Sunday, December 17, 2017

What Are The Rules?

For the last few months, we have been inundated with charges, accusations, and innuendos about some famous entertainers, politicians, and businessmen in powerful positions, who have been accused of the sexual abuse or harassment of women, what are we to believe? In the rush to judgment, many have claimed that any woman who has accused a man of improper conduct or activity, should be believed, no matter what. I know for sure that there has been sexual abuse upon women (ever since humans were living in caves), especially when men were in positions of power and women were the subject of that power, and those validated cases should be shown the light of day and the perpetrators should be liable for their indiscretions of abuse and harassment.

The murky water comes about when some of the charges of sexual abuse might not be all that cut and dried. There have been shown instances where these charges have been the result of vindictiveness, political considerations, and outright fantasy, and have been totally found to be made up out of whole cloth as retribution by the accuser. As a result, many men have had their reputations sullied and their careers shattered by sometimes untruthful accusations of sexual misconduct or physical abuse. WHAT ARE THE RULES?

Since time began and humans have inhabited the earth, the male of the species has been classified as the “predator” and the females have been classified as the “prey”. One reason might be that the male is physically stronger, in most cases, than the female. Women, over the ages, have therefore had to face a dominant male who sometimes abused that superiority of physical strength in his dealings with females (it is very pronounced in the Muslim religion).

So, what constitutes sexual abuse or sexual harassment? By the way, a sexual abuser can be an equal opportunity perpetrator, as women can also be charged with sexual abuse (ex: women in positions of authority, and women teachers etc.), but the overwhelming charges of sexual abuse is put on the shoulders of the male, in most cases.

It seems that we, in this day and age, that we are defining sexual abuse and sexual harassment down. Almost anything now can be considered sexual abuse such as telling a crude joke; having a nudie or a revealing swimsuit calendar on the office wall; a man innocently putting his hand on the shoulder or arm of the woman (not like in the case of Sen. Al Franken who was caught actually groping a woman); or even a 93 year old man in a wheelchair patting a woman on the butt; can be charges of sexual abuse or sexual harassment. In addition, sexual harassment is often dependent on the feelings of the woman involved. Asking a woman out on a date a second time after she had turned him down once, if she liked him, he could be classified as being “persistent”, but if she doesn't like him she might call it “creepy harassment”. In some cases, the man can't win by trying to be the pursuer (as society has deemed proper), because it depends on the woman, if she likes you, it's O.K., if she doesn't, it might be “creepy harassment”.

In some cases, women do lie about rape (and sexual abuse), ex: the Tawana Brawley case of crying rape when their was no rape; the Jackie Coakley case about a non-existent campus rape on the Univ. of Virginia that was posted in the Rolling Stone magazine; and the Duke lacrosse team case, that were all phony charges of rape and the accused were “tarred and feathered” in the media and the authorities, but were later exonerated after the men's reputations were ruined or dragged through the mud.

So, what are the rules between men and women regarding sex and power, and charges of sexual harassment and sexual abuse? Should an accused man (or woman) be given his/her right of “presumed innocence” or should the accuser and the media be given “carte blanche” that the charges be believed, no matter what are the circumstances as to fact or fiction?

We are now in a public feeding frenzy whereby the roles of men and women are being placed in a state of flux, fueled by an enormous dose of “political correctness”.

Abuse, both sexual and abuse of power in the workplace, should be prosecuted (as represented by Harvey Weinstein, Rep. John Conyers, Matt Lauer etc.), but instances of minor verbal and innocent touching among the sexes, or consensual sex between, both heterosexual and homosexual participants in a relationship gone bad, should not be the cause of felony accusations and slander and libel. One-sided guilt is not fair to anyone, especially to the person accused of misconduct. He or she should have their “day in court” to determine who is telling the truth.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 14, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

My take on the 2017 Christmas Décor at the White House.
Down through the years, the Christmas decorations at the White House have been increasingly beautiful. From the photos & videos I’ve seen, this year’s decor tops them all.  Despite the ludicrous rants of the All-Wrong-All-the-Time-Trump-Haters to the effect that Melania Trump is personally responsible for the worst-ever look at the White House, they are simply wrong.  They are as usual, simply dead-wrong.
I have no inside info however, I’m guessing that while she was assuredly given a heads-up briefing on the plans for Christmas decorations and had the opportunity to provide some input, the First Lady isn’t responsible for the placement of every wreath and bit of sparkle as the Trump-Haters would have us believe.   
What a comparison to the bah-humbug attitude toward Christmas that prevailed during the eight years of the previous President, his family and his administration.  If memory serves, ‘tribe Obama’ packed up and bugged out of town, all the way to Hawaii before the Spirit of the Christmas season landed in the White House.  
The 44th President Barack Hussein Obama, the devout Hypocrite wanted nothing whatever to do with any celebration that was so alien to his upbringing in the ideology of Islam.   The Judeo-Christian principles that guided the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution are unbelievably, the direct antithesis of Obama’s belief system.  And while the rest of the Nation traditionally celebrated the spirit of the Christmas season each year, Obama weirdly enough, chose to absent himself and his family from the White House. What does that tell you?
I confess to an overwhelming feeling of giddy exuberance when I see the exquisite decorations in and around the People’s House in the Nation’s Capital – knowing that this year, the exquisite First Lady and President Donald J. Trump are the respectful, patriotic residents who currently occupy my White House.   
I want to take this opportunity to thank the voters in Fly-Over Country for making this a very, very MERRY CHRISTMAS” in America.             
                                                                                              MORT KUFF © 12-11-2017     

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Who's a Bigot, a Racist or a Fascist?

Those words are bandied about willy-nilly 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”. That same definition can be used for the terms racist and Fascist as well.

So, if you disagree with another person or express a negative opinion of another person or group, you become a prime target for being called a “bigot”, a “racist”, or a “Fascist”, especially if you are a Republican or a Conservative. That term “bigot”, along with the term “racist” and “Fascist”, are being 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 today, when they can't argue the facts, and are unable to back up their positions on the issues, especially when the debate is about race or religion. Even today, with no proof whatsoever, President Trump is called a “racist”, a “bigot”, or a ”Fascist” by the liberal left on a regular basis. Their hatred knows no bounds. Even some loony Democrats, like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.), are calling for Pres. Trump's impeachment, just because they don't like him personally and that he is president, and he is not a Democrat. I guess you could say there are no fools like old fools, and those Democrats fit that description.

One of the biggest practitioners of this labeling was none other than our former “Liar in Chief”, Barack Hussein Obama. In his many comments about race and religion during his 8 years in office, he blamed others, mostly Republicans or Conservatives, of engaging in hate speech because they protested the actions of certain groups relating to race and religion. It seemed, no matter what the situation was, when it came to race or religion, he always took the side 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 did that work out? We are now more divided, as a nation than ever before, thanks to the policies and rhetoric of Pres. Obama, and racial “bomb throwers” like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

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

Look at what former Attorney General Loretta Lynch proclaimed after the San Bernardino shootings had 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”. Was she, and other bureaucrats, going to be the arbiters of what was or is not inflammatory speech? Did she not believe in the 1st Amendment? Where is the outrage today when these terms are used indiscriminately against others? Especially their political opponents.

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 government statistics show that antisemitism 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 did Pres. Obama and the Democrats keep up the drumbeat about Islamophobia when there was little of any widespread animosity and hateful actions against Muslims? Did they 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”, “racists”, or “Fascists” in expressing our concerns that the San Bernardino massacre, the shooting in the Orlando nightclub, and the mowing down, by a truck, of innocent civilians in lower Manhattan, for pointing out who were the perpetrators of these terrorist acts. These will not be the only Muslim terrorist attacks against our citizens and our country in the future. The terrorists have said so, over and over again, and we would be fools if we didn't take their threats to heart. Should we be labeled a “bigot”, a “racist” or a “Fascist” 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, World War 11. These militant Islamic terrorists have stated that they want the world to be a universal Caliphate, with them in control by using Sharia law. It's stated in the Koran. Should we be sheep being led to slaughter because we might be called a “bigot”, a “racist”, or a “Fascist”? 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 are at stake. Speak up ! Support the policies of President Trump as he tries to institute policies that will make us safer from future terrorist attacks. And, don't let partisan animosity toward our president, deter us from instituting practical solutions regarding this problem.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 7, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

   Who really controls the Internet?

I’m certain that my experience is not unique when it comes to feeling frustrated because a photo or a headline has led me to attempt to access a site – only to have a scary notice appear on my screen, warning me about accessing this site at the risk of such action causing great damage to my computer.
Who makes that decision?  Why is such a site permitted in the first place?  Who, why and how are sites blocked?  Without doubt, the decisions are based upon political considerations.
In addition to the two major political parties that dominate the news & views in this country, there are untold dozens of groups with a wide variety of axes to grind, viewpoints to counter plus,  ideologies to expound upon and single-issue causes to foster. One ponders, Who really controls the Internet?’  
Surfing the internet and navigating the plethora of intriguing sites while trying to dig beyond an arresting photo or title, can lead one to full-blown frustration, disappointment and disgust, blinding anger and extreme spikes in one’s blood-pressure.
Who, other than me, remembers the good old days of the reigning communications technology that was represented by ‘smoke signals’?  Have we really advanced all that much?
                                                                   MORT  KUFF  © 12-4-2017

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, December 3, 2017

No One is Above the Law?

Do you really believe that, or do you feel that there are some people who are really above the law? That's the question many are asking about Hillary and Bill Clinton. Some have compared the Clinton's to the “Great Houdini”, the great magician and escape artist, and who they say make Houdini look like a rank amateur. No law seems to touch them. No regulation seems to control them, and it seems no prosecutor wants to take the risk of holding the Clinton's accountable for anything. The only thing that was a negative consequence for the Clinton's, in the past, was that Hillary failed to win the presidency two times, which, most people feel, was her fault.

Can you imagine any of us doing what the Clinton's have done and getting away with it “scot free” with only a meaningless slap on the wrist?

The “modus operandi” of the Clinton's when they are caught with “their hands in the cookie jar”, is that they use their tried and true escape maneuver, “selective amnesia”. In other words, they “dummy up”. Is it logical that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, whom Bill collected $12 million for his memoirs, and Hillary who got $8 million for hers, which comes to $20 million, for the memories of these two lawyers who have repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. It sort of boggles the mind, doesn't it?

What's the latest sleazy situations the Clinton's have been involved in that doesn't meet the “smell test”?

To start off, as Secretary of State, Hillary, was, as government rules dictated, supposed to use a government sanctioned server for use in her duties as Secretary of State while using her e-mails, and for which she agreed to do by signing a form on day one of starting on the job, but, thereafter, she knowingly decided to use her “own server” for both her personal and government communications, some of which contained “classified government” information. She was investigated by the FBI for that breech of protocol, and on July 5, 2016, the FBI Director, James Comey, went on T.V. to bring forth what they had found in their investigation, and whether or not Hillary violated the law. Out of a 15 minute presentation by Comey, which during the first 13 minutes, he laid out a perfect case of why Hillary violated the rules, but in the last two minutes of his presentation, he stated that he would NOT recommend prosecution of Hillary because he concluded that Hillary did not “intend to violate the law” (by the way, the law, in this situation, does not require intent, and also, he was not authorized to make that determination, the Attorney General was). Even Houdini would've been amazed at that escape by Hillary.

Then there was the deal, approved by Hillary, that allegedly allowed for the sale of 20% of our uranium reserves to the Russians via a Canadian “friend”, who had heavily contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton, during that time, collected $500,000 for a speech in Moscow for a bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. In addition, a donation of $140 million was contributed to the Clinton Foundation. Do these events smell like a “quid pro quo”? Is the Pope Catholic?

The trail of corruption has continued right up to the inauguration of Donald Trump, whereby the Clinton campaign and the Democrat

National Committee paid $12 million ($9 million by the Clinton campaign and $3 million by the DNC) for a salacious “Dossier” by a company called “Fusion GPS”, who worked with some Russian operatives who came up with totally bogus information sliming Trump in an attempt to undermine him and his presidency. So far, no prosecution has taken place under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. You have to wonder why nothing has been done as yet?

So, with all these shenanigans by the Clinton's, and no retribution by the law, you could say that, as of now, that the Clinton's are above the law. Let's hope that justice finally prevails, and the Clinton's finally will be made to pay for their transgressions and hopefully fade away onto the scrap heap of history.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Dana Loesch On Elizabeth Warren’s Race Appropriation

She’s a racist who appropriated an entire ethnicity so that she could get a job at Harvard,” Dana Loesch said about Elizabeth Warren. “And I’ll tell you this, the closest that her ancestors ever came to American Indians was rounding up my ancestors, so let’s get that straight right now if anyone wants to have a discussion on what is or is not racist.

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Boss Tweed and the Democrats

The Democrats are proclaiming that the Republicans are imploding, but they never mention the raging turmoil that's going on in their own party. They champion the fallacy that all corruption is on the part of the Republicans, when if you follow the news, it is mainly the Democrats who are being charged with most of the wrongdoing. It seems they are reliving the past by emulating Boss Tweed, the infamous Democrat leader of the late 19th century.

With an occasional Republican thrown into the corruption mix, here is a list of the misdeeds of the Democrats. Starting off with that disgraced movie mogul, Harvey Weinstein, who has been shown to be a serial woman abuser and who happens to be a major Democrat Party donor; Kevin Spacey, a gay pedophile; Cong. John Conyers, another admitted woman abuser; Louis C.K., comedian; Glenn Thrush, N.Y. Times columnist and a woman groper; Sen. Al Franken, a phony champion of women who has demeaned women on a number of occasions; Septuagenarian Charlie Rose, T.V. host for over 30 years who has been fired from 3 networks for women molestation; Sen. Robert Menendez, fresh from charges of corruption in N.J. and released because of a hung jury, who has been accused of hiring under age prostitutes in the Dominican Republic; Mark Halperin, NBC pundit who has recently been fired for women sexual abuse; and then there is the “King of Them All”, former Pres. Bill Clinton, an admitted perjurer and a serial woman abuser who is now being thrown under the bus by his fellow Democrats. Then there is Judge Roy Moore, a Republican, who has also been accused by 4 women of non-consensual touching and asking them out on dates while they were teenagers almost 40 years ago, just 4 weeks before a special election for the Senate, charges which he fervently denies and claims that it is a political hit job by his opponent and some RINO Republicans. The voters of Alabama will determine his fate on election day.

The old expression, “People in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones”, surely applies to the sanctimonious Democrats, who seem to always accuse the Republicans of doing what they have been doing in spades themselves.

You name it, if you are a Republican or Conservative, you will be charged with racism, bigotry, Nazism, Fascism, child abuse, haters of minorities, killing or starving the poor and elderly, and on and on. These epithets will generally come up every 2 and 4 years at election time, and it seems that many people fall for these descriptions because of partisan political considerations and not whether they are valid or not.

During the past couple of years, the vitriol and vile personal attacks, by the Democrats, have been directed at Pres. Donald Trump. Since the Democrats lost the last election, which they thought they would win in a walk against the political novice, Donald Trump, they have been relentless in trying to bring him and his administration down, regardless how that might affect the country. Is it worth it to be against all his policies, because they hate him personally, even though it might not be beneficial for the country? “Total Resistance” is the Democrats method of showing disapproval of him and his policies, and they are being encouraged by their leaders including Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and, as of now, the whole Democrat Party.

In referring to Boss Tweed in my headline, who, by the way, was also a Democrat and the head of Tammany Hall (Democrat headquarters) in New York City (from1858 to 1871), who was considered the “poster boy” for entrenched political corruption during that period. The modern day Democrats seem to taking a page out of Tweed's playbook as the slimy events of today are being reported on an almost daily basis (the just re-elected NYC Mayor, Bill DiBlasio seems to be emulating the actions of Boss Tweed). We don't need more Boss Tweed's, we need some honest people to run our government and to “Drain the Swamp”, and a good start would be to back our populist President Donald Trump. Let's Make America Great Again.

Conservative commentary Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 23, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

What is seriously wrong today,
Nov. 12, 2017, here in the USA?
Today and everyday, all day, no matter which of the three TVs in my home I am watching, I squirm in my seat, foam at the mouth and stamp my feet on the floor when I am subjected to the panoply of cookie-cutter, biased news shows being interrupted by one stupid, inane commercial being attached without interruption to another in a series of stupid, inane commercials.  Are you catching the gist of my dilemma?  Are you beginning to understand the cause of my dyspepsia?
I am pummeled with transparently insincere, cardboard actors who are flacking gold & silver that is touted to make my portfolio secure from the ravages of the upside-down, inside-out economy.  I wouldn’t believe any of them on a stack of Bibles. Precisely who in Hell do the sponsors think they are fooling?
Even more morally reprehensible if that is possible, are the non-stop, insipid commercials for prescription medications with lots of Xs & Zs in their names, supposedly one presumes, to make them sound potent.  They promise to cure any ailment, followed by a crushing list of possible side-effects that is delivered at warp speed by hired speakers with forked tongues. Plus, each and every one of these commercials includes the admonition to ‘tell your doctor what is wrong with you’him  and to axx him how he feels about providing you with a prescription to access these poison cures.
Then, there is that ober-nox-ious pillow pusher who glibly guarantees you instant and glorious sleep by him customizing one of his pillows, simply by scientifically punching it into a configuration that magically renders it specifically shaped to precisely accommodate your individual, misshapen neck & spine.
Oh, there’s more . . . much more however, this being Sunday, I’m committed to sit before one of my TVs and switch from channel to channel in order to assure that I demonstrate my ire and justifiable outrage at each NFL game being played by the ‘Knee-taking Millionaires’ replete with dreadlocks, beards and lunatic gyrations at the end of each tackle, sack, touchdown or yellow flag being thrown.  One can only imagine the out-of-this-world joy it must be to attend one of these games in person and thrill at the outlay of a thousand bucks or more for such an obvious  hustle.  And, to be there live, to view the game at such a distance as to not be able to follow the football but, to be able to view it on the Jumbotron at the far end of the field – what a pleasure!
But now, back to my TV viewing – I always have a pencil and paper close by to write down the names of the diverse racial, ethnic and sexually-liberated lawyers who comprise the dozen-or-so names in the masthead of the legal firms that are so ready, willing and able to fight the good fight on my behalf, if only I’ll permit them to sue somebody, anybody, for anything that might possibly have been done to me by one of this nation’s thousands of demonic, bungling surgeons.
Then, there is that utterly obernoxious Pillsbury dough-Girl dressed in white (why?) with the word, ‘PROGRESSIVE’ emblazoned in blue across her white apron (why an apron?) who has the identical effect on me that I get when I stick my finger down my throat.  What is it about these ludicrous commercials that causes me to wretch, in addition to knowing that the insurance company that sponsors this eye & ear pollution, is funded by George Soros, among other Communists and  assorted, unsavory leftists that you wouldn’t want to babysit your children. If for no other reason than I know the Harley Owners Group doesn’t include even one member motorcyclist who patronizes this ‘insurance company’, I would wish to see ‘PROGRESSIVE’ take a nose-dive into obscurity.  I can assure you of that.
As to the many weight-loss advertisers that promise highly-unlikely miracles, they send me fleeing to the fridge, just to see what fattening foods I can find to jam into my mouth before resuming my semi-prone position in front of one of my three TV’s.  Did I mention that I have three TVs in my home?  
                                                                MORT KUFF    © 11-12-2017

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Are Cops Targeting Black Males and Killing Them?

If you listen to the “racial arsonists” like Black Lives Matter, the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the “kneeling” NFL players, you'd think that the police around the country are indiscriminately targeting “innocent” blacks and killing them. Is there any substance to those charges? Let's examine the facts.

The FBI released its 2016 crime tally recently, and it is in direct conflict with the above named groups or people who are claiming police are unjustifiably killing black males for apparently no other reason other than they are black.

According to the liberal Washington Post newspaper, in 2016, the police shot 233 blacks, the vast majority who were armed and dangerous. The paper categorized only 16 black victims of police shootings as being “unarmed”. That classification masks assaults against officers and violent resistance to arrest.

According to crime reporter, Heather MacDonald of the City Journal, contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males should fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.

More facts. Black males made up 42% of all cop killers over the last decade, though they are only 6% of the population. That 18.5% ratio, of cops being killed by black males undoubtedly worsened in 2016.

Where have most of the killings of black males taken place? Here's a breakdown of murders taken place (most murders were of black males) in some of the cities of the United States that are mostly all run by Democrat politicians and inhabited by a large percentage, if not a majority, of mostly black residents. Out of the 5,100 murders related to gun violence, 9.4% were in Chicago (480 homicides – this year (2017) the murder total has already gone over 500); 6.7% in Baltimore (344 homicides); 6.5% in Detroit (333 homicides); 2.3% in Washington D.C (119 homicides which is over a 54% increase from prior years). So, 25% of all gun homicides happens in just 4 cities, and all these cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of gun laws that is the root cause. Most people attribute this increase in violent crime to the breakdown in the family and the absence of a father figure in the home environment, and the increase in drug trafficking. Other cities with high violent crime rates are St. Louis, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami etc., all liberal Democrat-run cities. Do you think there a correlation in that fact?

In Chicago, most all of the 500 plus homicides committed against blacks are by other blacks, not the police.

That phony chant by the Black Lives Matter organization, “Hands up, Don't Shoot”, has been proven to be a lie. This was a carryover from the incident in Ferguson, Missouri whereby a “white” police officer was acquitted by a jury of the murder of a black youth (which decision was subsequently approved by the Obama Justice Dep't) and from which violent riots ensued . This same “racist” group BLM, are the same one's who have gone around the country chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon” (referring to police officers), and “What do we want, DEAD COPS, When do we want it, NOW”. This racial agitation has been supported by former President Barack Obama, who had invited them to the White House, and by most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who have openly supported them. Never have we seen such a racial divide, at least since the Civil War, as we have now. It seems that everything revolves around the term “racism”, real or imagined, and many in the black community blame their plight on white “racism”, when, in fact, they should look in the mirror and see who are the real racists?

In conclusion, there is no concerted effort on the part of the police to target and kill innocent black males, in fact, it is the police who should fear the violence against them. When a policeman violates his oath of office, he should face the consequences of his wrongful actions, but this blanket condemnation of the police in targeting the killing of blacks is a total sham and is unwarranted and should be condemned.

Conservative commentary of Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 16, 2017

We now have the chance to turn America on again

I am suffering BS fatigue listening to the rhetoric coming
from phony liberal black supremacists who depict them-
selves holier than thou, by keeping racism alive and milking
it for everything they can get out of it, accusing conservatives
of being the racists.

On behalf of minorities and people of color, liberal media is
depicting civil rights as exclusive to them.

Political correctness, affirmative action, anti 2nd Amendment
and 1st Amendment rights for conservatives are designed to
deprive conservatives of their civil rights.

It isn't whites who are responsible for the black illegitimate
births that create teenage mothers and fatherless families,
that in some inner cities are as much as 80%.

It isn't whites who murder blacks in Chicago and in other black
neighborhoods. It is by other blacks.

It is an attitude of victimization that deters them from progress
into a productive society.

It is idolizing the wrong role models who set bad examples to
follow. There are many none whites who broke out of the
victimization mold and called Uncle Toms that are setting
examples to follow and be proud of.

Eight years of the Obama era turned the real America off. We
now have the chance to turn America on again.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Is Free Speech in Trouble?

Never in the history of the United States has the right of “freedom of speech” been so challenged as in the last decade or so. If you have an opinion that does not comply with a certain group or groups, you might become subject of abuse, censorship, and even threats of physical harm. The sector of the population most susceptible to this denial of free speech are the conservatives and people of religious faith, who have been targeted for repression of their views, thoughts, and ideas. A perfect example is the recently admitted IRS (Internal Revenue Service) attacks against conservative groups prior to the 2012 election. After repeated lawsuits, the IRS finally has agreed that they “illegally” targeted these groups and have now agreed to reimburse these conservative groups for the IRS harassment of denying or delaying their petitions for tax exempt status. But, there have been no meaningful penalties against the perpetrators of this prejudicial action, including the past IRS supervisor, Lois Lerner, who got away “scot free” and was allowed to retire with a very nice government pension.

Over the past decade or so, persons espousing conservative views have been denied the opportunity or chance to speak at various colleges and public events by people mainly representing the left, who disagree with their views and, sometimes, to their personal animosity ttoward the speaker. The so-called “free speech universities” have been some of the more egregious venues where the suppression has taken place. The University of California at Berkeley is a prime example of the stifling of free speech. This was the school back in the 60's and 70's that was home to the “free speech movement” (of course, even back then the speech that was “free”, was liberal speech).

Very seldom, if any, do you read about conservatives (or Republicans) shutting down a liberal speaker, it is always the other way around ( ex: Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Dinesh D'Souza, Alan Derschowitz (a Democrat and supporter of Israel), Pamela Geller, and certain authors of controversial books that the left has deemed unacceptable).

Today, “political correctness” has taken hold in many areas of our society. These “unelected” protectors of what should or not be allowed to be expressed in public (the P.C Police), have taken over many college campuses across the country, led by radical professors and brain-washed students. If you don't comply with what they deem a proper position of the issues, they will disrupt you and try shut you down from speaking. The trend today, is that if you espouse a conservative or religious viewpoint, you will be called a “racist” or a “bigot”, only because you challenge the viewpoints of the “P.C. Police”.

The word “racist” is being used constantly by the “liberal left” as a catchphrase for anybody whose views are deviating from the accepted liberal playbook. Two of the greatest practitioners of using the word “racist” are the two liberal “race-baiters”, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, both Democrats, who are masters of the “racial shakedown”. These phony “civil rights” leaders are nothing but con artists and shakedown specialists. Their glory days were during the 8 years of the Obama Administration, as they both had unlimited access to the White House. Now, with Pres. Trump, residing in the White House, they don't have that access or platform to further their “race hustling”.

So, in conclusion, our 1st Amendment rights are under attack, but with Pres. Trump in charge and in the White House, you have someone who isn't afraid to take on these “free speech” suppressors. The biggest obstacles to these anarchists being able to continue on their attacks on free speech, are the media, who should be in the forefront of preserving free speech, but are noticeably absent because most of the members of the 4th Estate” are politically left-leaning liberals, therefore they generally turn a blind eye to the plight of conservatives and people of faith.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 9, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

It is my assessment that ‘DIVERSITY’ per se, is as contra-indicated in a nation’s make-up as would be a cook’s recipe for a dish that contains one-each of every vegetable, fruit, fish, fowl & meat available on Earth.  It is a totally useless burden to impose upon a nation, when it represents nothing more than the pursuit of the lunacy that is ‘Political Correctness’.  To bet the store on collecting a diverse ‘representative’ number of unvetted foreign immigrants of all political persuasions and indoctrinations of un-American zealotry, simply to foster the pipe-dream of a nation of some 300+ million people all sitting around a camp-fire and singing, ‘Kumbaya’, makes no sense to me.
Further, it is my observation that an astonishingly large portion of the people who reside in the United States of America are committed to blindly chasing the illusion of ‘EQUIVALENCE’.  In the ‘Declaration of Independence’, the initial document conceived and produced by the Founding Fathers of this nation, the first sentence in the second paragraph states:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal - -”.  Nowhere in this or any of the Founding documents to follow, is there any mention implied or otherwise that guarantees equal outcome of fame or fortune for all citizens.  To infer that such ‘equivalence’ is somehow a right, is to add more pie-in-the-sky verses to, ‘Kumbaya’.  
It seems to me that the impossible leap from stark reality to the pursuit of the lunacy of Government-imposed equivalence, is never a problem for Democrats.  These rigidly-inflexible Americans are seen to embrace the concept of equivalence that includes white supremacists, the biased media, Holocaust deniers, race hustlers, devotees of Islam, ISIS, Palestinian separatists, haters of Israel, President Trump and all Republicans & Conservatives, and the entire litany of Obama’s   divisive policies.  I hear the echo of that hoary chant of past decades, “Can’t we all  get along?”  It is not impossible.  Just, terribly unlikely.
                                                                      MORT KUFF   © 11-7-2017

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Hillary and Bill: The Bonnie and Clyde of Politics!

Although the Clinton's have not robbed a bank (as yet!), their greedy tentacles have tainted many other areas of life. Let's try to go through a short litany of shady deals that they have been involved in (other than Bill's sexual peccadilloes) in their public life in politics.

At the end of his presidency, the Clinton's claimed that they were flat “broke” (her words) and upon departing the White House, they walked off with approximately $200,000 of furnishings and fixtures of the White House. They had to return 75% of the “loot” they took as they left the White House. That was just the beginning of the shady deals that these “grifters” engaged in over the next 17 years.

Both wrote books about their experiences and, as a result, they became millionaires. Nobody begrudges their right to make money like capitalists, but they were constantly railing about the 1% of rich people that they just became part of.

Immediately upon becoming private citizens, Hillary decided to run for a vacant U.S. Senate seat from the State of New York, and her husband (commonly referred to as “Slick Willie”), started up a “charitable” organization called the Clinton Foundation (and an off-shoot, the Clinton Global Initiative). Even though she won the senate seat in New York, everyone knew that her ultimate goal was to become president.

Bill was very busy in his retirement also by going around the United States and around the world giving speeches to both private companies and foreign countries who wanted access to the “benefits” that the U.S. had to offer. Since it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would become president in the future, a donation to the Clinton Foundation would be a good move to get a foot in the door.

Unfortunately for the Clinton's, Hillary lost the nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, but as a consolation prize for her loss and for her support of Obama during the general campaign, she was appointed Secretary of State. In that position, she was able to make favorable decisions for varied groups of people and countries who wanted to do “business” with the United States. During her tenure at the State Department, Bill's speaking fees went up precipitously and donations to the Clinton Foundation also increased tremendously. A good example, that is presently being exposed as I write this, is the “Uranium One” deal with the Russians, whereby the Russians gained access to 20% of our uranium reserves, which Hillary had to sign off on, along with other agencies of the government, in order for the deal to go through. Coincidentally, Bill got a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank with ties to Russian President Putin, and the Clinton Foundation got a cash donation of over $100 million. Do you think these transactions have the appearance of a “quid pro quo” or a pay-to-play arrangement? We'll soon find out.

The shenanigans of these shady deals were in addition to Hillary's less than honorable activities as Secretary of State, which included the Benghazi debacle where 4 Americans lost their lives for lack of adequate security which the State Department was responsible for, and for which she blamed a nondescript video that caused the deaths of these Americans (a lie). Add on her use of an “illegal server” in conducting her duties as Secretary of State, and you have a cornucopia of slimy activities perpetrated by Hillary in her job, and by Bill's activities in generating large speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation as a result of Hillary's job as Secretary of State.

Since Hillary lost the election in 2016, the Clinton's closed down the “Clinton Global Initiative”, most likely because the donees stopped donating because they could not get any benefits from a losing candidate for president. Does that make sense? I'm sure many of those individuals and countries were disappointed in the fact that Hillary didn't become president. Well, don't feel sorry for the Clinton's, they now have access to hundreds of millions of dollars which is still sitting in the Clinton Foundation and available for use by them and their cronies.

With all these shady activities by these two self-serving politicians, it would be appropriate and proper to call Hillary and Bill the “Bonnie and Clyde” of politics.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share