MORT’s meanderings

GOP: The Party of NO”

or , “What difference-at this point-does it make?”

I am at a loss to understand what makes Republicans in the Congress tick.  Why are they still playing catch-up in the Democrat’s game of deception?   What is the point?

After five years of experiencing Obama’s Chicago street-thug tactics as practiced and promulgated by the likes of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and the assorted Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Islamists and other reprobates in this president’s legion of corrupt lackeys, why are Congressional R’s still trying to appease, accommodate, suck-up and  cave-in to the bribery & intimidation of the Democrat Despicables?  That’s a long question, maybe it deserves to be read, again.  

Given the tactics, motivations and shenanigans of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and upChuck Schumer, how can any self-respecting Republican in the Congress say anything but “NO”, to whatever devious proposals these fools come up with?

Doesn’t the Republican leadership know the power they can wield with the word, “NO”?  Have they forgotten that the House holds the purse-strings; that they have the power to withhold funding for Obama’s lunatic policies?  Does House Speaker John Boener not have the balls to do what Harry Reid does in the Senate – that is simply, not to bring certain bills to the floor?  Two wrongs don’t make a right but, these are the power tools available to leadership.  And, they must be used judiciously, in order to keep this nation from sinking into the abyss toward which the Democrats are intentionally driving it.    

Do House and Senate Republicans have such little respect for the intelligence of the people who voted to send them to Washington as their representatives, that they abandon their basic Conservative principles when it comes time to cast their own votes in the Legislature?   Or, do they drink the seductive water from the Potomac that guarantees them immortality – and the establishment of permanent roots in the District of Corruption – until death do they part?

Well, since I’ve gone this far to irritate both the Obama-nistas and the woosie Congressional Republicans, let me plop this cherry on top the cake -  “Tune-in to Rush Limbaugh” weekdays, Noon to 3PM.     There!  That oughta do it.

MORT KUFF  © 7-10-2013

Marxist Danny Glover Spreads Lies to Students at a Texas A&M University

We see one of the Hollywood Marxists is going around spreading more false information. Danny Glover is the typical Limousine Liberal who hangs around Dictators and Slave Owners. No, not just Obama, this lowlife Danny Glover hangs around Dictators from Third World Countries.

A meme is going around by a number of people claiming that the Second Amendment — “the right to bear arms” — was put in the Constitution to protect slavery. The following is from actor Danny Glover who spoke to a group of students at a Texas A&M University: “‘I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,’ he said. ‘The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.

“‘A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,’ he continued.

If this is true, then it’s obvious that gun ownership was for protection against what people believed was a threat. If there were fears of Indian uprisings and slave revolts, then you would think that Glover would be lobbying for the right of the people to keep and bear arms rather than for the government to restrict gun ownership. Blacks are as much victims of crimes as are whites. Why should they be left defenseless? It doesn’t matter what the perceived threat is.

That threat today consists of marauding thugs and a potentially power-grabbing and rights-denying federal government that one day might use unrestricted force to impose its agenda on the American people.

Unfortunately for Glover and other mythstorians, the history of the Second Amendment is not rooted in the slave trade. It’s rooted in the threat of political tyranny going back centuries.

“The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.”

The 1689 English Bill of Rights included a provision that there would be “no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence.” Under James II, Protestants were denied the right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights stated: “Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence.”

Debates and laws over bearing arms have a long history in England for some of the same reasons we are debating the topic today. The great English jurist William Blackstone (1723–1780) wrote:

“In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen. . . To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in it’s full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.”

You can see echoes of our own Constitution in these words. For example, in addition to the right to bear arms, the First Amendment uses the phrase “redress of grievances.” These were viewed as “liberties of Englishmen” that were their “birthright to enjoy.”

Notice that nothing is said about slavery.



Also see Stephen P. Halbrook’s The Founders and the Second Amendment: The Origins of the Right to Bear Arms that’s “the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders’ own statements as found in newspapers” from 1768 to 1826.

It didn’t take me long to find these facts. They are available to anyone who wants to take the time to do the research. Glover knows that he’s appealing to low-information voters.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/actor-says-2nd-amendment-created-to-defend-against-slave-revolts/#ixzz2IWo4Sc4e

Obama’s M.O. (Modus Operandi)

Greetings  Democrats, Progressives, Leftist Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Obama Aficionados, Clueless & Careless Voters, Haters of Republicans, those foolish  Founding Fathers and that outdated Constitution:

As a public service to you, this writer offers a brief tutorial to explain how the President you’ve just re-elected views his job and his M.O. – that is, his manner of working.

At the outset, it must be understood that Barack Hussein Obama abhors decision-making.  He much prefers to just ‘wing it’ and make platitude-filled speeches.  To that end, he has over the entire course of his public life, refined his skills at avoiding unpleasant decisions and avoiding the consequences of not making decisions.

Here is a partial list of his avoidance techniques-of-choice:

1   1. Kicking the can down the road so that the clock will run out and no blame can be attached to him.  Some issues might require repeated kicking.

2   2.   Leave town – any excuse will do . . . fund-raising, vacation, fund-raising

3   3.    Tell lies & whoppers and send surrogates out to tell lies & whoppers

4   4.    Blame Republicans in the Congress for being obstructionists

5   5.    Point the finger of blame at the nearest scapegoat, anyone will do

6   6.    Makes speeches railing against the unfair success of the accomplished

7   7.    Threaten new taxes and mandate more Government control over individuals

8   8.    Play the Race Card; always a guaranteed avoidance technique

9   9.    Employ class welfare, pitting poor against rich, illegal against legal, etc.

1   10. If all else fails, pull out ‘old reliable’ – blame George W. Bush

There are of course, many more such avoidance tools in Obama’s bag of tricks however, I did promise to be brief.  Certainly, you must have gotten the picture by now so, if you are awaiting  a decision regarding the multitude of unresolved issues that reach the Oval Office – i.e., breaches to our national security; erratic foreign policies; the wretched economy; the horrendous national debt; the out-of-control spending; the tyrannical taxing; the hidden time-bombs in ObamaCAIR – to name a few. . . I’m afraid you’ll just have to keep on waiting.   The sandy beaches of Hawaii get first priority for this President you decided to re-elect.   

It was a difficult decision for Obama but, he finally made it - - and he’s sticking to it.

Written by MORT KUFF  




Read more MORT’s meanderings HERE

Main Stream Media Ignored This Theater Shooting and Gun Bans Don't Reduce Violent Crime

There has been lots of talk about gun control by the scumbags in the main stream media, drug user celebrities and liberals in general. This was anticipated following the shooting in an Aurora, Colorado theater at the opening of The Dark Knight Rises. It escalated over the next couple of months until the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Because so many young children were killed, the emotional response was increased, but I’ll bet most people never heard of a shooting that took place at a theater just two days after the one in Newtown and for good reason; it didn’t go with the liberal’s agenda.

On the Sunday of, December 16, 2012 a man entered a movie theater in San Antonio, Texas for the sole purpose of killing his ex-girlfriend, because she had broke up with him. The gunman, 19 year old Jesus Manuel Garcia, apparently did not complete his task. He opened fire in the theater which caused mass panic. People were running for cover and rushing towards exits, according to police and witnesses.

At least two people were wounded in the shooting.

So why was there not widespread news footage covering this event? The shooter was stopped. The Santikos Mayan Palace 14 Movie Theater also houses a small restaurant. The shooting began in the restaurant and as people went for cover, Garcia began to fire outside at an unmarked police car. He then moved to the theater where off duty Bexar County Sheriff Officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who was working the theater, chased Garcia to the back of the theater and cornered him in the men’s room, shooting him several times and taking his gun.

Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, said, “She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater.”

Armando Oguin, an off-duty San Antonio Independent School District police officer restrained Garcia with handcuffs. He was then taken to San Antonio Military Medical Center, where he was in stable condition in intensive care the following Monday.

It is, because the shooting was stopped by an off duty officer and the fact that the crime was not committed with an AR-15 has something to do with why this did not get mass coverage. Most of the MSM and so-called journalists are always looking for bad news on Police Officers. The majority of the MSM despise our Military and Law Enforcement Officers. The fact that no one killed probably adds to that. So what was used? A Glock 23, according to this report.

The Glock 23 is a .40 caliber handgun that holds 13 rounds in its magazine and 1 in the chamber. This is one of hundreds of handguns that would come under Senator Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban” bill. Of course, no AR-15 rifle for the media and the left to call for more bans on alleged “assault weapons” and there was not mental health issues for anyone to jump on either.

This really should speak volumes for the media’s silence. Yes, the person that stopped the shooter was a police officer, but consider she was off duty and allowed to carry her weapon at the theater.

The point is that the good guy, or in this case, the good gal, had a gun to stop the bad guy. Otherwise, everyone else was a potential victim. Sgt. Castellano is to be congratulated for her bravery and ending what could have potentially been a deadly situation.

After contacting the movie theater I learned that they openly display signs, just like at the Aurora theater, which read that concealed weapons are not allowed. Therefore, it seems that once again a theater takes it upon itself to create victims, rather than empower individuals to protect themselves. Obviously the criminal, Mr. Garcia, paid no attention to the law or the signs.

Garcia was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. His bail was set at $1 million.



Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Mark Levin Rips On Obama Zombie

Mark Levin rips the Governmental Agencies as they help destroy America. Big Government and Union Workers Wages, and benefits are helping to Destroy America. The Obama Zombies are already ready to parrot Barry Soetoro, just say Blame Bush, Blame Bush.

Many of these Obama Zombies working in the Big Government are in Party Mode. The GSA runs wild spending our tax dollars on parties, trips and Hookers. The Brown Shirts, I mean Government Workers see their fearful Leader Barry Soetoro and angry Mooch Elle traveling all over the world, spending our money. The Soetoro feel the need to take separate planes on many occasions. Mooch Elle says Barry smells bad and maybe Barry wants to travel with his new Larry Sinclair of the month.

Obama & Chu Want Gas Prices To Rise

Is the Obama Administration Campaigning to Injure America’s Oil and Gas Industry?

If it ever was a secret, it’s not a secret any longer: The Obama Administration is on a vindictive campaign to injure America’s oil and gas industry. The proof materialized last week when video of an Environmental Protection Agency official revealed the White House’s vicious attitude toward the very industries that supply the American people a reliable, affordable energy source. Yesterday, that official fell on his sword and resigned to spare the president any further embarrassment from the truth he disclosed.

Last week, Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reported on a video showing EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz describe his agency’s “philosophy of enforcement” with respect to the regulation of oil and gas companies — likening it to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission. With a wry smile, Armendariz detailed the joy with which the EPA inflicts punishment on the disfavored industries:

It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.

Lest there be any doubt, it’s worth reiterating the point — according to Armendariz, the EPA views its enforcement efforts as a violent crucifixion used to strong arm companies into submission. The Constitution bars cruel and unusual punishment, but evidently that doesn’t apply to the axe-wielding EPA when it comes to enforcing regulations.

None of this, though, should be a surprise coming from what very well may be the most anti-energy administration in history. For the president and his cadre of bureaucrats, “Big Oil” is the enemy that deserves to be beaten into submission.

Exhibit A: The president’s unremitting crusade to raise taxes on the oil industry by denying it access to tax credits available to other industries. This, of course, is a game of semantics and populist rhetoric. In his appeal to the American people, the president is claiming that oil and gas companies enjoy special loopholes and subsidies that need to be eliminated. In reality, they get the same tax treatment enjoyed by producers of clothing, roads, electricity, water, and many other goods manufactured in the United States. Actually, oil companies receive less of a tax break than those manufacturers. (Oil companies receive a six percent reduction while all other manufacturers receive a nine percent reduction.) Yet the president wants to impose a higher targeted tax hike and take the tax break away completely.

When President Obama lashes out at “Big Oil,” guess who’s going to pay the price? You. First, raising taxes on any company means that the costs will be passed on to consumers. If you’re tired of paying high gas prices, you would pay even more if the president levies new costs on the industry that is supplying your fuel.

Second, when the president talks about “Big Oil,” keep in mind who “Big Oil” is — it could very well be you. Thirty-one percent of U.S. oil and natural gas shares are owned by public or private pension plans. On top of that, individual retirement accounts hold 18 percent of shares, individual investors have 21 percent, and asset management companies including mutual funds account for 21 percent — comprising more than 90 percent of oil and gas stocks in 2011. That means when those companies profit, there’s a good chance you profit. And when those companies suffer, there’s a good chance that you suffer, too.

That doesn’t matter, though, to an Administration that is in an unyielding pursuit of a singular “green” agenda. Billions in taxpayer dollars are spent to fund solar companies that go bankrupt and to give tax credits to wealthy Americans so they can buy a handful of electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the president’s Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gives himself an “A” for his work in lowering gas prices, despite their reaching all-time highs under his watch. And all the while, the president is saying “NO” to domestic energy exploration, including his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline.

So when Armendariz spoke of “crucifying” oil and gas companies, it was not a surprise. His crime was saying what the rest of the Obama Administration — including the president — have been thinking and doing all along. Last week, Armendariz apologized and called his comments ”an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws.” In fact, though his words were vivid, they were all too accurate. The Obama Administration has an obvious political agenda that is not focused on enforcing rules, but on vindictively assaulting an industry that doesn’t comport with its green agenda — even though Americans depend on oil and gas companies each and every day.

President Obama has said he favors an “all of the above” strategy when it comes to energy policy. “All of the above” apparently means taking no prisoners as he marches toward a “greener” future, regardless of what it costs the American people.

You can support The Heritage Foundation HERE.
Conservative policy research since 1973