Monthly Archives: August 2016


When Republicans propose across the board income tax cuts, the Democrats always holler, “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich.” Sounds a little like “citizen’s arrest, citizen’s arrest,” doesn’t it?

UNITED KINGDOM - JUNE 16:  U.S. President George W. Bush waves upon arrival at RAF Aldgerove in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Monday, June 16, 2008. Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister said Britain is pushing the European Union to impose new sanctions against Iran, including freezing the assets of its biggest bank, to pressure the nation to give up its nuclear program at a press conference with Bush in London today.  (Photo by Paul McErlane/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, in his 2008 book, “The End of Prosperity,” indicated that President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The president’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in American’s pockets would jump start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. The economy lagged and revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

In 2003, President Bush cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20%. In three years, $15 million of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, the federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And the rich paid an even higher percentage of the tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, President Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues when those tax revenues that flowed from the 03 tax cuts could have paid for both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

When President George W. Bush was elected, we were in a recession caused by the dot-com bust of the late nineties. The economic prosperity of the nineties, the Bill Clinton presidency years, were fueled by a Republican Congress’s balancing of the budget and the private sector technological revolution which changed forever the way we live our day to day lives.

During the weeks between the determination that Bush had been elected and the inauguration, the main stream media suggested that the word, “recession” not be used to describe our current economic status.  It was the opinion of the MSM that the American people were depressed enough as it was and didn’t need to hear the term “recession.”

However, after the crash of 2008 and the election of Barak Obama to the presidency, the MSM couldn’t use the word, “recession,” enough. In fact they were calling it the “great recession,” and seemed tempted to call it a depression.

The current president, the MSM, and the rest of the Democrats, would have you think that the Bush presidency was one of economic purgatory. Not so. When Mr. Bush first took office, he had the nineties recession or maybe you might call it the “Clinton recession” to combat. Then, there was 9/11 and if you don’t think the first major foreign attack on American soil would not “shake things up,” I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing. The economy did pick up in late 2003 and 2004 and prosperity reigned until the price of gas began increasing in 2008. And we all know when the price of gas increases when a Republican has the presidency, it is the Republican president’s fault. On the other hand, when a Democrat is in office and the price of gas increases, the president actually has nothing to do with the price of gas. Also, the inverse it true.

Then came the crash of 2008 in the fall of 2008, just before the presidential election. Democrats would have you believe that it was all George Bush’s fault when in fact, the problems began during the Jimmy Carter administration, continued with the Clinton administration’s social engineering in order that all Americans could purchase homes, whether they could afford them or not.

I’ve never seen so much hatred directed toward a president as the left has directed toward George W. Bush.

But that’s okay, they’re Democrats, darlings of the media. It’s okay for them to lie, cheat, steal, and kill because they’re Democrats. Sometime I wonder what it would be like to be a Democrat. I wouldn’t get called the names I do now. I wouldn’t get the threats that I do now. I wouldn’t have lies told about me like I do now. Do I want to become a Democrat? NO…NO…NO!

Note: Thanks goes to the Washington Times and opinion/analyst Ryan Dwyer for his February 2010 article in supplying the above information.



With cleanup and rescue efforts still ongoing in parts of Louisiana, the topic of insurance coverage for floods has been discussed widely on social media and in the general media. As I read commentary, I’m noticing more and more that people are surprised, perhaps shocked that flood damage to many of the houses is not covered by insurance. To put it bluntly, these folks are on their own, with many losing virtually everything.

Having spent all but about ten years of my corporate America career working for insurance companies, not only in claims, but also in IT, I can tell you that insurance is not a welfare program, it’s a business. People pay insurance premiums, the insurance company collects those premiums and invests portions in order to earn a rate of return. Depending on how the company decides who is and who isn’t an insurable risk, they shouldn’t have to pay claims for every risk they insure. If the premiums collected exceed the amount in losses paid out, the company has made an underwriting profit. But this isn’t always the case. Sometimes wise investments enable the company to be profitable, and some years, companies do lose money. Of course, we’re all aware that like all other industries, insurance companies do go out of business. I indicated above that insurance is not a welfare program. A poor person is not entitled to more claims’ money that a rich person incurring the same type of loss.

Do people cheat insurance companies and get by with it? Absolutely. I did it once when I was in college. It was the classic fender-bender where the at fault party’s insurer told me to send them two estimates and they would issue s check to me for the lower amount. I got three estimates, forwarded the two highest estimates to the insurer and had the vehicle repaired at the place that gave me the lowest estimate. While this is perfectly legal, it does increase premiums.

Here is a link to an article that explains the reasoning behind private insurance companies’ not covering losses due to flood damage. It also explains the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance: The Homeowner’s Guide. Flood Insurance: The Homeowner’s Guide

When a tornado or straight line winds whip through areas, not every dwelling or building is going to incur damages and not all dwellings are going to incur the same type and amount of damages. But when water rises, all dwelling and buildings in the water’s path are going to be damaged severely and most like rendered a total loss. Covering flood damage is just not profitable.

I’ve heard it said that the Louisiana flooding is a once in a thousand year event. Should those people have had flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program? I don’t know, hindsight’s 20/20. Most people don’t have it. I don’t because I live on the side of a hill.
Again, insurance is a business, not an entitlement program. Going forward, I hope all will keep that in mind when procuring insurance for your vehicles, your dwelling(s), your businesses, your health, and even your life.



According to, NFL star quarterback, Cam Newton, has found himself in hot water over comments he made against President Obama’s race-baiting agenda, indicating that he is beyond skin color.


In an interview with GQ, a reporter tried to get the Carolina Panther QB to blame racism for the reason why many fans dislike him on and off the field. Cam, however, refused to take the bait. “It’s not racism. Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.”

Before Super Bowl 50, Cam made the following comment, “I’m an African-American quarterback that may scare a lot of people because they haven’t seen nothing that they can compare me to. I don’t want this to be about race, because it’s not. It’s not. Like, we’re beyond that as a nation.”

The article on goes on to indicate that the GQ reporter continued to try to press Newton about the fact that some fans dislike him. I don’t know if the reporter meant Panthers’ fans or fans of other teams.

Cam responded, “I’ll let you be the judge. I don’t look at it like that. I look at it like some people have certain beliefs, and I have my own belief, and we can agree to disagree on certain things. But this is what makes sports so amazing, that we can start a discussion around a table, in the newspaper, in the magazines, that will get people’s attention. And that’s what sports does.”

Cam is right, we’re beyond that. This is not the fifties or sixties, we’re living in the last half of the second decade of the twenty-first century.

A lot of folks don’t like Cam and it’s because he’s good and doesn’t play for their team. I don’t like him. On what I consider one of the worst days of my life, a rainy November 26, 2010, I sat in Bryant Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and watched Cam Newton bring his college team back from a 21 point deficit to beat Alabama. Subsequently, the Auburn Tigers, on the arm and legs of Cam Newton won the national championship.

Cam is good, probably the best ever, and when you’re good, many people are not going to like you. The liberals don’t get it, though. They’re rooted in the fifties and sixties, and from all indications, it seems as though they want to remain there. When Carolina played Denver in the Super Bowl this past winter, liberals were attempting to declare that anyone who rooted for Denver over Carolina was a racist. It didn’t matter that you cheered for teams that Cam played against and beat, both college and professional.

With the Obama administration continually pushing to divide us, among other things, along racial lines and the liberals only happy to do what they can to convince minorities that white conservatives hate them because of the color of their skin, I was concerned about the relationship between blacks and whites where I live and in other areas of the south. Thankfully, I can’t tell any difference in the attitudes her and in other places. The blacks don’t seem to have let the liberal rhetoric and lies influence them, thus are beyond skin color.

Business concerns took me to Jackson, Mississippi this past weekend where I stayed in a large hotel in downtown Jackson. Many of the hotel personnel were black and I couldn’t have been treated any nicer, and it seemed to be a “sincere” nice, not a “fake” nice that you see so much of today.

When black NFL head coaches Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy took their teams to the Super Bowl in 2007, one of the gentlemen was asked by the media how it felt to have two black head coaches in the Super Bowl, a first. The coach, not sure which one, replied to the effect that skin color was not important. What was important was that two Christian brothers facing each other.

After an early 2000s’ development in the 1963 Sixteenth Street Church bombing in Birmingham, where, on a Sunday morning, four young girls were killed, Condoleezza Rice, a native of Birmingham and National Security Advisor under George W. Bush, was asked about the developments, in which two of the suspects were finally indicted, tried, and sentenced to life in prison. Ms. Rice, of course, was asked about this because she was black. Like everyone else, in the nation, the National Security Advisor was glad that these monsters had been brought to justice. But she also seemed a little annoyed that she was asked such an obvious question. Yes, she is a black woman, but we’re now living in the twenty-first century and have moved beyond that, beyond skin color.

Cam Newton gets it, Tony Dungy gets it, Lovie Smith gets it, Condoleezza Rice gets it, and millions of conservatives get it. We are happy to say, we’re beyond skin color. Sadly, Barak Obama doesn’t get it, the folks working in his administration don’t get it, Michelle Obama doesn’t get it, Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it, and millions of liberals, including black liberals don’t get it.

Note: Thanks go to for information relating to Cam Newton and for facts relating to the Sixteenth Baptist Church bombing.



When Katrina make landfall on the coast of Mississippi and levees were breached in New Orleans, causing city-wide flooding and other extreme damage, especially in the low income area known as the Ninth Ward, my thoughts were as follows: these are our neighbors to the west, a half-day drive from the Birmingham area, and they are in peril. It was reported by the media that the New Orleans Superdome, a shelter for those who were unable to leave the city, was not safe itself and the atmosphere inside the dome, occupied by many stranded Americans was chaotic. Where was the mayor of New Orleans?

Then, all of a sudden, we hear that the reason for all the suffering by our neighbors to the west was because George W. Bush, along with all Republicans/conservatives hated blacks. This, of course, began with liberals telling us that the reason folks could not get help from the government was one of racism. This, of course, added a new dimension to the already unfathomable scene in New Orleans.

When the rains came and the flood waters rose to epic levels in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and surrounding areas, I hoped the liberals would not politicize  this natural disaster where our neighbors and fellow Americans were in peril.

My hopes were soon dashed when I discovered an article on the Modern Liberals website, Conservative Louisiana Flood Victims are Suddenly Silent about Big Government. The purpose of this article was nothing but to express vitriolic hate for conservatives. A commenter on the article went on to insinuate that conservative flood victims should not be allowed to accept FEMA or other government assistant; instead, they should have to fend for themselves.

One of the paragraphs reads, “Now that the Louisiana Flood of 2016 is beginning to recede, guess who is outraged that the federal government isn’t moving fast enough to help them? If you guessed the conservative residents of Louisiana who do not understand how government or federal disaster declarations work, you would be correct.” About ten to fifteen minutes of research indicated that the above is just not true. I could not find a single writing where conservatives were griping about government help or the lack thereof.

Of course, liberals couldn’t stop themselves from talking about the Bush response to Katrina and the much despised fly-over when many felt that President Bush should have set foot on the ground in the hurricane ravaged areas. As of this writing, the current President has been playing golf and not spoken out about the floods. I hear, though, he is planning a visit to Louisiana in the near future, but there is speculation that he’s only doing it because close advisors have reminded him of the flack President Bush caught for the fly-over.

Liberals also resurrected 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, blaming Congressional Republicans for stalling the passage of a relief bill for Hurricane Sandy. According to, the Republican led Congress wrote up Hurricane Sandy Relief legislation, and then Harry Reid’s Democrat controlled Senate loaded it with pork, including many things that could hardly count as relief for victims. The barbecue feast included, but was not limited to, more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for Homeland Security, $150 million for the NOAA to dole out to fisheries in Alaska, and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in D.C. Also, a whopping $13 billion would go to mitigation projects to prepare for future storms.  Budget watchdogs dubbed the 94-page emergency spending bill, “Sandy Scam.”

Of course, the main stream media jumped all over Speaker Boehner’s pulling of the non-relief bill as leaving the Sandy victims out in the cold, while failing to lay any of the blame on Harry Reid’s Senate, for not sending the house a clean bill.

Also, what episode of liberal hate toward conservatives would be complete without some tidbit from the “Occupy Democrats” organization? According to that group of liars, Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, took the opportunity to score some cheap political points by visiting flood-ravaged Louisiana when Governor, John Bel Edwards pleaded with politicians not to interfere. Occupy Democrats alleges that candidate Trump and Vice Presidential running mate, Mike Pense, began causing problems because personnel had to be pulled from aiding in the relief efforts to provide security for the candidates, when in actuality, Trump provided his own private security for which he pays, not the tax payers.

It was also indicated by Occupy Democrats that Trump and Pense, handed out supplied for about one minute. Then Trump caused chaos at the scene by shaking hands and signing autographs, which diverted the attention of volunteers away from their appointed tasks.

According to numerous sources, Governor Edwards and former Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, were grateful for candidate Trump’s visit and hope that both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton will visit Louisiana.

The Occupy Democrats article did not mention one thing about the truckload of supplies that Donald Trump sent to the flooded area, nor did they mention that the candidate spent some time talking to people and touring some of the damaged homes.

And how did the Trump jet get permission to land in Louisiana? A flight plan had to be filed, so someone had to okay that. Another little fact conveniently forgotten by Occupy Democrats.

As they do with almost everything, liberals have made the Louisiana floods and the ongoing relief efforts political. Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, liberals could get through a major issue without exuding their intense hatred for Republicans and conservatives, or without blaming George W. Bush?

I haven’t heard anything about climate change, but I’m sure it’s coming.



Was this a gaff, a misspeak, a technical malfunction? What difference does it make?


Speaking at a campaign rally, Tuesday, August 2, in Omaha, Nebraska, Hillary Clinton stated the following: “Trump wants to cut taxes for the super-rich,” Clinton told the jeering crowd. “Well we’re not going there, my friends. I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”

I was watching TV when I first saw this video and it sure sounded like she said she would raise taxes on the middle class. Bill Clinton did it, Obama did it, so why shouldn’t I think that Hillary, another Democrat, if elected president, would do it also?

My first thoughts were that she did, indeed, misspeak. Furthermore, I thought that either the campaign, or perhaps Hillary herself would explain things. Were her notes incorrect, was the teleprompter incorrect? But we heard nothing. I later watched the video several times to see if I could hear anything different, but it sounded the same to me, like she would raise taxes on the middle class.

Of course, Republican nominee, Donald Trump, picked up the ball and ran with it, and that’s shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Apparently the Clinton campaign was just as surprised about this as anyone, according to Politifact. Campaign spokesman, Josh Schwerin told Politifact that Clinton said the opposite. Schwerin also pointed to numerous reports who agreed and forwarded Pollitifact a transcript of the speech, which reads, “We aren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class.”

Because Politifact considered it a classic case of she-heard, he-heard, they asked experts to arbitrate. The experts agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audo through a computer program which analyzes phonetics. According to Yu, the analysis of the sound waves, indicated was saying “aren’t.” Another professor, this time from MIT, ran the audio through the same program and came to the same results. OH PU-LEAZE! Is it necessary to do all of this?

A reasonable, prudent person would have “walked it back,” would have been upfront with it immediately, so that there was no confusion. Again, I have watched the video trying to hear the word, “aren’t,” as opposed to the word, “are.” I can only hear the word, “are.”

Donald Trump was given a “pants on fire” rating by Politifact. Because lots of folks heard “are,” and even if you’re one of those who claim that they heard “aren’t,” it was not clear, and if you are one of those who says, “Oh yes, it was clear as a bell that she said, “aren’t,” you’re lying. “Aren’t may have been said by her, but it wasn’t clearly heard by everyone. Donald Trump did not just decide to tell a “bold-faced” lie about Hillary, he made his statements as a result of the video.

Now, let’s imagine if Donald Trump had said something that was controversial and not abundantly clear in a speech. Of course, the mainstream media would be all over it, playing the video non-stop. Even if Mr. Trump admitted to misspeaking or to a technical glitch, liberal voters and the liberal media would never it go, saying it was a Freudian slip. It would then haunt him forever.

The MSM didn’t seem to care that Obama uttered the phrase, “all 57 states,” on the campaign trail in 2008. Even first graders know that this is wrong; well, maybe not if they were educated in some of our public school systems.