Monthly Archives: June 2015


Because a picture was shown of the murderer of nine innocent church goers in Charleston, S.C., with a confederate flag, coupled with the undeniable fact that he was a racist, liberals and conservatives have started a new war of words. Liberals are saying that anyone who defends the confederate flag is a racist and won’t accept the concept that someone just might still honor the confederate flag because they are proud of their heritage. Conservatives, for the most part, know that some who honor the flag are racists, but do accept that some who honor the flag might just be doing it because they are proud of their heritage. Conservatives are giving people the benefit of the doubt and liberals are not. “The tolerant left strikes again.”

In addition to arguing about the confederate flag, now liberals and conservatives are arguing about why the Civil War was fought. Liberals say it was about slavery only and conservatives say that it was a combination of things, including states’ rights.

This is what I remember being taught. Keep in mind that it was a long time ago. I don’t remember much about what I was taught regarding the root cause of the war. Slavery was certainly a factor, but I honestly don’t remember much else.

In addition to the war itself, reconstruction was given a lot of emphasis. My eighth grade history teacher made the comment that while being a Southerner, she knew the south didn’t have a chance to win the war, but reading and studying re-construction made her blood boil. My reading and studying of re-construction affirmed that the people of the south were treated deplorably.

I also remember my Alabama history teacher commenting to the class that while there was certainly incidents of slavery abuse, it really made no sense to abuse a slave. The slave-owner purchased these slaves. In other words they were an investment. Why would you abuse someone who was earning you money? Thus, I remember being taught that the virulent abuse allegations were exaggerations.

It is documented that slaves were being freed in the South as well as in the North prior to the Civil War, and that Confederate General Robert E. Lee hated the institution of slavery and had freed his slaves. In fact he was offered the position to lead the Union forces, but turned the offer down because he just couldn’t fight against him home state of Virginia.

The above is about all that I can remember.

While I found my studies of the Civil War interesting, I am far from being a “Civil War buff.” I hope I never have to live anywhere else. I’m also probably tied to my home state of Alabama more than I’m tied to the South, in general.

I’m seeing some stuff, mostly on social media, that indicate a war on all things Southern might be starting up. Liberal rag, Mother Jones, ran a short article condemning anyone who felt that the Civil War was not exclusively about slavery. I read the numerous comments and those comments did belittle the South.

There is certainly a plethora of documentation available that will bolster both sides of that argument. Once again, though, liberals aren’t going to recognize differences of opinion and attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Am I going to do any research on the subject? If so, very little. I have other “fish to fry.”

I’d really like for all of this to go away. We have major, major problems in this country that certainly need to be addressed. But the current president, from the moment he was inaugurated, has sought to divide us in many ways. Under him racial tensions and class warfare have certainly increased. Will he now take this opportunity to further divide us, based on geography? I wouldn’t put it past him one bit.



In just hours after the tragic shooting that killed nine members of the Emanuel AME Church inside the church in Charleston, the current president was on TV telling us we needed to stop gun violence in this nation and that we needed stricter gun laws. He also indicated that no other advanced country had these types of shootings. That statement since has been proven a lie.

Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff and current Mayor of Chicago, and other prominent liberals have said many times, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” And the liberals most certainly have swooped in on this tragedy and started the blame game. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the killing of these innocent people was racially motivated by an individual that had a hatred for blacks. Since the motivation of the killer was established, liberals have blamed Fox News, white people, Christians, the Confederate battle flag, and conservatives. While I didn’t hear this, I’m sure that Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio was also blamed.

Dylann Roof, the twenty-one year old who shot the nine victims is to blame for the killings. The Confederate battle flag didn’t do it, Fox News didn’t do it, Southern white conservative Christians didn’t do it, Rush Limbaugh didn’t do it, and conservative talk radio didn’t do it. I’m continuing to stick to my statement that the current president and liberals have blood on their hands because this president, along with his liberal henchmen have exacerbated racial tensions in this country, seeking to divide the American people on everything they possibly can…race, class, education, location, etc.

I know everyone wants to know my opinion on the flying of the Confederate battle flag and I don’t really have one. I understand both sides. What I do have an opinion about is the way those who wish the Confederate battle flag to remain flying are treated. In an article, the author indicated that we should allow folks to fly the Confederate battle flag in their yards, place it in the back window of their pickup trucks, and wear it as a belt buckle because this would single out the most dangerous folks on the planet. The most dangerous folks on the planet? Not hardly!

Liberals are also blaming the killings on white privilege and white supremacy. The claim and continue to claim that white people are inherently racist. Does that mean you, white liberal, are a racist? I guess some white liberals, who believe that they are racist and engage in self-flagellation, and some white liberals who think they’re so perfect and so smart that they don’t have a racist bone in their body. But when Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Fox News is mentioned, they want to kill Rush and Sean slow and painfully plus they want Fox News off the air and they call anyone who watches Fox news names that I won’t repeat here.

Fox News is the number one cable news network in America and liberals hate it and hate those who watch it. Since Fox is number one, why don’t you liberals make more appearances on Fox and explain your points of view? Maybe you might convince some folks to come over to your side. But no, you liberals would rather hate Fox News and hate those who watch it rather than do something that might be productive.

I’m not saying conservatives like myself are perfect. I’m far from it. I misspeak, I sometimes jump to conclusions before doing research, and I sometimes get my facts wrong. And you liberals are the first to point it out to me, sometimes even attacking me. And it’s funny, you were willing to forgive the late Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia, for being a member of the KKK and saying the N-word on the Senate floor, but you are unwilling to forgive a conservative for a simple misspelling or grammatical error, much less for jumping to a conclusion before having the facts. And that’s weird, because you liberals don’t care about facts nor do you care about the truth.

You are the haters, the liars, the racists, the bigots, and the homophobes. I’ve done my research on this and I’m sticking to my story. And as the title of this post indicates, you never miss an opportunity to swoop down on a tragedy such as the Emanuel AME Church of Charleston tragedy to seek to disparage those of us who you hate and to put blame on those of us who you hate to further your political agenda.

Wouldn’t it be easier to go on Fox News or to respond to my blog posts with facts to shore up your beliefs? I think it would be easier and more productive, but it seems you would rather hate and spew your demented liberal logic.




I’m going to take a break from discussing socials issues and showcasing the fallacies of liberalism to take a shot at the Trans Pacific Partnership. In my opinion, this is the most important issue taking place at this time. If passed, it could be the beginning of the end of American sovereignty where we have given away certain rights of governance we have taken for granted for years.

The President and trade representatives have been negotiation the Trans Pacific Partnership. Currently, it is comprised of twelve nations. It has been called NAFTA on steroids. Anytime in the future, nations can be added without the permission of the United States.

The TPP is twenty-nine chapters long and sits in the basement of the Capitol. It can only be reviewed by going to the basement and taking notes. However, the notes have to be left there. No one who reviews the document can take his or her notes with him to review in his or her office later.

One of the sections states that if a multi-national company makes an investment and feels there is a regulation in the treat that keeps them from making their projected profit; that company can sue. As a result of this, we’ve just put foreign courts ahead of our American courts. Also, any country that has a written food statement who imports food into the United States doesn’t have to meet U.S. safety food standards and there will be no labeling. There are also sections on immigration and climate change built into the TPP, but no chapters on human rights. This could subject Americans to all sorts of changes regarding immigration and climate change where Congressional approval you not be necessary. With no human rights sections, products made from slave labor could be imported into the United States.

The United States Constitution was written specifically to insure that Congress was involved in trade agreements.

Here’s where things get a little complicated, but as citizens, we must be familiar with this. Our very existence could depend on it.

Separate from the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority), TPA will allow the president to begin negotiations on the TPP. The TPA is not a treaty, it is a trade agreement whereas, the TPP is a treaty. The TPA must be passed before negotiations on the TPP can begin.

According to, TPA is the process Congress has made available to the President to enable legislation to approve and implement certain international trade agreements to be considered under expedited legislative procedures for limited periods, provided the President observes certain statutory obligations. TPA defines how Congress has chosen to exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while giving the President added leverage to negotiate trade agreements by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners that final agreements will be given timely and unamended consideration.

The other legislation thrown in is the TAA. Because trade agreements with underdeveloped countries often leads to job losses in the U.S., as jobs get moved overseas, the TAA consists of a list of measures designed to help workers who lose their jobs because of the treaty.

Last week the House shot down the TAA, but passed the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) with 28 Democrats and 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. The vote was 218-208. This opens the door to the President negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership. It’s now up to the Senate to pass it and all indications are that the Senate will pass it with the required sixty votes. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell is pushing this.

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama is against the passage of the TPA and the following are some concerns from his website.

  • Consolidation of Power in the Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend of debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up or down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public view. Congress will have given up the 67 vote threshold for a treaty and the 60 vote threshold for important legislation. It will also have given up the opportunity for amendments and the committee review process that booth ensure member participation. This applies not only to the Trans Pacific Partnership, but to all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA. Even though the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from the report, limiting its value to Congress.
  • Increased Trade Deficits. Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the United States’ 5.7 manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven imbalances. Job loss by workers means reduced consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing into the Treasury, and greater reliance on government assistance programs. Also, the lack of protections in TPA against foreign subsidies could accelerate our shrinking domestic manufacturing base.
  • Ceding Sovereign Authority to International Powers. A USTR outline of TPP which TPA would expedite, notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries. Furthermore, this means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without the approval of Congress. Also, any terms of the agreement could be changed, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again, these changes would not be subject to congressional approval. This has far-reaching implications. The Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, the U.S. workers may; be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S.
  • Currency Manipulation. The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact. History suggests that this Administration, like those before it, will not stand up to improper currency practices. Currency protections are currently absent from the TPA indicating again that those involved in pushing these trade deals do not wish to see these currency abuses corrected.
    • Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance, language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 7 years, with the clear intent to facilitate of enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the united States and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress.

TPA is a true bi-partisan issue, and I hope you can see the need to investigate it. It sounds dangerous to me and with the Senate probably passing it, we could be one major step toward one world government.



I took some heat with my Friday, June 19 post where I indicated that I sincerely believed that liberals, including the current President of the United States, have blood on their hands for the nine individuals who were fatally shot at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, S.C. last week. I’m not coming off of it, though.

Yesterday morning in church, we prayed for the nine victims of the shooting, their families and other loved ones, the remaining church members, and for the people of Charleston. My minister also prayed that the outpouring of Christian love that was present continue and permeate into our society. Nothing was mentioned regarding race and mentioning race was not necessary, at least not to this conservative Republican.

Liberals, on the other hand, can’t stay away from race. I’m not ignorant, just an unenlightened oaf. It does appear that the shooter, Dylann Roof, was a racist, according to the traditional definition of racism. In other words, he hated blacks to the point of desiring to do them harm, and of course, he did.

If Americans were following the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King and in the second decade of the 21st century, the shooting last week would be a shooting of nine members of the Emanuel African, Methodist, Episcopal Church by a twenty-one year old individual who entered into the church and prayed with those inside and then started shooting, killing nine of the church members.

Of course, we’re not living the dreams of Dr. Martin Luther King and race is still front and center in our society. According to The New Republic in an article entitled, “Our Racist History Isn’t Back to Haunt Us. It Never Left Us,” our racist past is not past. It is present. It is unending. It is, in many ways that we seem congenitally unable to acknowledge, fundamentally unchanged. The article’s author, Rebecca Traister, also writes, “There is usually the sense, however, that at least we’re changing, at least we’re moving in some direction, away from where we started. Except on days like today, when the reminder is that we have not moved one bit.” WE HAVE NOT MOVED ONE BIT? Surely, you jest, Ms. Traister.

Ms. Traister goes on to say, “In addition to new forms of subjugation and prejudice, we live in a country in which racist violence exists in precisely the same forms it always has—unabated and unreconstructed. We are not distant from the crimes and inhumanities and hatred of the past. We are still acting them out and still refusing to accept them for what they are: this country’s original and defining sin. “

On brother! According to Ms. Traister, we haven’t changed a bit. Things are just like they were before the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act. HOW DARE YOU MAKE THAT ALLEGATION, MS. TRAISTER! In case, you’ve been in a cave the last six years, this country has elected a half-black man twice as president of the United States. Granted, I disagree with him politically and I think electing him is the worst mistake ever made by American voters. But he is half black. Since the lifting of the barriers in 1964, the black race has made great strides in the United States of America. I don’t have time nor space to mention them all, but it’s recorded out there, do some research. And the accomplishments by black Americans have been in spite of liberals/Democrats/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves who have stood in their way, indicating they are inferior and “can’t make it without their (liberal) help. That’s BS, of course.

In an article in Rolling Stone, and Rolling Stone is what it is, author, Jeb Lund, totally belittles Republicans and conservatives and makes some outlandish accusations. He laments on the Supreme Court rolling back the Voting Rights Act. Well, the Supreme Court did not roll back the Voting Rights Act. It rolled back a part of the Act that prohibited certain states who were considered racist from making changes to their election laws without getting Federal approval. Now these states, fifty years later can make and/or change their election laws. In other words, there will be no recognition of change. The late Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was forgiven for once being a member of the KKK, but the Southern states can’t be forgiven for a racist past. There will also be no acknowledgement that the South has changed and changed a lot in the last fifty years. Sounds mighty tolerant to me.

In my Friday, June 19 post, I demonstrated why I consider liberals and the current President to have blood on their hands for these murders. Mr. Lund in Rolling Stone indicates that Dylann Roof was a person with strong conservative beliefs, a commitment to his heritage and tradition who only tried to take his country back. Mr. Lund also indicates that 50% of major American political parties are telling people like Roof to fetishize arms and rebellion just as the truth of their America is absolute and under attack. I’m not sure, but I guess he’s referring the Republican Party and is saying that the Republican Party is advocating such behavior. Nothing could be any further from the truth. In fact, Mr. Lund is lying.

The current President was the first to politicize this tragedy, then came other liberals politicizing this tragedy. The murders are being blamed on anyone who advocates gun rights and anyone who is a conservative. Because Dylann Roof may have been on the conservative side of the political spectrum, all conservatives are to be blamed for the murders, all conservatives are bad, and all gun rights activates are bad. Didn’t our current President indicate that we shouldn’t judge Muslims just because of the acts of a few? Well, maybe the tolerant left shouldn’t judge all conservatives by the actions of someone who may have been conservative.

Don’t make me laugh.



According to Flypaper, Obama has blood on his hands for escalating racial tensions in the nation and inciting violence such as the church shooting that tragically claimed nine innocent lives on Wednesday evening, June 17, 2015 in Charleston, South Carolina. I’ve had a busy week and when I heard about the shooting at the historic church, I was very upset. I didn’t rush online to get the details because I knew they would there for me when I had time to read the articles. I wasn’t concerned with the skin color of the victims nor the skin color of the shooter. It didn’t matter to me. People in a church just seven hours by automobile from where I live were killed by some thug.

Fast forward to Thursday afternoon when I was on Facebook. There are links to articles where the current president was doing his usual pontificating about the need for more gun control. Here we go again, I thought. I linked to Rush Limbaugh’s transcript regarding the shootings where Rush was talking about the media rushing to judgment and immediately advocating the need for more gun control. Rush didn’t mention that the church was a historic black church.

When I returned to my Facebook homepage, a Friend had shared a post asking everyone to pray for the members of the Charleston A.M.E. church who had lost their lives in a shooting. It was only at this time I learned that the victims of the shooting were black. A.M.E. stands for African Methodist Episcopal (I think). Again, their skin color didn’t matter. I knew the shooter had been caught, but I still didn’t know the color of his skin, nor did I care. Although, I did suspect he was probably white because an attorney who I used to work with did indicated to me that statistically blacks don’t generally go into public places and start shooting, but whites generally do. And over the years, I’ve observed that to be true. So, it was just a couple of hours ago, that I learned that the church where the shooting took place was a historically black church and the shooter was white, and the victims were black.

I’m now reviewing an article on indicating that an agency that tracks extremists and white supremacist organizations says the suspect in the fatal shooting wasn’t known to officials there. Also, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which, in my opinion is a liberal hate group, has said that the suspect was also not known to the organization.

So, within less than twenty-four hours, it’s being speculated that the shooter was some sort of white supremacist and whether or not he is connected to any of the sixteen white supremacist organizations operating in South Carolina.

Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center goes on to say that after visiting the suspect’s Facebook page, he saw a picture where the suspect was wearing a jacket with emblems of the old apartheid regime in South Africa and the former African nation of Rhodesia, which was the name of Zimbabwe under white rule.

Kyle Campbell, a student at the University of Alabama and state president of the Alabama College Democrats has already come out and said this is a race issue. Did suspect Dylann Roof shoot these people just because they were black and he doesn’t like blacks? That is currently being speculated.

Fifty-two years after Dr. Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech, whether or not race was involved in this tragedy shouldn’t be an issue. What should be an issue is that an obviously disturbed individual entered a church in Charleston, South Carolina and prayed along with others in the church. Then the disturbed individual took out a gun and started firing it and killed nine innocent people.

In Dr. King’s speech, he had dream that one day the ancestors of former slaves and former slave owners would sit side by side at the table of brotherhood and that one day his four little children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Fifty-two years later, the dream has not been fulfilled and do you know why? It’s because of the liberals/Democrats/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves now days. The programs they have introduced since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed such as Affirmative Action, Black Power, Critical Race Theory, etc. have served to further segregate the races and kept blacks from fulfilling their potential while increasing racial tensions in this nation.

In an earlier post, I said that the blood of Tamir Rice was on the hands liberals/Democrats/progressives, and now the blood of these nine victims is also on the hands of liberals/Democrats/progressives.

Could all this speculation about race signal the beginning of something? Could it be that, one of these days, if I’m in a crowded mall and accidently step on the toe of someone black, will the incident automatically be labeled as racially motivated? I don’t like some of the things I’m hearing from some of the black/charlatan leaders such as Al Sharpton. There is a war on white people in this nation and I’m concerned about this. In fact, I’m concerned about many things going on in this nation. Will Dr. King’s dreams ever be realized? It doesn’t look that way. Ask a liberal why and they’ll tell you it is because whites/Republicans are racist bigots. But they are WRONG!

My dream is for liberals/Democrats/progressives to look at the enemy and discover that the enemy is them.