Sunday, August 20, 2017

The Hell with Political Correctness!


When are we all going to go to the window (like in the movie, “Network”) and yell out, “I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore”, when it comes to dealing with the insane, mostly liberal, induced madness called, “political correctness”?

You can't say this, you can't say that, you can't do this and you can't do that - who in hell are these self-appointed arbiters and guardians of proper speech and behavior (a/k/a the P.C Police) to make our lives living hell because they deem certain things or actions “verboten”, “not Kosher”, or insensitive, to some real or imaginary groups or individuals? It infects all aspects of our lives especially when it applies to certain “protected” minorities. I thought we had a 1st Amendment right to say what's on our mind, whether it is deemed proper or not. Shouldn't people be allowed to look stupid, say stupid things, and do stupid things as long as it doesn't hurt some else, besides their feelings? It has gotten so bad that some people, in the normal interchange of conversation, can give someone a compliment and be sued for sexual harassment, that telling an ethnic joke, making a racial remark, or using a harmless non-threatening sexual innuendo, can be a cause for someone losing their job, being fined by a court, being refused a promotion, or being vilified by the media, because they (who's they?) deemed it insensitive or insulting? It is outright lunacy, to say the least. Just recently, Pres. Trump was vilified in the media and by Democrats (and by some Republicans), that he didn't condemn the white separatists clearly enough for them in the Charlottesville incident. He was criticized for including ALL hate groups, in his condemnation, including the ANTIFA and BLACK LIVES MATTER groups along with the NAZI group. For that he was called a racist, a Nazi sympathizer, and a bigot. That was “political correctness” gone amok, plain and simple.

Look what has happened in our judicial system - today when someone commits a crime, it must be determined whether or not it is a “hate” crime, which carries a more severe penalty, than the same crime committed by someone against someone else who is not in that “protected” class. How absurd! A crime is a crime, is a crime, regardless of who is the victim.

Certain people get a pass, just because they are in the “protected” class. If a white person called a black person a “nigger” it can be considered racial harassment, but if a black person called another black person a “nigger”, that is O.K. or at least it would not considered a “major” offense by the “P.C. Police”.

Zero tolerance is another area where “political correctness” holds sway. The intentions are sometimes laudatory, but the punishment doesn't always “fit the crime”. A casual remark by one person to another with a sexual connotation might be grounds for a lawsuit, a student taking an aspirin in school might be a cause for suspension, telling an ethnic, racial or religious joke might be cause for a firing or banishment from the industry, but there's one area where the “P.C. Police” don't seem to get involved in, that's when the topic is slandering or mocking Christians. Anything goes and in many cases it is looked upon favorably by those who are non-believers (generally liberal secularists and atheists). Slander a Muslim, a Jew a Gay or other protected minority, and all hell will break loose, but not when it comes to Christians - they are fair game. Shouldn't all religions be fair game, even for obnoxious, and slanderous speech or actions?

It was different years ago, when people could joke with one another, say stupid things to one another, and be free to either be nice or nasty, without a “blow back” or being vilified or harassed by the “P.C. Police”. Many comedians of 30 or 40 years ago were able to make fun of different racial and ethnic groups with no problems and plenty of laughter, especially by the group being made fun of. Today, you might lose your job or be fined. We should all be fed up with these “unwritten” restrictions called “political correctness”, and we should all run to the window and proclaim that “We are mad as hell and we won't take it anymore”. Political correctness be damned!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann










Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 17, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

                                             MORT KUFF  © 8-14-2017
Return of the TURD.
Traitorous Underhanded Reprobate Democrat
While TURD is certainly applicable to a litany of undesirables that have populated the Democrat Party over the past half-century or so, in this instance, the immediate past-President is the subject the ‘term’.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a name that conjures up painful recollections of eight long years of gross mismanagement of our nations affairs - and hundreds of moments of shameful recollections when this reprobate intentionally brought down upon the heads of American citizens, buckets full of excruciating disgrace.
Now, in blatant contradiction to an honored tradition of all former U. S. Presidents, Obama is not returning to his pre-presidential home State but has taken up residence in the District of Columbia.  From this high, brick- walled Headquarters, housed in a multi-million-dollar ‘castle’ just a few short miles from the White House, Obama plans to conduct a daily surveillance of President Trump’s every utterance and every action.  
To what end is he doing this? He wants to second-guess, oppose and obstruct every single move that President Trump makes.  So much for Obama honoring the tradition observed by the forty-three presidents that preceded him.  So much for the concept of this former-president remaining ‘out-of-the-way’ in order not to interfere in any way, shape or form, with the newly-elected President.  Au contraire. He plans to be a thorn in the side of President Donald J. Trump.  How ignoble can Obama get?  It is the Return of the TURD, a classless turd.









Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Liberals and Diversity



First off, let's define what we mean by diversity. According to Merriam-Webster, “diversity” is the inclusion of different types of people (such as people of different races and cultures) in a group or organization – it also includes a “diversity” of opinion.

Now, with that definition in mind, let's see how the liberals use it in trying to further their political agenda.

It seems that the Democrats (a/k/a liberals) think that “diversity” is the “be all and end all” that should happen in our society, not the intelligence, the work ethic, or the experience of the person, but whether or not he/she fits the “diversity” parameter that they constantly use in what they think is good for our society. According to the liberals, they want us to look different but think the same. You see this in college campuses around the country. Many colleges brag about how diverse they are, but the the faculties are mainly staffed by an overwhelming majority of liberals who contribute mainly to the Democrat Party, no “diversity” there. Also, many of these colleges give preference to enrolling students with “diversity” in mind, rather than accepting prospective applicants on the sole basis of their academic credentials.

Giving preference to one group over another, to me, is un-American and contrary to the principles set forth by our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't everyone be judged as an individual and not as part of a group? That doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people from some group from gaining credentials and experience to be able to compete for admission to a school or college, but by blatantly discriminating in favor of a person from a certain group, that should be considered unfair, especially to the other person being denied even though better qualified.

Our founding fathers, in their eminent wisdom, have written that everyone should have the “opportunity” to better themselves, not the “guarantee” of success. That's what they stated in our Declaration of Independence that we, as citizens, are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” - as you can see they did not say the “guarantee” of happiness (or in other words, success), because when you give something to someone you have to take something from somebody else. That's what seems to happen when someone gets accepted (because of “diversity”) for a slot in a college admission over someone who doesn't fall into that “diversity” category. That is called “reverse discrimination” and should not be tolerated.

The “diversity” goal is also used in the business world as the government has set up rules and procedures that authorize companies and businesses to hire people, not on the basis of merit for performing the job, but on the basis of their ethnicity, race, or gender. Should the government be the arbiter as to who some business should (or must) hire or should that be left to the business itself? Liberals, in the main believe that the government should get involved, whereas the Conservatives, in the main, say the government should stay out. Yes, there may be some who might discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race, and gender, but most businesses are in business to make a profit so they will hire the person who will be the most productive for their business and will add to the bottom line (a/k/a profit).

So, the idea that“diversity” can be the “be all and end all” of how we run our lives, it can work in ways that bring more problems to society than in solving the problems of society. Forcing people to do or not to do certain things, in the name of “diversity” is never the way to go. Educating the people to do the right thing might take some more effort than passing a law, but in the long run it will create less animosity among the citizens who think that they are being discriminated against in the name of “diversity”.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann






Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 10, 2017

The Road to a Healthy Existance is Prevention


Since the Civil War our country has never been in a more precarious situation
than today, because a new form of protest has evolved out of a rambunctious
display of vitriol by persons who do not respect nor accept the outcome of a
constitutionally won presidential election.

It has left an open wound they won't allow to heal, by picking on the scab and
sucking out the blood at every attempt the new administration is putting forth
to cure the ills left by the previous one, and utilizing every unsterilized
means available, with dirty hands, to infect and cripple it in its endeavor.

Although there was a possible Russian symptom, it has proven to have been
misdiagnosed and not applicable in examination and fruitless to continue to
pursue it, distracting the government from more important things needing
attention for the well being of its citizenry. Jobs, lowering taxes, the
health of the economy and the safety of the nation from the contagious
terror disease that's beginning to spread like the plague, throughout
the world.

A repeat of history is hard to be believed at this time and most of us living
today will never know, but even Abraham Lincoln too, was once the most
hated man in the land.

Conservative column from George Giftos


Given The Circumstances With North Korea and Finding Out Obama’s Iran Deal Was Much Worse Than We Suspected, Doesn't This Picture Make Sense?









Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Homosexuality: A Normal or Abnormal Lifestyle?


Whichever way you answer that question, you will be vilified by either support group. If you say “normal”, you will be accused of undermining eons of traditions dating back to the origins of man and woman. If you say “abnormal”, you will be labeled a bigot, homophobe, Fascist etc. Either way, a person voicing his/her opinion, that person will be “walking on hot coals” in trying to voice their views on this highly volatile, emotionally charged subject. To begin a discussion, let's define the word “Abnormal”. Merriam-Webster defines it as, “not normal, average, typical or usual, deviating from a standard”.

As human beings, we can “love” anyone we want to. As a heterosexual, I can see where people can love someone of the same sex, mainly as it concerns fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, other family members and close friends. It is “normal” to show affection in those cases, but the difference between that “love” and homosexuality is the part about sex. That is the part that homosexuals are trying to convince others that “gay sex” is normal, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

It seems that the momentum over the past few years has shifted to the LGBT community as the media, academia, and Hollywood have painted homosexuality as a normal lifestyle that is comparable to a “straight” lifestyle. It seems that tolerance for opposing views on this subject is visibly lacking on both sides, especially the LGBT side as they organize against opponents by bringing lawsuits, asking opponents to be fired, and by boycotting businesses.

Which ever side you support, we should not oppress the other side as we, in the U.S.A., are a free people who have the right to have an opinion, free from censorship and violence.

Most of the people who claim that homosexuality is NOT a normal lifestyle, generally come to that conclusion mostly out of a profound religious teaching. Since the beginning of recorded history, most religions and cultures have NOT recognized homosexuality as being a moral precept. Only during the past 20 or 30 years has the problem been brought to the forefront. Since the Civil Rights movement, which began in the 1960's, and gained momentum, the LGBT community has latched on as another aggrieved party. Even though it has been estimated that the gay community represents only about 3% of the population, they are well motivated and well funded and have wide support in the liberal sector of the Democrat Party, the main stream media, and the left-leaning academics, both teachers and professors. This support has given momentum to the gays in their cause for “special” treatment. The question most people who oppose the gay lifestyle as “normal”, say that the gay community should not get any special treatment and that they should be treated the same as any other citizen with all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Is it “normal” for a man to have “sex” with another man (anal and/or oral), and the same with females with other females? Let's discuss the situation.

If you believe in a God or some other dynamic in our universe, do you believe human beings have been created in a certain and distinct way? Were humans, man and woman, created to cause a certain happening? The human race can only survive by a man and woman procreating to have an offspring. The people in a homosexual relationship cannot procreate (unless through surrogates or artificial insemination), but they can still love one another. To get technical, the anal orifice in a man was made for “elimination”, not “ingestion”. To argue otherwise, one would argue that that procedure, in sexual terms, was “normal”. In the case of female homosexuals, they don't have that problem, and the dangers that come from engaging in that lifestyle (ex: STD's, AIDS, and rectal problems) generally is not a concern to them, therefore the lesbian life expectancy is about 10 years greater than their male counterpart.

So taking all that into consideration, and the way our bodies have been formed and created, it would be quite a stretch to reasonably conclude that the homosexual lifestyle is “normal” and should be made comparable to the heterosexual lifestyle.

The question then arises about whether the gay lifestyle is just another alternative lifestyle, that they shall be given all the benefits that straight couples have, especially when it comes to same sex marriage.

Due to the power of the gay lobby, who are very well financed and emotionally organized, they have convinced quite a few states to recognize gay marriage, and more seem to be on the verge of following suit. A lot of people who do not agree with the gay community, are cowed and threatened by the militant gays. Cries of “homophobia” and “bigot” ring out if you question their ideas or come out against the validity of their lifestyle, which they are trying to change as being “normal”. The gays who are always preaching tolerance, become very intolerant when you disagree with them. In that case, tolerance has a tendency to breed intolerance.

Nobody knows what will eventually occur in the future, but it will be contentious to say the least, on both sides.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann







Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 3, 2017

MORT’s meanderings

Attention: People with their heads screwed on straight.
Can you take your eyes & ears off the CNN’s and the Democrap Obstructionists, TrumpHaters & ForeverResistors like Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters and all the committed Leftist talking heads on the tube, for just a moment?  Can you do that?
Is it really Earth-shaking when Pres. Trump says he is honored to be meeting with the Russian thug ‘President’?  Can we get past this ‘by-play’ by our President, who is the greatest negotiator of all time and realize that he is way smarter at that game than either the heads of any of the foreign countries around the Globe or certainly, the so-called leaders of today’s Democrat Party?
Would you really  rather have Hillary, Sanders or Biden occupying the Oval Office in the White House?  C’mon . . lets’ get serious!

                          MORT KUFF  © 7-10-2017






Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 30, 2017

IS SOCIAL SECURITY A VIABLE PROGRAM OR JUST ANOTHER PONZI SCHEME?


Ida May Fuller, the first recipient of a Social Security benefit check in 1940, paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security fund. Her first monthly S/S check was issued in 1940 was for $22.54, almost as much as she paid in. Over the ensuing 35 years of her life, she collected a total of $22,888. Her case is reminiscent of the early investors of a Ponzi scheme. They get paid off from the investments of future dupes (or victims).

Social Security, a well-meaning program instituted to help seniors during their non-working retirement years, has turned into a financial nightmare for the workers of today (not for the present retirees), who are paying F.I.C.A. taxes and not expecting to collect anything when they retire. The cost of the program has mushroomed over the years from its inception in 1935. Let's take a look.

Social Security benefits paid out over the years are as follows:

1940- $35 million
1950- $961 million
1960- $11.2 billion
1970- $31.9 billion
1980- $120.5 billion
1990- $247.8 billion
2009- $650 billion
2017- $955 billion and rising

You can see from those figures that the the costs of paying benefits are going up precipitously and eventually the system will go broke unless some changes can be made.

The tax rate set in 1935 was 2% (1% by employer and 1% by employee) on the first $3,000 of earnings. Today the rate is $12.4% on the first $127,200 of an employees taxable earnings (6.2% for the employee and 6.2% for the employer). In short, we've gone from a maximum dual contribution of $60.00 per year to a maximum dual contribution of $15,772 (which includes the medicare deduction of 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% by the employer for a total of 15.3%), and it still falls short of the funding liabilities. In 2005, the Social Security trustees estimated that the unfunded liabilities were $8.5 trillion. It is now thought to be (in 2017), $12.3 trillion. It is heading for a Bernie Madoff type financial meltdown as sure as night follows day. The estimated date of insolvency is now projected to be 2033.

In 1935, the average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the retirement age to collect S/S was 65 years old. In 1940, the life expectancy was 62.9 years and 20 workers contributed to fund the retirees. In 1960, the life expectancy was 69.7 years and 5 workers were contributing to support the S/S retirees. In 2005, 3.2 workers were contributing to one retiree and the average life expectancy was then 77.8 years. In 2017, 2 workers were contributing to one retiree and the average life expectancy was now males = 84 years, and females =86 years. So as the “pot” of retirees keep expanding while the supply of investors (workers) keeps on declining.

This year, 10 million more “Baby Boomers” will begin to retire which will cause the senior population to double in the next decades (today there are 62 million people collecting Social Security benefits), while the number of employees paying F.I.C.A taxes will either remain constant or decrease. There will not be enough workers to pay for these new retirees unless we do something and soon. Just like the schemes of Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff, the pool of new investors (workers) will not be enough to pay off the previous investors and the whole thing will come tumbling down like a house of cards.

When the first generation of S/S recipients got back in benefits was far greater than what they themselves paid in, you could say they got something for nothing. The same will not be said for future retirees. They probably will get back next to nothing for something.

That's the way a Ponzi scheme works, with the first wave of “investors” getting paid with the money paid in by the second wave and on and on. And, like Social Security, a Ponzi scheme creates no wealth, but only the illusion that it cannot last. Ponzi and Madoff went to prison, but our lawmakers get re-elected for doing the same thing.

President Bush back in 2005, with the recommendation of two prominent Democrats, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John Breaux, tried to institute a “partial” privatization of Social Security, but the plan was shot down by the Democrats who demagogued the plan as being “too risky” and a boon to the Wall Street tycoons. The plan simply was that a person paying F.I.C.A. taxes would be able to put aside 4% of his contributions into a private account that he would own and be able to leave for his heirs when he died (today when you die, no more S/S checks will be paid to anyone - with the exception of some reduced benefits to his widow and minor children). The plan, as proposed, was optional and anybody who opted out for the present S/S setup would be able to do so. Any young worker today, with any economic common sense, would jump at the the opportunity, because over the long term, and even with the ups and down of the stock market, to choose a plan that would give him two or three times the amount of retirement benefits that he would receive now under the current benefit schedule, would be a “no-brainer”. Politics won out again, and as of the present time, our Social Security system will be going into bankruptcy in a few short years leaving our children and grandchildren high and dry unless Social Security taxes are precipitously raised to meet the commitment we made to them. What a shame!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann










Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Are We to Believe Anything Coming Out of Washington?


It wasn't that long ago when both political parties were singing a
song of praise to former FBI director James Comey, for having
confidence in him and for his integrity, before the controversial
press conference, where he overstepped the line from investigator
into judge, regarding communications between Hillary Clinton and
staff, using personal unsecured and unauthorized computers and
mishandling classified and secret emails.

The evidence in the investigation showed reason for prosecution,
but Comey took it upon himself to discount this course of action.
Under his direction, other serious activities by the Clinton's, from
Benghazi to the Clinton Foundation and secretive meeting between
Bill Clinton and the then DOJ Loretta Lynch, on an airplane parked
on the apron just before Comey's press conference have been
ignored and omitted from investigation.

Now the ode is being repeated about Special Counsel appointee
Robert Mueller, assigned to investigate the accusations by unnamed
anonymous sources in hope of turning up something from there,
where there was no there.

It appears to be starting as a conflicted investigation, considering the
tight friendship between Mueller and Comey and his investigatory
legal team staff, consisting of three heavy donors to democrats, one
of which has represented the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering
lawsuit and also represented Hillary in a lawsuit seeking access to her
private emails.

Is this going to turn out to be another liberal farce?
Are we expected to believe anything coming out of Washington seriously
when the politics are so obvious?

Conservative column from George Giftos









Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Are We a Nation of Addicts?


Yes, we all know the addictive properties of tobacco, alcohol, heroin, cocaine, opioids, and the so-called “harmless drug” marijuana, but we are now encountering quite a few newer and other addictions, many of which have been recently confirmed and that are causing great concern in the medical, and mental health communities.

The addictions listed above are concerns because they are mind-altering drugs and/or health hazards, but the newer addictions, which are not mind-altering per se, but are in some ways equally harmful to the body and to society in general.

Let's take look at some of these other addictions. Just during the past decade, the addiction of using cyber machines have taken the country by storm, namely the use of I-Phones, Twitter accounts, and tablets. Most everyone, both young and old, seem to have one of these cyber contraptions and it seems to becoming an addiction to many of the people using them. Just go the mall and watch the people walk by, most people have their I Phones out in their hands or sticking out of their back pockets (its slimness makes it easy to carry them in your back pocket). It is not only the young people, but many of the adults who are “thumbing” their way through the buttons of their machines. I've even seen youngsters, as young as 4 years old, with determined interest in their I-Phones, thumbing along with the rest of the people, totally oblivious to others around them. This activity can be very dangerous, especially when walking on the sidewalk or when crossing the street, and especially when driving a car. Some states have passed laws banning texting while driving, and a person could be fined for that act.

You wonder if this obsession (or addiction) is a good activity that is just keeping up with the technological changes of life, or is it just a passing fancy that will fade away in the future? I err on the side of addiction now and in the future. (I just returned from 4 weeks in the country of Costa Rica, and it is just like here in the U.S. when it comes to the use of these machines).

Another activity that borders on an addiction is the mindset by many “health nuts” that they will only eat “pure food” and drink. Vegans (or semi-vegans) are seriously into what they claim is the “healthy regimen” of eating only foods that are organic, “cage free” (as in eggs), no sugar, no salt, gluten free, wild caught fish (no farmed fish), and a host of other no-no's that they consider “sinful” if ingested into their bodies. They have a tendency to look down upon others who don't accept their food and drink choices, sometimes bordering on disdain. Is that really a healthy regimen to follow or are they just addicted to their “pure lifestyle”. I believe that they have the right idea about eating healthy foods, but they carry their lifestyle to ridiculous extremes which creates much tension among others who associate with them. Is it an addiction, you make the call?

Another activity that can be addictive, I feel, are the the people who gear their lives to overly trying to be physically fit by exercising to the extreme, sometimes 3 to 4 hours a day (I'm not referring to prize fighters and/or some other athletes who must meet certain physical parameters to excel in their sport). Yes, physical fitness is a good activity to engage in, but when you take that good activity to the extreme, it can be detrimental to your health and well-being. An example of an extreme physical fitness addiction is a woman that comes to the gym I patronize, who must weigh between 80 to 90 pounds and works out on a “Stairmaster” (a very difficult exercise machine), for about an excess of 2 hours a day, plus using other machines. She is all skin and bones, and I presume that she feels that she is overweight (maybe she's even anorexic). To me, this is an addictive behavior just as overeating is addictive to some who become morbidly obese.

I'm sure I could list other addictive behaviors, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make. Most of these behaviors are self-imposed, but in the case of of people with physical problems who become addicted in trying to relieve their pain and discomfort, through no fault of their own, help should be made available to them to rid themselves of their addiction.

Other than the government trying to restrict the mind-altering addictions, the government should not get involved in banning certain other addictive activities, but they should get involved in educating the public as to the dangers of getting addicted to any activity, as they have done in their successful campaign in the past against cigarette smoking.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann






Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 20, 2017

MORT’s meanderings


The Wall Street Journal headlines that,
“Putin is not America’s Friend”.

Now, if that isn’t Pulitzer Prize journalism, I don’t know what is.
Ya coulda fooled us.  All the smart money was on Putin when the two leaders met in person for the first time, at G20.  Prediction:  poor, naïve, unsophisticated President Trump would be eaten alive by the wily, ex-KGB tough guy. It would be a slam-dunk.
Pres. Trump said that he was ‘honored’ to be meeting with the leader of the former Soviet Union.  Trump says a lot of things, the vast majority of which are astutely calculated to have a particular effect on whomever he is conversing with.  It’s his thing; it’s what he does.
Is anyone so naïve as to think for one split second, that Trump, the world’s most accomplished negotiator, doesn’t know how to read anyone with whom he is negotiating?  With just a fleeting reprise at how this life-long business tycoon decided to run for the Presidency and then plow through all comers, including the Royal Dame of Democrat Corruption, Hillary the Horrible, one is obliged to conclude that this is a narrative about a dominant male who never fails to achieve supremacy.
If there are two people in the room and one of them is Donald Trump – my money is on the Trumpster to take home the prize.
                                                                              
                                                  MORT KUFF        © 7-10-2017












Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 16, 2017

What is Cranial Rectal Inversion?



Cranial Rectal Inversion (CRI) is a malady (disease) that is mostly contracted by liberals who have their heads so firmly planted up their butts, that it is unlikely that they'll ever have another rational point-of-view. It is in most cases, incurable, and they can transfer it to other liberals whom they intermingle with.

The symptoms are very numerous, but I'll try to enumerate the ideas and policies associated with this malady, which causes them and their fellow liberals to be afflicted with this disease.

First off,. The liberals that are infected are in favor of, open borders and giving amnesty to illegal aliens, the more the better; they favor taking money from the rich and giving handouts to the poor ( free stuff); they favor unfettered abortion up till the time of breech (in other words, late-term abortion); they call Wall Street “evil” while taking in millions of dollars in campaign contributions from those very same financial institutions; they believe in same sex marriage and gender neutral bathrooms and shower rooms; they believe in appeasing our avowed enemies while “dissing” our friends ( like Israel); they want to take away the firearms of law abiding citizens while they, in the past, released thousands of criminals from our jails and prisons; and they turn a blind eye on the corrupt activities of the Clinton's ( ex:the Clinton “Crime” Foundation) and their loyal cronies (a/k/a liberals, Progressives, Democrats, and Socialists), and finally, they can't get over the fact that Queen Hillary (a/k/a Nurse Rachit) Clinton lost the election to political neophyte Donald Trump in a stunning upset.


There are many more symptoms as to why the liberals are infected with CRI, but we don't have time or space to enumerate them all. You could say that they have their heads so far up their butts, they can chew their food on the way down, to add to the earlier definition at the beginning of this Pulitzer prize winning editorial (there's no conceit in my family, I have it all, ha,ha!).

The cases of CRI sort of escalate generally around the time of an election period. To try to counteract this malady, they (the Democrats) trot out the usual verbal garbage their sleazy focus groups tell them to use to try to slime their opponents ( the Republicans) as it has worked very well for them in the past. They say Republicans are anti-woman; anti-black; anti-Hispanic; anti-poor; anti-abortion; anti-gays and lesbians, and the new favored class, transgenders (which make up ½ of one-percent of the population) etc. , but it doesn't seem to help them get cured, in fact, it makes their condition much worse.

Just listen back to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016, which had an advanced case of CRI, and it got worse each and every week she campaigned. By getting the Democrat nomination and losing the general election, her case of CRI is still non-reversible and she will have to bear the agony of being considered terminally irrelevant even after her shocking loss to Pres. Donald Trump, much to the chagrin of Barack Hussein Obama and his flawed legacy and her record of economic and foreign policy failures.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann












Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Anonymous Sources Has a Name



Blood sucking elements in the democratic party and fake news
media keep pecking on the scab that divides the country, wanting
to draw blood, keeping the wound open, because they do not want
America to heal for fear they will become extraneous.

They are illusionary, suffering from Yehoodi syndrome. The term I
have coined to describe their anonymous sources, whom they often
cite as the persons they come to for their erroneous accusations.
Yehoodi was exemplified as the little man who wasn't there, in the
old Jack Benny radio shows in the 40's.

While the Trump administration is trying to move the country ahead,
the blood suckers' manic obsession with Russia, sinking their teeth
deep into the fallacy of collusion and not letting it go, no matter how
hard or how many facts are thrown at them, has not offered even
one idea or piece of constructive legislation, preferring to obstruct
and continue their campaign of hate, to topple the present seat of
government. It is incendiary and subversive!

Conservative column from George Giftos










Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 9, 2017

President Trump's Speech in Poland





President Donald Trump delivers this terrific speech to a crowd in Warsaw, Poland. This speech came ahead of the G20 summit. You will not hear President Trump bad mouth America or apologize for our Country.










Bookmark and Share

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?


To listen to the Democrats, the next worse thing to ISIS (and to some, climate change), the terrorist Muslims in Syria and Iraq, are the wealthy individuals in the United States of America. They keep harping on the erroneous fact that that the rich don't pay their “fair share” in paying income taxes and that they are greedy besides, and have become rich on the backs of the poor. Is it true that the rich don't pay their “fair share” of income taxes?

As former Democratic candidate for president, Al Smith (1928) once said, “Let's look at the record”. According to the 2010 (which is still valid today) non-partisan Tax Foundation report, the top 1% earns 19% of the gross national income and pays 38% of all federal taxes. The top 5% earns 34% and pays 59%. The top 10% earns 45% and pays 71%. The bottom 50% pays just 3% of federal tax. If that isn't soaking the rich”, I don't know what it is? Shouldn't everyone have a dog in the fight by paying something to the government?

It is true that during the 8 years of the Obama Administration, the rich have gotten richer and the poor and middle-class have remained stagnant or have lost income, mainly due to the run-up of the stock market, which the rich are heavily invested in. The spending policies and the regulatory policies of the Obama Administration, and the low interest rates of the Federal Reserve, have also contributed to this income gap. The only economically sound way to stop this difference in income differential is to get the economy stimulated with policies that will encourage entrepreneurship so that we can produce more jobs, and in return generate more tax revenue to the federal treasury, so that we can reduce the burden of taxation on the upper and middle-class taxpayers. The policies of the Obama Administration did not work for most people, and change was needed (not the hope and change “snake oil” promoted by Obama) to get us back on the right economic track. President Trump, before and after his election, has proposed a reform of our tax system to make it easier for people to pay their taxes and to reduce the rates that all taxpayers now pay. If and when those reforms are passed, our economy will take off upward as it is now doing without the needed reforms in place.

But, the inexperience of former President Obama in economics , and his lack of sound fiscal and administrative knowledge, he seemed to have a “tin ear” as to what was needed to get our economy booming again. The voters had the chance in 2016 to elect a real “money man” of integrity in Donald Trump, and they voted him president.

The semi-Marxist/Socialist plan, espoused by President Obama (and the Democrats), did not get us out of our stagnating economy during his 8 years in office. He preached “income redistribution” by blaming the wealthy of not doing their “fair share” to contribute to the government's revenue. Without the wealthy class paying the vast majority of the income taxes, we'd be in a much greater financial bind than we are in right now, approaching $20 trillion in debt. Even the “evil” Koch Bros., as the Democrats like to call them, have a company that employs over 67,000 workers at better than average wages, yet they are vilified as being un-American by the Democrats, and some have even claimed that they should be jailed for being so “rich”. What, for being successful and wealthy? Are the Democrats that out of touch with reality or what?

We need many more Koch Bros., and other millionaires and billionaires, in order to get our economy moving upward like it should be going. The Democrats and the Liberals should stop demonizing the wealth creators for purely partisan political purposes.

So, the answer to this editorial's headline is - YES - the rich do pay their “fair share” and we do need more people to get a well paying jobs so that we can get out of the economic malaise that the Obama Administration nas kept us in for 8 years. We should all strive to become millionaires and billionaires, as it would be good for our country and to the entire world. Instead of “sharing the wealth” by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (the Robin Hood syndrome) in the form of handouts and financial government “goodies”, in order to gain votes by the recipients of those “goodies” at election time, we should be promoting the “sharing the opportunity” for all to succeed and achieve financial success. That's the American way. A hand up instead of a handout is what will make America great again.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann








Bookmark and Share

Sunday, July 2, 2017

MORT’s meanderings



On July 4, 2017, and on every other
one of the 364 days in a year, here
in the United States of America,
‘we’ celebrate the miracle
of our Independence.

‘We’, refers to those of us who have read, understood and  wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution in its original intent and the Bill of Rights.

Any individuals who do not accept these sacred documents in their totality, as handed down to us by the Founding Fathers, and who do not believe in what America is all about, will never assimilate therefore - they should voluntarily move out or be forcibly moved out, to take up residence elsewhere.


                                                                       MORT KUFF    © 7-2-2017












Bookmark and Share

Thursday, June 29, 2017

An Olio of Potpurri


I'm a lot smarter than the majority of the people, but this isn't
a point of contention, considering it is depressing and not some
thing to be proud of, realizing how much I don't know. Which
doesn't say much about the majority of the people.

If we are to praise modern technology for its achievements, we
must also count the harm it is causing through social media in
its irresponsible miss use of this aspect of it, that has contributed
to the decline of moral values.

It is also a medium used by the manipulators to reach clueless
and disgruntled masses, like those whom I profess to know more
than they do, uniting them into mobs for destruction, and by their
use, stand to gain from the chaos under pretense of protest.

This is allowed due to another miss use; the abuse of the First
Amendment and misinterpretation in its meaning. The wording
must be honed to prevent or correct its flaws by adding an
amendment to the First Amendment.

Feel good liberals are a hinder toward better governance due
to their adherence to political correction, standing in a circle,
holding hands, singing kumbaya and hoping redistributing the
wealth earned by the productive will solve all our problems.

By patronage for open borders, they are compounding additional
problems. We cannot control the influx of illegal immigration and
undesirables who will never assimilate into American culture, but
form enclaves and barrios with no intent to follow our laws, as
shockingly witnessed by other countries who have opened their
borders without weighing the consequence of losing their identity
as a nation.

They will never become the "Little Italy" or the "China Towns"
that are now a part of our culture.

Conservative column from George Giftos













Bookmark and Share