Monthly Archives: March 2015


On Thursday, March 26, Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Following the signing, many politicians, celebrities, and journalists were outraged, saying the law was a license to discriminate against gay people. Liberal rag, Daily Kos calls it a hate law and Indiana’s new right to discriminate law.
According to, the first RFRA was a 1997 federal law that signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representative where it was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer. Then it sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law re-established a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases. The law allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

If there is already a federal law in place, then why would any state see the need to pass its own RFRA? According, in a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. When Senator Schumer was asked to comment on Indiana now passing RFRA, the Senator declined.

It certainly doesn’t appear that Indiana’s RFRA grants a license to discriminate. In fact, twenty-eight other states have enacted their own RFRAs. These states, including Indiana, have never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations.

As a free market capitalist, I do believe that a private business owner or owners do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone on any basis. I can just hear a liberal asking me the following, “So, you believe it’s okay to discriminate?” My answer to that liberal would be no, it is definitely not okay to discriminate. I should have that right, though.

I’ve used this example many times and I’m going to use it again. I have a cake-baking business located in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I’m an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and will not bake Auburn cakes. Is that a smart business plan? Absolutely not and I will probably go out of business soon. But ultimately, I should have that right. I’ll give you another example. I own a restaurant. Do I have the right to refuse to seat Blacks? Yes, I have that right. Is that a smart business strategy? No, and I will probably go out of business if my restaurant’s not burned to the ground first. I should have that right, though.

I’ve always said this, “Just because you have a right to do it, doesn’t make it right to do it.” This is something the tolerant left doesn’t seem to understand. They can’t seem to make the distinction. Aren’t they supposed to be so smart? They do have the academic elites in their corner. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend one time. The discussion accelerated to the point that I did raise my voice. Actually, I think she did understand, but just wanted to be whiny like a lot of liberals.

Why are liberals making such a big deal out of Indiana’s RFRA law? Like I’ve said many times, liberals don’t care about facts and while they can read words on a page or on a screen, they are incapable of understanding what they read (at least that’s been my experience). Since they don’t care about facts, they’re not going to take the time to research anything. If they can twist something a conservative does to make that conservative look like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a hater of any kind, they’re going to jump on it.



I’m writing this post late in the afternoon on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. I’ve seen so many things that have upset me today with regard to the direction that this country is going. Oh well, I’m just going to say it, liberal lies. Since I started following politics and became a Republican, I’ve heard that the Republicans are going to cut Social Security benefits that they are going to destroy Social Security. “I’m scared Reagan is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George H.W.) is going to cut my Social Security. I’m scared Bush (George W.) is going to cut my Social Security.” Has it happened? I don’t think so. For those individuals born between 1946 and 1958, the retirement age has been increased from 65 to 66, and for those individuals born after 1959, the retirement age has been increased to 67. Benefits were not cut, though. Whenever there is a Republican proposal regarding Social Security, you can bet that the liberals will be out in droves saying that the Republicans want to cut or completely demolish Social Security.

Last week, two liberal Friends posted a photo of several well-healed looking business men sitting around a very nice table in what looked like an executive lounge or a private club. The caption indicated that a group of high income executives called the Business Roundtable or Roundtable Business group had advised Republican lawmakers to consider upping the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits. Details were not discussed, although I would think the retirement age would stay in place for those individuals who are fifty or older. All of a sudden, the Republicans were beholden to the rich who wanted to cut Social Security. What a crock? I posted back in a very tactful way what my research had discovered. I indicated that when seeing something that looks unreasonable, you need to check it out before slapping it up there on social media. One of the liberals thanked me for bring the truth to his attention. One of them never replied.

This morning a different Facebook friend posted a photograph from Blue Nation Review and indicated that Republicans are trying to kill Social Security again. This is what I discovered when I did some research. The House GOP budget released this week included a provision to block a traditionally routine transfer of funds — known as a “reallocation” — from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security Disability Insurance fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2016. It affirmed a House rule adopted by Republicans in January to prohibit such a reallocation without reforms to improve the overall financial health of Social Security. A little more research revealed that transferring money from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security disability fund has taken place eleven times and the transaction was complete automatically. Whether you think making it not-so-automatic to transfer money from the retirement fund to the disability fund is a good idea or not, any reasonable and prudent individual can see that this is not “killing Social Security.”

The third thing regarding Social Security that made me mad to day was a quote from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. The Senator’s quote went like this: “Today, someone making $10 million a year contributes the same amount into the Social Security Trust Fund as someone making $117,000 a year. By lifting the cap, we can not only extend the solvency of Social Security by decades, but we can also increase benefits. And that’s exactly what we should do.”

Well, let’s not let the truth get in our way, Senator. A person making $10 million dollars a year receives the same amount as someone making the cap for contributions, $117,000. Social Security was designed that way. A low-income individual draws a larger share of their contributions than someone with a high income. It’s very much modeled after the Karl Marx philosophy, “From each according to his ability, to each, according to his need.”

Let’s say we life the cap and everyone must pay 6% or 12% of their income into Social Security. Will those high income folks draw more in Social Security benefits now that they are paying more? How will this affect the system? Will this have the same effect that taxing the rich does? That is, will we see a loss of jobs, and increase in the prices of goods and services, or a lowering of GDP? These are serious questions that the Senator and the rest of the Democrats/liberals must answer. Can you say “slippery slope?”

According to a number of liberal websites, the Social Security retirement fund has enough money in it so that full benefits can be paid until the mid-2030’s. After that only 75% of the benefits can be paid. Folks, that’s not very far away, only twenty years. Those twenty years will be here before we know it. It seems like yesterday that I was at the movies watching Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, and Uma Thurman in the movie, “Pulp Fiction.”
With our out of control dictator, I can imagine that at some point, individuals who have faithfully contributed to Social Security might not be eligible to draw their benefits. At retirement age, the Feds would declare someone ineligible because of their net worth. If your net worth is over a certain amount at the time you reach retirement age, you can’t draw Social Security. Instead you live exclusively on your accumulated wealth. What you have contributed will be re-distributed.

The above is pure speculation on my part of what might happen if liberal Democrats are elected to the Presidency for years to come. My predictions about a lot of things that would happen when the current President was elected proved to be true.



Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was implemented by the current administration in June 2012. It allows certain undocumented immigrants who entered the country before their 16th birthday and before June 2007 to receive a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation. In November 2014, the current President announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal immigrants who entered the country before 2010. It would eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to three years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000. (Wikipedia)

On November 20, 2014, the current President announced a new deferred action program called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, known as DAPA. With DAPA, the accompanying work authorization will be granted for a period of three years.

When the program goes into effected in May 2015, an undocumented individual living in the United States who, on the date of the announcement, is the parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident can apply for deferment. The applicant must have been in the United States since January 1, 2010 and have remained in the United States since then.
Illegal immigration is not something that is constantly on the minds of most voters, except maybe those living in states that border Mexico where most illegals cross into this country or states in close proximity to states on the Mexican border. However, it is something about which all Americans should be concerned.

In an article in, powered by Investor’s Business Daily, and authored by Phyllis Schlafly, the costs of these executive actions will come due only after the current President has left office. According to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, these costs are horrendous.

Rector told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits paid to the millions of immigrants to whom the current President is granting legal status will be about $1.3 trillion.

Rector has further indicated that DAPA recipients, will receive $7.8 billion every year once they get access to the refundable earned income tax credit and the refundable additional child tax credit. Those recipients will also be allowed to claim credit for three years of illegal work, which will sock the U.S. taxpayers for another $23.5 billion.
This was confirmed by IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, who told Congress on February 11 of this year that immigrants who didn’t pay any taxes or who used fake Social Security numbers will be able to claim back refunds once they get new Social Security numbers. Koskinen doesn’t know how much these tax refunds will cost and the White House never checked with him before announcing the amnesty.

Also according to Rector, the average DAPA-eligible family already receives about $6,600 a year in means-tested welfare benefits. These benefits include food stamps, school lunch and breakfast, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Most of these welfare benefits go to households with children headed by a low-income employed adult.

Rector feels that the combined cost of means-tested welfare benefits that immigrants who come here illegally receive plus other goodies such as EITC and ACTC cash will encourage increased illegal immigration in the future. Of course, these illegals will be registered to vote and will vote Democrat.

Americans today are concerned more about jobs and about healthcare. Millions of Americans looking for jobs are out of work plus millions more have given up looking for work. Americans are also concerned about healthcare. I’ve heard that upwards of 80 million Americans lost their health plans and had to procure another health plan, many at increased costs and deductibles.

So, illegal immigration and the current President’s executive amnesty don’t seem to be major concerns for many Americans. How is this going to affect Social Security and Medicare? Those Americans, who are in their late fifties and beyond, may be able to collect their full social security benefits for a while. What’s going to happen to them in their later years if their benefits have to be cut drastically? Do they still have money to live off from their retirement savings? It might be a good idea to strive to live off Social Security exclusively for as long as you can and not go into retirement savings. And what about those who have nothing or very little in retirement savings? Remember, some of those folks have had to cash in their retirement account and pay early withdrawal penalties due to job losses and an economy where job growth has been miniscule.

And what about those who are not going to reach retirement age for ten or more years. What if you’re fifty? Will you be able to get the full Social Security benefits you were promised. And at age fifty, are you on the path to having enough saved?
Then what about those just starting out? Hopefully you have the knowledge that Social Security will probably not be there for you? These young adults may very well have student loans to pay off. Also, when you’re young, having nice clothes, driving a nice car, living in a nice place, and having some fun are important. The people in this age group may say, I can’t save for retirement now, but I’ll sign up for my 401(k) plan next month. And the beat goes on.

No age group is really in great shape. It hurts to think about this stuff and I try not to, just like everybody else. I’ll think about that tomorrow. Maybe the books I’m writing will make some money that I can put back. Maybe I’ll be able to make money off of my websites. I might have to get a day job for a while. Maybe I’ll die earlier than most of the women on both sides of my family because I won’t have access to the quality of health care that my mother and grandmother had access to.

And let’s not forget that the baby boomers are retiring in droves and that’s not going to stop for a while.



Whenever I need a topic for a blog post and nothing jumps out at me, I go to my favorites, to a folder entitled “Stupid Liberal Articles.” There, I can always find something to write about.

About a month ago, Jill Bond,, a liberal website wrote an article outlining Chelsea Clinton’s accomplishments. The list is indeed very impressive. I haven’t, nor am I, going to check out these accomplishments. I’m sure some are very accurate and some may be exaggerated, but that’s not the point of this article.

Instead, they prefaced their list of Chelsea’s accomplishments by discussing how she had been a target of right-wing attacks. One such attack was supposedly by Rush Limbaugh sometime in 1993 after President Clinton’s inauguration. However, the alleged attack actually happened on November 6, 1992, two days after the Presidential election in which Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush. Rush was doing a what’s in and what’s out segment. One of the INs and OUTs was going to be cute kid in and cute dog out. The cute kid in was Chelsea and the cute dog out was Millie, the Bush’s much loved pooch. Something happened and the pictures got mixed up and it looked like Chelsea was being compared to a dog. Rush immediately apologized, but twenty-two years later the left still brings this up and, of course, has not forgiven Rush. But just let someone on the left make a boorish mistake and that someone is heralded and never has to apologize.
The first sentence of Ms. Bond’s article reads as follows: “Chelsea Clinton is often targeted by Republicans who have nothing better to do than tear down a woman who is, simply put – brilliant. As a Republican, a right-winger, and a conservative, I’ve heard very little spoken about Chelsea Clinton. Sure, there have been comments made in private living rooms that may have been in poor taste, but those comments have generally been confined to those private living rooms.

Furthermore, those in the limelight and are public figures have to be ready to accept a certain amount of barbs from the public. Children should always be off limits to these barbs, but in this imperfect world, that is not always the case, and why parents, who are public figures, do need to make doubly sure that their children aren’t exposed. While Caroline and John Kennedy, Jr. were constantly in the news, along with the Johnson daughters, that was the sixties. This is a different day and age.

Ms. Bond also claims in her article that Republicans are, in vast numbers, alleging that Chelsea wouldn’t have accomplished all these things had she not been a child of privilege. I haven’t heard anyone say that, in public or in private, but of course it’s true. People are always getting perks and benefits because of who they are. I knew a young lady who was able to enter the University of Alabama even though her high school grades were Cs and Ds and she had a low ACT score. This is because she had parent who were connected. It happens in life all the time.

Since you can never have a left wing “hate” article without bringing in George W. Bush and/or his family, Ms. Bond certainly does this by stating the following: “Not only are the Bushes products of nepotism, they’ve gotten fat eating at the public trough, and het the haters go after Chelsea who’s never worked in the public sector.” Oh come now, Ms. Bond. I watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and read a lot of web-based conservative publications. I haven’t seen or heard “conservatives go after Chelsea.” Now, there may be some sleazy sights out there (and they’re on both the left and the right) that may post despicable things, but they’re not main stream and frankly, I’m not going to attempt to dig up these sites because I don’t want viruses on my computers.

Ms. Bond, wouldn’t you have written a better article if, instead of listing Chelsea’s accomplishments by age 30 in a bulleted list, you had elaborated more on her life as a wife, mother, former first daughter, and successful career woman? But no, you had to insert your hatred for those on the right.

This makes me wonder what your intentions were in writing this peace. Was it admiration for Chelsea Clinton or your intense hatred for those of us who are unenlightened conservative oafs?



In the Bible in the Book of Genesis (Chapter 12, verse 3), it is said: “I (God) will bless those who bless you (Israel) and will curse those who curse you (Israel).” It doesn’t get much plainer than that. According to, the Bible warns that the destiny of the world is inseparable from Israel and Jerusalem. The Bible says God would one day re-gather the children of Israel back into their land from among many nations around the world. The Bible also warns that God would then make Jerusalem a world trouble spot and that all nations of the world will turn against Israel. Furthermore, the Bible warns that Gaza will be forsaken.

On May 14, 1948, British forces pulled out of Palestine. That afternoon Jewish leaders assembled at the Tel Aviv Museum to sign the Israeli declaration of Independence and announce the creation of the first modern Jewish state. If you were 15 at the time and remember this, you would be 82 now. Thus, I doubt many of my readers would remember this prophetic day. From what I’ve heard, though, there was not much hoop-la from clergy and Christian leaders.

In the middle of August, 2005, Israeli troops began the forced evacuation of thousands of Jewish settlers from the Gaza strip after a deadline for them to leave had expired. Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, implemented the evacuation.

Does anyone know what happened a week later? Can you say Hurricane Katrina? That’s right, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Mississippi Gulf coast. In New Orleans, levies were breached causing major flooding and destruction. American citizens were suffering beyond belief. In fact, the aftermath of Katrina was referred to as a disaster of Biblical proportions by many journalists.

The Gaza withdrawal was backed by the U.S. government. According to World Net Daily, some Middle East analysts and senior Israeli politicians entirely attributed the evacuation plan to pressure from the American establishment.

I was a current events follower in 2005 and remember pursing my lips when watching TV news coverage of the Gaza evacuation. I was particularly distraught with the uprooting of bodies from the area’s Jewish cemeteries. And then along comes Katrina.

World Net Daily documented a number of events that one might say drew parallels between the evacuation of the Gaza strip and Hurricane Katrina. One parallel indicated that President Bush was from Texas and Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was from Alabama. Both were vocal supporters of the Gaza evacuation. Katrina hit the states between Texas and Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. There was also damage done in Alabama, including a downed tree in my back yard.

Other parallels from World Net Daily include the following: Many residents of Jewish Gaza climbed to their rooftops to escape the threat of expulsion, while residents of the Gulf Coast climbed on their own rooftops to protect themselves from the rising waters. Jewish Gaza homes described as beautiful and charming were demolished this week by Israel’s military. Once beautiful homes in New Orleans now lie in ruins.

Some are going to say that this is coincidence. Others are going to say that I’m crazy and so is anybody who remotely thinks that Katrina wreaked havoc in the United States because the U.S. was pushing the Gaza evacuation.

The current administration is in negotiations with the Middle Eastern country of Iran regarding their nuclear enrichment program. Remember Iran has indicated that it wants to destroy Israel. The administration has also removed Iran plus Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood from the United States’ terrorist watch list.

And if that’s not enough, the current administration used tax payer dollars to support Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s left wing opponent, Isaac Herzog, in the recent election. Now that PM Netanyahu soundly defeated Mr. Herzog, the current President is suggesting that he’s going to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran and put them on Israel.

According to Major Garrett of CBS, speaking to radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, President Obama has ordered his top advisors to seek alternatives to direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The leading option for the White House, and one that would amount to a significant reversal of American policy, would be to allow the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. The White House has worked with Israel in the past to block such maneuvers, arguing it would unnecessarily inflame Israeli political passions and undermine a fragile peace process. Letting the United Nations Security Council proceed now appears to be a live option. Re-elected PM Netanyahu has said that the Palestinians would not get their state under current circumstances.

Are we turning our backs on Israel? Many other countries already have. The Bible says that all nations of the world will turn against Israel. The United States has definitely been Israel’s staunchest ally on the planet. Is that about to change? Are other Israeli allies going to follow the path of the United States?

I’m writing this as a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and a believer that there are no coincidences where the Lord and his word are concerned. His word is immutable.

I’m not saying that the world is going to end tomorrow or anytime soon. Only God knows that day. But as Christians, we must be aware of the signs that are told to us in scripture, and the events of our days.