Monthly Archives: May 2015

LIBERALS GONE WILD – PART TWO

Everyone knows by now that the current President has accused Fox Cable News of continually disparaging the poor of this nation. Furthermore, he has said that we need to change the way we report the news. This comment is chilling in and of itself because it appears that the current President doesn’t realize that we have freedom of the press in this nation and that a free and independent media is necessary to the survival of our Republic.

The current President went on to indicate that Fox Cable News continuously disparages the poor of this nation, calling them lazy, sponges, and leeches. I watch Fox News extensively and I’ve never heard anyone on Fox News calling poor people lazy, sponges, and leeches. The current president used the word, “continuously,” also. Yes, there are discussions about this country’s entitlement programs and their lack of effectiveness. And yes, there are people, including myself, who feel that these programs are ineffective and have trapped less fortunate Americans into a life of poverty of which they will never be able to free themselves. That’s not exactly disparaging or shaming the poor.

On Thursday, May 14, a liberal Facebook friend of mine posted a video of Stuart Varney, Fox Business Personality on the John Stewart show. Also in the video were a couple of clips from Fox Cable News. John Stewart was slamming Fox News for berating poor people. Most of the posters were liberal and I got into the fray.

The following is my first response to the post: “I’m a conservative blogger and watch Fox News at least six hours a day and have been doing so since the late nineties. I have never, and I mean never heard anyone on Fox News refer to poor people as lazy, sponges, leeches, etc. AGAIN, NEVER HAVE I HEARD THIS! What I have heard indicated on Fox News and I’ve indicated the same on my own blog is that the liberal policies of the current President and many of his Democrat predecessors have created an entitlement or nanny state where people have come to expect the government to be their caretaker. Furthermore, if any of you liberals can produce a video where someone on Fox News has continually called poor people lazy, sponges, leeches, etc., please forward it to me.”

Another poster responded to my comment, asking me if I had watched the video and the following is what I posted back to her: “The first time I listened to it (I need some sort of update on my computer, so I couldn’t view it) I only got about half way through it because it was so imbecilic, so I clicked off of it. I did, however force myself to listen to it a second time. Except for the very last segment of the video where things got a little confusing, nowhere did I hear Stu Varney calling poor people leeches, sponges, lazy. What I did understand and truly believe is that because of liberal policies, we have become an entitlement or nanny state. Stu Varney also said during the video that he was talking about programs, particularly the food stamp program and not the recipients of those programs. At the end, I heard the term sponging used as in the fact that so many liberal programs have created a class of people that do sponge off the government. I then heard to term leeches and it appeared to be again in reference to the liberal policies that have created so much dependence on the government and actually do have poor people trapped. So much of this was taken out of context that it’s hard to determine the extent of the comments. I’m going to get picky and say that most of this video was not of Fox News. A little bit at the end may have been extracted from Fox News. It is my observation that parts of this video were taken out of context. Mr. Stewart is alleging that much of the broadcasting on Fox News is that of calling poor people lazy, leeches, sponges. IT IS NOT! Rather it’s the liberal policies that are discussed and it is indicated that these policies are creating groups of people that are dependent on the government. You and most of the posters may totally disagree with me and that’s fine. My purpose here is not to discuss the merits of more or less entitlement spending. But the fact that Fox News consistently puts down poor people is just false.”

The following are replies to me:

  • The videos are pretty clear. If you haven’t heard these things, you must have had you fingers in your ears while yelling “LALALA” while it was going on.
  • So Dumb

On Friday, May 14, I was able to view the video instead of just listening to is and here was my response after viewing it: “This morning, I was able to watch instead of just listening to the video that is the subject of this post. After having watched it, I found it even more imbecilic than I did when I was only able to listen to it. Everything was taken out of context. We were given words, phrases, and the occasional sentence and had no idea what was being said before or after. In addition, we had to deal with John Stewart’s profanity throughout the video. Furthermore, the audience was laughing. If the number one cable news network is continually disparaging the poor, it shouldn’t be a laughing matter. Once again, this video is a joke with everything in it having been taken out of context. While all but a few of you have disparaged me, I now have fodder for several blog posts.”

This is the response I received: “This moron is so clueless!”

This post turned into the gift that keeps on giving. One responder gave me a link to an article on mediamatters.org, one of the most egregious left wing smear merchants. This article showcased examples of what the author felt was Fox News shaming the poor. Skimming the article, I discovered that I could pick it apart easily. Here are a few, but not all of the examples in the article.

  •  Fox Hosts: Our coverage is “Honest” And Those Who Don’t Wish to be Poor Should get a Job: I watched this video in its entirety. The Fox and Friends hosts and Stuart Varney expressed frustration at the increase in the number of recipients of food stamps and other entitlement programs. Fox and Friends’ Host, Steve Docey said at the end of the segment that to not be poor, you should have a job. This is exactly right. This was not disparaging the poor, this was telling us what our parents probably told us as we were growing up and making the transition from childhood to adulthood. As long as one relies on government handouts, they’re going to be poor. No one ever got rich off of handouts. The only way to get out of poverty is to get a job and work your way out of it. That’s the reason we conservatives want to get as many people off of handouts that we can because we want everyone to be prosperous.
  • Obama called out Fox News for Showcasing folks who are Scamming the System on his Watch: Fox News Reporter, Phil Rosen, discussed this and verified that at one time the current President attempted to get Fox News kicked out of the network pool. There was a bit of disconnect here because Phil went on to indicated that the current president had to back-peddle and apologize for the disastrous roll-out of the Obamacare website. Phil went on to state the fact that Fox News is number one and is far ahead of many other news outlets. He gave two reasons for this: (1) People think Fox News is a slanted arm of the Republican party and the folks still prefer to get their news from Fox anyway. (2) The people of Fox News are stupid and unenlightened according to the “tolerant left.” Also, in the last 50 years since the implementation of Lyndon Johnson’s great society, American taxpayers have paid approximately $15 trillion dollars into the system. Yet the poverty rate among Americans as dropped 19% to 14.5%, not particularly significant. Furthermore, children in poverty has gone unchanged.
  • Obama said that Fox News has called the poor lazy, sponges, leeches, etc.: He ways that if we continually watch Fox News that we’re going to hear this. This is not true. Either the current president is lying or folks who report to him are lying.
    There are other examples cited in the Media Matters article and I’ll pick them apart in my next post.

Why am I spending so much time on this, you may ask? I believe in a free press. It’s essential to the survival of our democratic republic. We must hold government accountable and ask as many questions as necessary, even though the questions may not be popular with our elected officials.BHO said that we needed to change the way we report the news. Well, Mr. President, you’re not in charge of reporting the news, neither is your administration. That attitude or perspective is anti-American.

Criticizing a news outlet publicly should be beneath the President of the United States. He says these things that are lies, these lies get picked up and reported in the mainstream media where low-information voters get their news. Low information voters accept these lies as facts and vote accordingly.

Thus, I think what has happened in the last few days is important and I intend to post at least one more time on this.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERALS GONE WILD-PART ONE

Upon the inception of Wing Nut Gal in April 2014, I began working toward establishing roots and searching for that niche in which I’m superior. Some of you are going to say, I’ve known this woman for years and she’s not superior in anything she does, she’s average at best and should consider herself lucky because she’s such a loser, an unenlightened oaf. Believe it or not, these things have been said to me. I guess it’s a good thing that there are certain people I refuse to listen to. With so much vitriol being directed toward conservatives in the past few days, I’m overwhelmed. It’s a good thing that I’m taking notes of these things because my short term memory is definitely not what it used to be.

The most disturbing thing that has been said this week comes from, guess who? Our current president, of course! BHO has indicated that “we need to change the way we’re reporting the news.” If doesn’t scare you to death and cause chills to go up and down your spine, you’re a moron, yes, a moron. One of the cornerstones of the foundation of this nation is a free and independent media; freedom of the press.

Could the current president possibly be suggesting the implementation of a state run media? I don’t care if you’re conservative or liberal, this should make you cringe. An independent and free media is absolutely necessary to the survival of a democratic republic. A state run media that gives its citizens only what they want its citizens to hear is totalitarian and chilling. It certainly looks like this president is an advocate of a state run media. If you don’t find this chilling, you’re either evil yourself, or you haven’t been taught civics/government.

I don’t like MSNBC, CNN, Network news, and others because I don’t agree with their views and I feel that they lean left. Do I want to shut them down? It would never occur to me to call for shutting them down like liberals want to do to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. Freedom of the press has been instilled in me since I was born and continuously affirmed as I was young and getting my education. At this point in my life, it continues to be instilled in me.

The current President of the United States, having indicated that we need to change the way we’re reporting the news, portrays that he is anti-American. The fact that he lowers himself in such a manner furthermore proves that he has no class. He’s not the expert on constitution law that he claims to be. If he was, he would understand the need for a free and independent media to maintain a free society.

For the last twenty-four hours, I’ve listened to the commentary on this president’s statements. But not one talking head has suggested what I have suggested in the above paragraphs. Am I that smart and enlightened? Of course not, I’m a southern white conservative Christian, an unenlightened oaf according to the liberal elites.

There really has been too much discussion on it and all that really needs to be said is that an independent press is fundamental to the survival of a democratic republic and for an elected government official to suggest that we need to change the way we report the news is chilling and obviously doesn’t understand or has never been taught about the founding of this great nation.

In addition to stating that we need to change the way we report the news which sounds like he is advocating a state run media, the current president has indicated that Fox Cable News disparages to poor of this nation, calling them sponges, lazy, leeches, etc. I watch Fox News at least four hours a day and I’ve never heard anything resembling this.

What I have heard are discussions on liberal policies that have increased entitlement spending. Many pundits who appear on Fox News have valid opinions that increases in entitlement spending place the poor people of this nation into a trap that they have little hope of freeing themselves. There have certainly been disparaging remarks made about his president’s policies and those policies of his democrat predecessors who have trapped this nation’s poor, making them more dependent on the government.

In the next week, I do plan to watch Fox News and take note if someone is disparaging the poor. But wait? My definition of disparaging the poor is probably different from that of liberals. We all know that liberals change the definition of racism and sexism when it suits their fancy. So, I guess there’s nothing to stop them from changing their definition of what constitutes the disparaging of the poor of this nation.

Liberals love to accuse conservatives of hating the poor. We don’t hate the poor and many of us know that we are to help those less fortunate than ourselves. My definition of helping the poor is from my hand to theirs. That does the most good. Liberals seem to advocate government programs where, after every tax dollar goes up the ladder, then down the ladder, resulting in maybe $.05 actually benefits the cause.

As far as liberals are concerned, I’m an unenlightened oaf who needs to die. In fact a liberal friend of a liberal friend said he would gladly shoot me and other Republicans down except he didn’t want to go to jail. I’ve been accused of hating the poor many times. I don’t hate poor people, but I hate that they’re having to live the life they are living and I want them to get out of poverty. Liberal policies just insure they will stay in poverty and stay dependent on government with government dependency the goal of liberals.

I’ve suggested that liberals look down their noses at poor people, but maybe I was off base to make such a statement. Liberals must love poor people because they want more people to exist and they want to make those who are not poor, poor.

Facebooktwitter

AND I WAS RIGHT

For years, I have been treated shabbily by liberals. I haven’t been called a racist much because anyone who knows me knows that just isn’t true. This conservative has more black friends than all of my liberal friends combined have. However, I have been called a disgrace to my gender and have been accused of not caring about public education.

Shortly after starting the Wing Nut Gal blog, I had the fortunate, yes, fortunate experience of drawing the wrath of a prominent local liberal. She went into full attack mode after I made a comment to one of her Facebook posts that she didn’t like. First she changed the subject and then started hurling accusations at me and called my comments hateful. They weren’t. Looking back on it now, her reaction was comical and obviously scripted. I’m thinking that she must have attended some Democrat leadership conference and was schooled on how to beat down a conservative. Because she couldn’t have an honest debate with me on facts and statistics, she had to resort to changing the subject and hurling insults at me in order to shake me up.
While I was upset and stayed upset for several hours, I realized that if I was going to “put myself out there,” I had to accept that what this locally prominent liberal did to me would often happen. If I couldn’t take the heat, then I needed to get out of the kitchen. This is the reason I consider this experience to be a fortunate experience.

A couple of months later, I had a similar experience, again on Facebook. The liberal changed the subject and became emotional and accusatory.

Then about a month ago, a liberal friend of mine, a school teacher, and she is a friend, interjected herself into a Facebook post after I mentioned something about Alabama’s new Charter Schools’ bill that had just been signed into law. I was not advocating charter schools, I just mentioned the law. This school teacher friend, with the cap locks on, angrily indicated her opposition to the bill. Her interjection was inappropriate with regard to my comment and the subject of the original poster. I called her down on it and haven’t heard from her since, but we don’t live in the same town.

The point I’m trying to make is that the school teacher failed to read what I said and failed to grasp the subject of the post. When she saw the phrase, “Charter Schools,” she went ballistic and, in my opinion, made an ass out of herself. That’s typical liberal behavior.

Liberals also don’t care about facts. You can cite statistics until you’re blue in the face and they just won’t grasp them. “Hands up, don’t shoot,” is a classic example. It was proven time and time again that Michael Brown, the black teenager shot to death in Ferguson, Missouri by a white policeman, did not have his hands up and was not begging the policeman not to shoot him. Because liberals continued to use the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra, it’s obvious that they don’t care about facts.

Liberals lie and get away with it. Prior to the 2012 presidential election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on the Senate floor, accused Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, of not paying his taxes. Reid made the accusations on the Senate floor because he could not be held for libel or slander while on the Senate floor. Mitt Romney did pay his taxes and Harry Reid lied. However, it was up to Mitt Romney to prove that he, indeed, paid his taxes. When later approached about his lies, Reid was no repentant. Instead, he said, “He didn’t get elected.”

Liberal can and do lie about conservatives and it’s up to the conservative who’s being lied about to disprove the lie. A lot of this is due, though, to a left leaning mainstream media that will not hold liberals accountable for their statements.

Bill O’Reilly summed it up on his Fox Cable News show on 5/11. Bill said that the lie would start on a second tier website, then a more prominent website would pick it up. Next, it would get picked up by the mainstream media and would be in the newspapers and on the network news. Of course, no one would bother to fact check. Mr. and Mrs. Low Information Voter hears it and accepts it as fact. The Mr. and Mrs. Low Information Voter vote. A few weeks ago, a low information voter friend of mine indicated that she thought our relations with Iran and Cuba were “all good.” In fact, she want to go to Cuba because she thinks their fifties style of living is just so quaint. I invited her to read this blog and she refused saying she wanted nothing to do with politics. My thought: “Okay, look and sound stupid.”

Conservative talking heads are now verifying that liberals don’t care about facts and statistics. They are also verifying that liberals are refusing to engage in honest debate on the issues. Instead they change the subject and start hurling insults and accusations at their conservative counterpart.

Fox News Contributor and also an acknowledged liberal has written a book called “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” I downloaded it to my Kindle on Monday and can’t wait to read it from cover to cover because from the excerpts that I’ve read, Ms. Powers is saying everything that I’ve been saying about liberals for over a year.

Facebooktwitter

MAY 2015 LIBERAL TRAVESTIES

According to Blue Nation Review, the New York Times has reported that more premature babies are surviving after being delivered as early as twenty-two weeks. Jesse Berney, author of the article I’m about to dissect, indicated that this was a good thing because more mothers with complicated pregnancies are having the children they want. “They want” being the key words.

Mr. Berney, though, goes on to indicate that some (I’m presuming she’s talking about us unenlightened pro-life oafs) will use this news to attack abortion rights.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban abortion before the point of viability, the moment a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. That line, however, was not made totally clear. The article goes on to indicate that general medical consensus has set that point at twenty-four weeks. She then laments that with babies being delivered as early as twenty-two weeks living, who knows what technology will be developed in the coming years to push the viability line back even further.

I have known people who are pro-choice and anti-abortion. Some on the right think you can’t be that way, but do differ. In other words, they think that abortion at any point in gestation is murder, but a woman should ultimately have that right. Others think that until brain waves and a heartbeat can be detected that the cluster of cells is not yet a human being and could be aborted.

In Roe v. Wade, the viability line was not set and while I’m no expert on Roe v. Wade, that most certainly was a good thing. Not setting this line would allow for new medical developments. It sounds like Mr. Berney just wants more abortions to take place. She’s scared of pushing back the viability line, indicating that the line shouldn’t be the determining factor in abortion laws. Instead, a much simpler approach can be taken, just trust women to make the choice about when they want to carry a pregnancy to term; and while she doesn’t say it, it appears that she thinks that a woman has the choice to abort a fetus, no matter how far along in the gestation period she is. Mr. Berney ends the article with saying, “Just trust women, and things will turn out fine.”

Over the years, I’ve had pro-choice Democrats say to me, “You Republicans desire less government interference in your lives, but you insist on interfering with women’s lives when it comes to abortion. In my younger days, I would respond as follows, “Well, you are against the death penalty for egregious criminals who have destroyed the lives of other people, but you want to kill innocent lives, lives that haven’t done anything to anyone.”

Now days, I go further back from the laws of our land to Biblical teachings. God created woman with the capacity to bear children and populate and re-populate the earth. With that, comes a responsibility to nurture a child created by her, both in the womb and outside the womb. This most certainly doesn’t mean that all women must bear at least one child; nothing of the sort. It means that as a woman, you have been given the ability by God to bear children. If you chose not to or if it just never happens for you, you still have the responsibility for reproduction. God gave that responsibility to you and because he gave it to you, you have that responsibility.

As I’ve indicated before, I have a stupid liberal articles folder in my favorites and when I run upon an article that I think is worthy of being in that folder, I add it to the folder. The above article met that criteria and the one I’m now about to dissect met my criteria also.

The article is entitled, “Why I Hate Mother’s Day.” It was authored in May, 2010 by Anne Lamott and appeared in salon.com, a liberal publication.

Ms. Lamott states in her article that Mother’s Day celebrates a huge lie about the value of women, that mothers are superior beings, that they have done more with their lives and chosen a more difficult path. She then states that every woman’s path is difficult, and that many mothers were as equipped to raise children as wire monkey mothers. I don’t know anything about wire monkey mothers, so what’s wrong with them? Do they abandoned or kill their young as soon as they are born? So, here we have a subliminal message that all women are somehow victims.

In Ms. Lamott’s opinion, the holiday makes all non-mothers, and the daughters of dead mothers, and the mothers of dead or severely damaged children, feel the deepest kind of grief and failure. The non-mothers must sit in their churches, temples, mosques, recovery rooms, and pretend to feel good about the day while they are excluded from a holiday that benefits no one but Hallmark and See’s.

This is a bitter article by a woman who appears to be bitter herself; and let’s face it, lots of liberals are bitter and don’t mind showing their bitterness.

My Mom’s died in 2011 and I only have one four-legged child, Twister, the cat. However, I would never think to be bitter about Mother’s Day and that there’s no one to take me out to lunch or to give me presents. For me, it’s probably a Sunday to stay away from restaurants because they will certainly be crowded. I usually cry a couple of times during the day and probably always will. But that doesn’t make me a victim, nor does it make me hate Mother’s Day.

Anne Lamott is a bitter person and is trying to impose her bitterness on everyone else. What’s really sad, though, is that some women will love this article and travel further down the road to victimhood.

Liberals seem to want to make all of us victims in one way or another. And as victims, we will turn to the Federal government to ease our pain. This is just another way that the liberal faction of this nation is using to further gain control of our lives

Facebooktwitter

OBAMA ZOMBIES AND OTHER LIBERALS

As those of you who regularly read this blog know, the majority of my articles expose the fallacies of the twenty-first century liberals/progressives/Democrats. I consider myself a conservative ideologue because I believe in the conservative philosophy of governing ourselves. I believe in limited government and believe that government needs to provide for its citizens only those things that we the people cannot fully provide for ourselves.

I have liberal friends, but rarely discuss politics with them. One is an Obama zombie and loves everything the current president does. She thinks that Obamacare is wonderful and when I told her that I lost my health insurance because of Obamacare, she still said it was wonderful because so many poor people who didn’t have health insurance before now have it.

I did indicate above that I lost my insurance as a result of Obamacare. The policy I had for the premium I was paying was no longer available. I had to procure other insurance that was not as good as what I had for a 50% increase in premium. In other words, I lost my current health insurance because of the passage and implementation of Obamacare, but I did procure another policy.

I have a few other liberal friends who vote Democrat because of self-centered reasons; an example would be having a public sector job where funding for the position or for that sector might be in danger if Republicans were elected to offices. These liberals, along with the Obama zombies are generally incapable of having in depth discussions on the issues. They almost always turn to newspapers or the mainstream media for their news and assume what they hear is true and if the main stream media doesn’t cover it, it’s not important.

When the current President and any of his liberal henchmen say that Republicans hate the poor, are racist bigots, and are morons because they don’t buy into man-made climate change, these two groups of liberals assume it’s true. Also, if you asked anyone belonging to one or both of these groups what the differences between liberals/conservatives or Democrats/Republicans, they wouldn’t be able to tell you. That’s right, none of my liberal friends will read this blog even though I’ve invited them to do so.

Then there are those liberals who actually do know and recognize the differences between liberals/conservatives or Democrats/Republicans. They are pro-big government and believe that an unfettered free market is dangerous. I read many liberal blogs and publications and the liberals that write for these publications and comment on what is written are very anti-private sector and anti-capitalism. None of them, though, can argue their side with statistics and facts. They’re generally anti-white, even though many of them are white.

Early in 2014 when I was just beginning as a political blogger, I had the misfortune of having an online back and forth with a locally prominent Democrat when the issue of whether or not companies should be required to pay for birth control methods for their employees when those particular methods violated the company owner’s religious beliefs. Of course, the Democrats claimed this was a war on women and out and out lied, saying that Republicans wanted to do away with birth control for women in its entirety. What a crock!

Former Arkansas Governor and current Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, opined that it was actually the Democrat party that looked down their noses at women and believed that women could not be trusted to control their libidos and therefore needed to be provided birth control. I fully agreed with the Governor that it is actually the Democrat party that thinks women are somehow inferior.

When I commented to a Facebook post, I was hit in the face with it. This so-called local prominent Democrat accused me of hate speech, hating all government programs, and hating the people that were the recipients of these government programs. If you’re thinking that she didn’t read my post carefully or didn’t understand it, or didn’t want to understand it and have a reasonable discussion with me, you’re right.

The first thing she did was get off subject and hurl untrue accusations at me. Of course, this was done to catch me off guard and put me on the defensive. At that point, I’ve been shaken and may forget the valid arguments I was prepared to use to bolster my opinions. After I gathered my composure, I invited her to have a face to face discussion with me on the issues. Of course, she never replied.

I have attended a couple of Republican leadership conferences in my life and at these conferences you are schooled in the art of debate. Republican leadership encourages other Republicans to know their facts and present them in a professional manner, not in an emotional manner.

While I have never attended a Democrat leadership conference and nor do I want to attend one, I believe that the Democrat method of debate includes changing the subject, getting emotional, and hurling insults at the person or persons with which you are debating.

Liberals can’t win arguments on facts and statistics. Besides they don’t care what the facts or statistics say. According to an article on townhall.com on April 20, 2013, political pundit Anne Coulter states the following: “If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn’t their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumable construct a flimsy argument. So why can’t the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker’s personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?”

Facebooktwitter