed she was turned down from joining the Marines in 1975. There is no evidence that she ever applied to the Marine Corps. Further, it is highly unlikely that the wife of an ex-President would join the Marines. In any event, Politifact again said this was false.

6. She claimed that a video was the cause of the Benghazi incident at a time when she knew that was false.

7. She claimed the Veterans Administration mishandling was not widespread. It turned out they were worse.

8. She claimed that her daughter Chelsea was jogging around the WTC on 9/11. Turned out to be another lie.

9. She claimed that she was instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process – another falsehood. She was nowhere to be found in the process.

The following lies come directly from Politifact, a left-wing liberal source.

1. She claimed that nothing that Donald Trump makes is made in the U.S.

2. She claimed that Mike Pence slashed education spending when he was governor.

3. She said she never sent of received “any material that was marked confidential” on her personal server when she was Secretary of State.

4. She claimed that minorities were three times as likely to be denied a mortgage as whites who had the same credentials.

5. “We have now driven health care costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years.” What world does she live in?

6. The Benghazi probe is the longest in political history. The comment by Poiitifact: “Not by a long shot.”

7. She claimed that Governor Scott Walker vetoed a bill to make college payments deductible which would result in higher costs for college students. The bill never made it to Walker’s desk.

8. Hedge fund managers “pay less in taxes than truck drivers and nurses.” Blatantly false.

9. She claimed NIH funding decreased under President Bush. Another falsehood.

Some other points of note in Hillary Clinton’s career.

The New York Times revealed in March 1994 that in 1978, just before her husband became governor, Hillary had made a $100,000 profit on a $1,000 investment in highly speculative cattle-futures contracts in only nine months. Hillary’s first explanation was that she had made the investment after “reading The Wall Street Journal and placed all the trades herself after seeking advice from “numerous people.” Eventually, she had to admit that longtime Clinton friend James Blair had executed 30 of her 32 trades directly with an Arkansas broker. In an April 1994 press conference, Hillary denied knowing of “any favorable treatment” by Blair.

Hillary was asked why her then-chief of staff, Maggie Williams, had been involved in removing documents from the office of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster after his suicide. “I don’t know that she did remove any documents,” Hillary said. But it was reported three months later that Hillary had instructed Williams to remove the Foster documents to the White House residence.

In the summer of 1995, the Resolution Trust Corp. reported that Hillary had been one of 11 Rose Law Firm lawyers who had done work in the mid-1980s on an Arkansas real estate development, widely known as Castle Grande, promoted by James McDougal and Seth Ward. She told federal investigators that she knew nothing about Castle Grande. When it turned out that more than 30 of her 60 hours of legal work for Madison Guaranty involved Castle Grande, she said she had known the project under a different name. A 1996 Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. report said that she had drafted documents that Castle Grande used to “deceive federal bank examiners.”

So no matter how the liberal media attempts to portray Hillary: the fact is that she is a congenital liar.

Conservative commentary from Jim Pirretti

Bookmark and Share