Monthly Archives: April 2014


           According to, social analyst, Mark Dice, played the role of a big government liberal and asked Obama supporters to sign a petition that would repeal the First Amendment to the constitution. The First Amendment is the Freedom of Speech amendment.

            Dice told respondents that folks who disagree with Obama are racists and extremists and should have their constitutional right to speak out annulled. Dice went on to indicate that repealing the First Amendment would ban right wingers from saying bad things about Obama. Furthermore, Dice indicated that he was tired of people having the right to say what they want to say; they don’t have the right to disagree with Obama in these tough times. Some other folks were told that signing the petition would eliminate the Tea Party’s right to criticize Obama, along with other Obama critics’ rights to talk negatively about Obama. The post on indicated that a number of Obama supporters signed the petition and were enthusiastic about signing the petition.

            I watched the video and it was made in California somewhere along the coast. It could have been in San Diego and somewhere near Los Angeles. Four whites signed the petition and one of them was a middle-aged male. The rest were young. In addition, four blacks signed, one Asian signed, and one Hispanic signed. Two refused to sign, one black and one white.

            This disturbs me and it should disturb you also. Mr. Dice chose an area where cross-sections of people congregate. In other words, he didn’t do this in a low-income, inner city area where folks would, more than likely, be less educated and not know about the First Amendment, or would have a tendency to be an Obama supporter because he is black or half black.

            I grew up during the cold war and one day my grandmother and I were having a discussion about Communism. I was probably about five and knew Communism was bad, but I really didn’t know why. One of the things that I remember my grandmother saying to me that here in the United States that we had free elections and our leaders were chosen by our citizens. In Communist countries, they might have an election, but maybe only one person would be on the ballot and everyone was required to vote for that one person or face consequences. In the United States, if you didn’t want to vote, you didn’t have to. Or, if you voted, you could vote for the candidate of your choice without fear of harassment (of course, this was way before the Black Panther movement began). My grandmother also said that if you didn’t like what the government and the elected leaders were doing, you could say out loud in front of anyone that you didn’t like what they were doing.

            I’ve exercised my right to freedom of speech a lot in my lifetime. I had to remind an Obama supporter not too long ago that criticizing our government officials was a basic right that all Americans have under the constitution. When I hear someone criticize an official with whose policies I agree, what do I do? I will disagree with them and attempt to have a discussion with them; all the while knowing that they have that right. Of course, it’s almost impossible to have a decent discussion with a liberal because most of them get shrill and emotional, and start making accusations that you don’t care about those less fortunate, then telling you that you’re going to hell.

            When the next republican president is elected, and I hope it is in 1916, I’ll be very curious to see whether Mr. Dice does this same survey, asking folks to sign a petition the repeal the first amendment disallowing criticism of the republican president.




Ever have a discussion with a liberal that seems to know everything and cites statistic after statistic for his or her side? Have you ever been at a loss for statistics? I know that I have. I’ve never been good remembering numbers, but I do know when things are just better.

Recently, the democrats have been yapping on and on about our lethargic economic recovery, while indicating that the slowness of the recovery is due to the awful mess that George W. Bush left for him. While things are ever so slightly getting better, according to information from, when President Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter in 1981, things were actually worse economically than they were when Obama took over in 2009.

Statistics cited by are as follows:

  • Unemployment was at 10.8% in 1981 and 7.7% in 2009.
  • The inflation rate was 13.5% in 1981 and 2.7% in 2009.
  • The prime interest rate was 21.5% in 1981 and 3.25% in 2009.

            Also, according to, job growth has declined under Obama By the end of their second of their respective presidencies; job grown under Reagan averaged 7.1% while job growth under Obama averaged 2.8%.

How did President Reagan orchestrate his recovery? He did it with across the board tax cuts, non-defense spending cuts, a restrained monetary supply, and deregulation. What’s Obama done? He has increased taxes, increased spending, increased the money supply through quantitative spending, and cumbersome increases in regulation.

Who’s plan worked? It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I operate on at least two or more brain cells.





            Ever since the energy crisis in the 1970s where we witnessed substantial increases in the price of gas and at times had to endure long gas lines at the pumps, efforts have been made to find alternative methods to power our motor vehicles and other items designed to run off of oil. Unless you are over fifty-two or fifty-three, you may not remember much about this era, but your Mom and Dad will. According to Wikipedia, there were two main crises, 1973 and 1979. The cause was interruption of oil exports from the Middle East.

            It’s been thirty-five years since 1979 and no viable substitute for oil had been found. We’ve tried stuff such as solar panels and wind farms, but nothing seems to provide reliable and dependable energy like oil does. Other sources of energy that have passed the test of time are natural gas and coal.

            In the late 1970s and early 1980s, certain cars were manufactured with diesel engines. According to, diesel cars and trucks deliver twenty to thirty percent better fuel economy, even though a gallon of diesel cost more than a gallon of gasoline. These late 70s/early 80s cars were polluters and after a while, sales declined, and the automobile companies pretty much quit making them. I had the misfortune of driving a friend’s diesel Oldsmobile and found the thing had no power, no get up and go. While we don’t need to be “gunning it” in our everyday driving, there are times you need to be able to stomp down on that accelerator and get out of the way of danger. I drove my friend’s car about twenty miles and didn’t like it at all. While they “kinda sorta” made a comeback in the early 2000s, they are far from mainstream.

            Also in the late 70s/early 80s, folks started buying smaller cars with Japanese brands such as Toyota and Datsun (later became Nissan) becoming very popular. Unfortunately, the American car companies misjudged the demand for these smaller cars and lost a large share of the market, a phenomenon that’s still holding true today. With our global economy, though, many American brands are made in Mexico and Canada while many foreign brands are made here in the United States. Within a 100 mile radius of my house, there is a Mercedes plant, a Honda plant, and a Hyundai plant. I’ve been faithful to American brands and all my vehicle purchases have been GM, and they’re in a bit of hot water now.

            As the baby boomers started multiplying and getting a little older and wider, the demand for these smaller cars went down. Not wanting station wagons like their parents had, the boomers opted for vans and then the SUVs. These bigger vehicles were comfortable and had many more “bells and whistles.” While the price of gas went up for a period in 2000, then again in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina cut off some supply channels in the Gulf of Mexico, and again in the summer of 2008, there was very little advocacy of going back to the smaller cars. Sure, the egg on wheels made the scene (the smart car), carpooling was encouraged, and hybrids became popular. Still most kept their vans and SUVs.

            Right after Hurricane Katrina came through in 2005, gas prices spiked because supply channels were cut off. And did the liberals/democrats blame George Bush and how! You wouldn’t believe how shrill some of my liberal friends got. They were going on and on about how we could have developed new sources of energy, but the politicians, conservative politicians that is, were in the pockets of “big oil,” so nothing got done.

            According to, while there have been no new refineries built in this country since 1976, oil companies have added additional capacity since the early 2000s. In other words, old refineries have been expanded. Still, we need to build new refineries and need to get the oil out of the ground that this great nation is blessed with. According to, there is no source of energy that is endorsed and approved by environmentalists. Oil and gasoline are their biggest enemies, but they don’t like nuclear energy, the cleanest source of electricity. And of course, they don’t like coal.

            If we had begun drilling in the Anwar and in the lower forty-eight, in 2005, we’d probably be rid of foreign oil. If we’d started building the Keystone Pipeline five years ago, we’d be selling oil to our European allies, making them independent of Russian energy. If we did fracking for natural gas, we could be selling them that also. In doing all of the above, do you think that Russia would be as aggressive a nation as it is today?

            The liberals love to holler “green energy, green energy.” We’ve been trying for decades to come up with practical clean energy sources, but haven’t been able to do so to date. Nothing works like oil, coal, and natural gas.

            And just who created this planet and saw that the oil, coal, and natural gas were accessible to us? GOD, our heavenly father. Why would GOD have created these sources of energy if he didn’t mean for us to use them? Yes, there are accidents, and yes, there is loss of wildlife, and yes, there is contamination of the land and bodies of water. But remember, shortly after the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent spillage of oil that reached the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; microbes in the sea were at work “eating the oil.” And yes, I know that these microbes depleted a substantial amount of the oxygen supply in the waters of the Gulf and the Mobile Bay. The planet, which is organic, was cleaning itself up. Do you think that GOD was so short-cited that when he put these resources in the ground for us to use, that he didn’t consider that we humans would, on occasions, act with recklessness? Do you not think that GOD would not have also put in place measures to deal with us humans when we acted irresponsibility? Remember our GOD is merciful and grants us grace.  

            Remember the 1980s and the 1990s when the Superfund sites, where toxic substances had been dumped, were front and center in the media. There was an ongoing brou-ha-ha about how these sites would forever alter the planet. Outrageous demands were made by the EPA for alleged polluters to clean up these sites. Well, we hear very little about Superfund now. All of this was not as bad as the environmentalists and the EPA once indicated. It’s just not as bad, pure and simple.

            As we celebrate Earth Day this week, let’s keep in mind that we need to be good stewards and when we make a mess, we need to clean it up. And let’s not forget that GOD gave us these sources of energy for us to use and we should do so. When we go after these resources, our nation will prosper. Furthermore, I’m not saying that we should abandon research on alternative energy sources. We’re Americans and no matter what the current President may say, we’re exceptional. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. So, let’s do it.



So, the current president of the United States has put off his decision on the Keystone Pipeline until after the midterm elections; reason being that he wants more studies. I’ve read articles indicating that making a decision could be put off indefinitely. Angst has been expressed by not only the republicans, but from democrats who also want to see the project approved. Many of the democrats supporting the pipeline are from traditionally republican voting states and districts. For these members of the house, they are all up for re-election in November. Democrat senators who are facing tough election fights this November include Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Senator Landrieu has publicly come out against the president’s decision to put off the approval or disapproval of the pipeline.

            There is no doubt that this is political. Should the president approve the pipeline, his environmental comrades might stay at home come election day, perhaps causing him to lose the Senate. Should he not approve the pipeline, some swing voters in those red states where democrat senators up for re-election are in jeopardy could very well vote republican, giving the Senate to the republicans.

            According to NewMax, State department officials cited ongoing litigation in Nebraska over the pipeline’s route as a reason for delaying approval. Others feel that more investigation into the environmental impact should be completed. In an article in the Washington Post dated January 31, 2014, the State Department concluded in its final environmental assessment that the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would be unlikely to alter global greenhouse gas emissions. However, it’s not clear whether or not the project would meet the guidelines of the current president’s broader energy policy. A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center indicates that 66% of Americans are in favor of the construction of the pipeline while just 23% of Americans are against it. This was according to the Huffington Post.

            In building the Keystone pipeline, approximately 42,000 jobs would be created, plus the United States of America would be taking a giant leap in negating our dependence on foreign oil. Also, we could sell this oil to our European allies, thereby decreasing their dependence on oil from Russia. Fracking for natural gas would also allow us to sell natural gas to our allies across the pond. Then maybe they would not be reluctant to join us in our efforts against Russia and Vladimir Putin in his quest to occupy the Ukraine and re-build the old Soviet Union.

            But no, we can’t start building the pipeline because it might exacerbate climate change, which, of course, is a crock. The creation of jobs, removal of the dependence on foreign oil plus a sure boost to the economy can all be had by building this pipeline. With each passing day, I am more and more convinced that the purpose of the current president is to weaken the United States of America to the point that we are no more stronger than Sweden, Norway, Spain, France, etc. He doesn’t want this nation to prosper. He doesn’t want the United States to be exceptional. Would a weakened United States allow an easier route to a one world government?

            In my church, we do pray for our country’s leaders to make the right decisions in governing our great nation. Praying for the current President, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, and others seems like an exercise in futility. They don’t want to make the right decisions for you and me. They don’t want to do what’s best for you and me. All they want is to have as much control over our lives as possible, promote their Marxist philosophy of distribution of wealth, and turn us into little square people in little square holes, wearing the same uniforms, eating the same food, driving the same cars, living the same types of dwellings, etc. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.



On Monday evening, April 14, 2014, Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, on Fox Cable News, interviewed the head basketball coach of the University of Kentucky, John Calipari. When the interview began, I wasn’t paying much attention, and then I started paying attention. Mr. O’Reilly was asking Coach Lapari about how he handled players that were into hip-hop and other related stuff. Also, I believe he asked the coach if the players ever called him bad names. Bill also hinted that the players might not be interested in getting an education.

During the interview, I’m sure I bit my lip and probably frowned, thinking, Bill O’Reilly doesn’t know much about the culture of college sports, does he? I thought about sending him an email telling him that.

The fact is, all college athletes respect and fear their coaches. This respect and fear lasts for a lifetime. Right after President Reagan was elected, he had his aging college football coach over to the White House for lunch. President Reagan admitted that he was scared and still addressed him as “Sir.” Imagine, the leader of the free world being scared of an everyday American. Well, this was President Reagan’s coach. Then there is the story about Kenny Stabler being in Tuscaloosa after the Super Bowl in 1977, in which he quarterbacked the Oakland Raiders to victory. He ran into Coach Bryant and Coach Bryant said to him, “Boy, you need a haircut.” Well, Kenny Stabler went and got that haircut. Kenny Stabler and all of the boys who had the privilege of suiting up for Coach Bryant respected and feared him until the day Coach Bryant passed away. And I think most still do fear him.

On Tuesday, there was a scathing article on the liberal/progress website,, stating that Bill O’Reilly peppered Coach Calipari with questions that were rather unsubtle in their unstated racist premises. Because I’m a conservative rube from Alabama and not very “enlightened,” I do have a hard time deciphering some of the rhetoric on So, I’m just going to guess that Salon was accusing Bill O’Reilly of racism. Again, this is just a guess coming from a southern conservative blob of protoplasm.

While the article itself wasn’t the most inflammatory article that I have ever read on liberal/progressive media, the comments were pretty bad. A liberal facebook friend of mine posted the article and the comments to her post were even worse than the direct comments on the Salon article. Of course, Bill was called a racist and called other things. Conservatives and republicans were attacked and even Sarah Palin was brought into it. And you can’t have any of the above without Fox News being trashed.

This is the point that I’m trying to make, and I know some of you are going to miss it entirely. When I watched the segment, my thoughts were: Bill just doesn’t understand the culture of college sports. I do. I eat and sleep Alabama football. Kentucky is to basketball what Alabama is to football. If you smart-off at your coaches or misbehave, breaking team rules, you are out the door. The type of behavior that Bill was asking Coach Calipari about doesn’t exist in college sports. It just doesn’t exist. Those of us that know the culture know it doesn’t exist.

This was not racism, it was Bill O’Reilly, a died in the wool northeasterner, just not knowing about something. Should he have done further study? Probably. But being uninformed about the culture of college sports and asking “dumb” questions, does not make him a racist.

As I already said, I didn’t see it as racism. However, liberals/progressives seem to always look for some sort of “ism” in everything. Do they push the envelope or what? They will call something racism when it’s nowhere near relating to race. How they somehow manage to connect the dots, I’ll never know. But again, I’m just a southern, conservative Christian, dumb as a post and too stupid to live. But again, to you liberals, I wouldn’t be so anxious to rid the world of my kind. I’m not part of a protected group. You can still make fun of me and call me anything you please. There’s no other group on the planet that you can do that to.