Category Archives: General Politics

LIBERAL NATURE NEVER CHANGES

As a political writer, I often interject myself into liberal threads, mostly on Facebook. While there are some folks who think that people should stay off threads/forums where their views differ from most the folks posting on that thread/forum, I disagree. It’s a “freedom of speech thing.” You have the right to your opinion, even though the left in this country doesn’t think so.

When you get on a primarily liberal thread/forum, you’re going to get trashed, called names, and insulted because that’s what the left does and that’s all the left knows how to do. They’re losers on the issues, so all they can do when you post facts and statistics is call you names, hoping disrupt your train of thought and scare you off of “their thread.” When liberals start belittling you personally, you’re winning. When they call you a racist, you’ve won the debate, hands down. It’s the liberal nature, the nature of the beast. As I’ve indicated many times on this blog, liberals make up the definition of racism as they go along to whatever suits their needs of the moment.

Liberals have a hard time with reading comprehension. In other words, they can’t seem to understand what they read. On almost every liberal thread I visit, I have to explain at least two times, if not more, the point I was trying to make. The question is: do they really not understand what I’m saying or are they trying to throw me off subject because they can’t possibly win an argument with me? I’m guessing the latter.

We all know that liberals are haters. They hate the new President of the United States, Donald Trump. They hate his family, they hate his administration, and they hate his supporters, including me, and including you. They’re also hypocrites. And you know what? They don’t care. They loathe you so much that they don’t think they’re accountable to you. They don’t have to justify their hypocrisy. They don’t’ have to justify their lawlessness to you. They don’t have to justify anything they do to you because you’re so stupid, and you’re such nothings. That’s liberal nature.

There have been a number of weekends, since his inauguration, where the president has traveled to his resort property, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, for a working weekend. In fact, I don’t think that the president has taken a full day off since he took the oath of office. Yet the liberals continue to beat the drum that these working weekends were vacations. He has played some golf, but it is unknown whether he finished games or just teed-off and left to do other things. It seems as though liberals have forgotten Obama’s golf outings, his date nights with Michelle in the Big Apple, and his and the former first lady’s many vacations. Furthermore, President Trump has indicated that he would pay for his and the family’s vacations. Of course, we’ll have to see if that happens. While I’m a Trump supporter, I’ve also followed politics for over a quarter of a century and feel that I know the nature of politics on both sides of the spectrum, and sometimes it’s not always on the up and up.

I have to admit that I have a hard time wrapping my arms around liberal nature, or what liberals really espouse, which is the total control over all of our lives because they think we’re too stupid to make intelligent decisions. Who says all of our decisions have to be intelligent ones? And where do they get off on thinking the decisions they make are intelligent ones?

When friends ask me for my opinion on certain serious matters relating to their own lives, I always respond, indicating that the decision should be their decision, not mine. If I make the decision for them and it turns out to be a wrong decision, then it’s all my fault. If they make the decision, then it’s their decision and they will have to live with it, without blaming me. If I advise someone to spend $100 on a dress, they do it, and end up not liking the dress, they’re only out $100. But if someone asks me whether or not they should break up with a boyfriend or divorce a spouse, the friend has to make that decision, not me. That’s a biggie.

Back to liberal nature, liberals think they know what’s best for you…how you should invest and spend your money, what health insurance coverages you should choose, what you eat, what you drive, what setting your thermostat should be, etc.

I indicated above that liberals are incapable of comprehending what they read or hear on the news. They are always going to think that working weekends by the president at Mar-a-Lago are vacations. They are always going to think that any questioning of the effectiveness of a government entitlement program means you hate the poor and hate minorities. They are always going to think that the reason you didn’t support former President Barack Obama’s policies is because you hate him because of the color of his skin. When you indicate that you think illegal aliens should be deported and, as a nation, we should crack down on illegal immigration, liberals are never going to recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and accuse you of being against all immigration. They will never agree to the originalist view of the constitution, and they will never agree to obeying laws they don’t like.

The above are just a few examples of liberal nature. They’re never going to agree to look at both sides of issues, even though the definition of liberalism includes the ability to examine all factors of an issues.

So, why even enter a discussion on a liberal thread or forum? To make them mad. To reinforce that you’re right and that they are wrong. To let them accuse you of all sorts of falsehoods and egregious things. Then keep records of what they say to you, and use those records to further illustrate their unfathomable hatred of you, the president, conservatives, and anyone who does not agree with them. Keep throwing it at them and continue to expose their liberal nature.

If they’re never going to change their opinions or jettison their intense hate, why bother? Because we have to, the future of this nation depends on exposing their un-American rhetoric and promoting our patriotism.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERALS ON ALAN COLMES

Fox Cable News personality, Alan Colmes, passed away on Thursday, February 23, 2017 after a brief illness. Alan will best be remembered as the liberal side of popular Fox News program, Hannity & Colmes which aired from 1996 to 2009.

Source: Peter Kramer/Getty Images

Source: Peter Kramer/Getty Images

Hannity &Colmes, along with The O’Reilly Factor were the first two shows I watched on FNC after my cable provider began offering FNC in late 2000. I was attracted to Hannity & Colmes because both sides were presented. I was just as much the conservative in 2000 as I am now. Alan was likable, but always wrong and it was obvious that the show was geared so that the conservative, Sean Hannity always got the upper hand. I always surmised that Alan was paid lots of money for that.

On the day that Alan passed away, I was out, and didn’t learn of his untimely death until late afternoon. I teared up. And it just so happened that I was thinking about Alan a few days before his death and wondered if there would ever be a chance that he and Sean would get together again.

That evening, I watched some of the tributes to Alan from a few the Fox News personalities. Even though most of these folks are conservative, you could tell that they were genuinely saddened by Alan’s death. Because Sean Hannity was at CPAC, Kimberly Guilfoyle was sitting in for him on Hannity. At the end of the show, Sean called in to talk about Alan. You could tell that he was in tears. Despite their political differences, the two were friends.

Of course, I couldn’t help but wonder what other liberals would say about Alan’s death. I had heard that many didn’t like him because he worked for Fox News. And while I couldn’t find anything after a few minutes of googling, I seem to remember that former President Barack Obama once chastised Alan because he worked for Fox News.  One of things I recall Sean mentioning is his on-air tribute to Alan was that Alan loved the Fox News, and I do remember Alan taking up for FNC when others would besmirch the network.

While I posted from the Wing Nut Gal Facebook page a blurb extending my sympathies to Alan’s family and shared it with my person FB friends, I do not remember seeing any liberal FB friends posting anything about Alan. Though, one liberal FB friend like my post.

Slate.com, the afternoon of Alan’s death posted an article entitled, Alan Colmes, Buffoon and Patsy, was Fox News’ Original Liberal Weakling. What a hateful title! Just another reason why liberals are the real haters in this country.

The article first dissed those on FNC who paid tribute to Alan, indicating that they were believable because “Colmes was the most absurd, useless, and mocked television personality in America for many years, precisely because he was nice.” Slate further indicated that not only was Alan a buffoon and a patsy, he played the role to perfection. As if the above wasn’t enough to demonstrate hate, Slate went on to describe the Hannity & Colmes show as a dreadful, morally bankrupt, Foxified version of Crossfire (a CNN show), that ran for a dozen years and birthed the even more dreadful and morally bankrupt Hannity. Slate also described Hannity & Colmes, as racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic.

While it was obvious that Alan was to often “stand down” and let Sean get in the last word, the words Slate used to describe Alan’s role on the show were egregiously over the line. Patsy, buffoon? Not hardly.

Alan’s leaving Hannity & Colmes coincided with the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January, 2009. FNC indicated that Alan wanted to do more with his radio show, and Sean was given his own show. Alan continued to do guest appearances, more notable appearing with sister-in-law, Monica Crowley, on Bill O’Reilly’s, “Barack and a Hard Place” segment. Slate indicated that this was a demotion. That’s unknown.

Slate went on to indicate that Alan made liberals look dumb, and to millions of Americans, Alan Colmes was liberalism. Alan certainly didn’t make liberals look dumb. Though, in my opinion, Alan made liberals look nice when the left-leaning media outlets were making liberals look not so nice. Alan was a top-notch example of a liberal and liberalism. Isaac Chotiner, the author of this piece did say that Alan was not a complete moron because he was smart enough to know he was being used, but took the money that his services demanded.

Chotiner ended the article by saying that we can mourn the fact that Alan won’t be around to watch the political era that he, as an important cog in the Fox News machine, helped to usher in, but the rest of us have no choice. Could Chotiner possibly be partially blaming Alan Colmes for Hillary’s defeat and Donald Trump’s victory?

While I have heard no liberals other than the ones on FNC, and there are liberals who work for FNC, comment on Alan Colmes’ death, the article that is the subject of this post exudes more hate for Alan, now that he’s no longer with us, than I can fathom.

Alan, you deserve better from your fellow liberals. Rest in Peace.

Facebooktwitter

ANALYSIS OF A LIBERAL RANT

I was the only conservative participant on a liberal thread that lasted for approximately three days. And yes, I was piled upon. But what else is new? One of entries read as follows:

“This whole thread is one of the best examples I could show of the stubborn, stick-your-head-in-the-sand, I’m going to stick to my rhetoric even though it hurts me mindset of the average conservative. They will blindly follow a leader who will pass legislation that is against their economic and social interests—and praise him for doing so. They will apply a double-standard and call it even-handed. They will listen to complete idiots, regurgitate what they hear, and refuse to think for themselves. They will tie themselves in knots trying to make things sound like equivalencies when there are, in fact, no parallels. And then they will call it God’s will.”

Typical liberal rant? I’d say so.

Of course, this person was referring to me. I was called stubborn and accused of sticking my head in the sand. In other words, I have my belief system and convictions in place. Because, I’m a bit mystified by the next phrase, “I’m going to stick to my rhetoric even though it hurts me mindset,” I’m going to skip over it and assume it has something to do with my stubbornness and sticking my head in the sand.

The author of this liberal rant further says that conservatives will blindly follow a leader who will pass legislation that it against their economic and social interests and then praise them for doing so. If I recall, candidate Donald Trump was a joke to many Republicans upon announcing his run for the presidency. In fact, he was to me. He wasn’t my first choice as the Republican nominee.

Upon his winning of the nomination, I supported him. No way was I going to support Hillary Clinton. As I’ve written many times, I had concerns about Donald Trump because Trump was a businessman who had never worked in the public sector. The public and private sectors are two “different animals.” I wasn’t sure that businessman, Donald Trump, who always got what he wanted within the confines of his business, would adapt to the public sector where getting things done takes time and opposition is forever present. While most Republicans by election day had boarded the “Trump train,” there were holdouts. In summary, some people supported Donald Trump from the day he announced his run. As candidate Trump campaigned, more and more Republicans cast their fates with Donald Trump. The author of the subject liberal rant said conservatives blindly follow. Doesn’t sound like blind following to me. In fact, Republicans often disagree on issues. It’s the Democrats who blindly follow their leaders, especially Barack Hussein Obama, like sheep being led to the slaughter house. I labeled Obama supporters, “Obama zombies” because of their blind loyalty in supporting everything he did and their attitude that Barack Obama could do no wrong.

This commenter didn’t stop there, he/she extended the “blindly follow a leader” sentence to insinuate that even though legislation passed by the leader they follow blindly is not in their best interests, they follow that leader anyway. A common characteristic of most liberals is that think they know what’s better for you than you do. Excuse me, but I don’t think you do.

“They will apply a double-standard and call it even-handed:” The commenter is probably referring to my citing that after the Obama wins, liberals were saying, “Get over it, you lost, we don’t care what you think, we’re going to do what we’re going to do.” I don’t think I’ve uttered this directly to any liberals, but I have not hesitated to remind them of what they said to us following the 2008 and 2012 elections. I’ve also reminded liberals that they called people who were not Obama supporters and did not support his policies racists. Fast-forward to 2016 and they’re now saying that descent is okay. And of course, it is. But when Republicans do it, it is somehow racists or un-American, but when Democrats do it, it’s okay.

Indicating that conservatives will listen to complete idiots and regurgitate what they hear, refusing to think for themselves is utter nonsense. I already touched on this portion of this liberal rant. Conservatives/Republicans often have differences because they are thinking for themselves.

“They will tie themselves in knots trying to make things sound like equivalencies when there are, in fact, no parallels.” What things?

“And then they call it God’s will.” As those of you who regularly read my articles, I’m often mention God, along with my Christian faith. On this thread, I did indicate, that while I was disturbed at the path the United States seemed to be taking, I knew that God was in control. The mention of God to many liberals throws them into all sorts of conniptions.

I chose this liberal rant because it is vicious, but doesn’t use foul language. While I hope it amuses you, I also hope it will serve to give you fodder if you find yourself in a “discussion” with a liberal.

Facebooktwitter

MERYL STREEP’S GOLDEN GLOBE SPEECH: AN ANALYSIS

Many of you know that I’m also the owner and manager of an Alabama Crimson Tide sports information site. Thus, the last few days have been filled with the College Football Playoff championship game between my alma mater and Clemson University. And I’m extremely disappointed in the outcome. No participation trophy was awarded.

It was only an hour or so ago that I could watch the video of actress, Meryl Streep in her now famous, Golden Globe Awards’ speech. The liberals thought it was just grand how she attacked the target of their hate and bigotry, President-elect, Donald Trump. There were possibly three sentences in her speech that I might consider the truth. The rest of her rubbish was lies.

merylstreep

Ms. Streep indicated in her rant that Hollywood, foreigners, and the press were the most vilified factions of society. Hey heifer, you left out Christians, southerners, white males and possibly females, gunowners, and Republicans. In mentioning Hollywood and the press, I guess Meryl Streep was talking about groups that conservatives often speak out against and rightfully so. She also mentioned foreigners. How have foreigners been vilified by conservatives? By Donald Trump? He married one.

As my readers know, I occasionally give into sarcasm. Because Donald Trump has come out against illegal immigration and has indicated anyone who has come to this country illegally is a law breaker and should be deported, liberals, who are obviously too stupid to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, state affirmatively that he is xenophobic (one who fears foreigners). Once again, that’s tolerance.

Then the iconic actress lists several actors/actresses in Hollywood who were foreign born, including Natalie Portman, born in Jerusalem, Ryan Gosling, born in Canada, and Amy Adams, born in Italy, and Ruth Negga, born in Ethiopia, indicating that they didn’t need birth certificates. Excuse me! How many times will I have to say this? Being a Hollywood actor or actress doesn’t require you to be a natural-born American citizen, but being president of the United States does. Why can’t liberals to understand that? If they can’t make the distinction, they’re stupid. In the previous paragraph, I called liberals stupid in the previous paragraph and I’m calling them stupid here. I guess that makes them double stupid.

Meryl Streep also indicated that since Hollywood is full of foreigners, if all were made to leave, we would have nothing to watch but football and martial arts, further indicating that martial arts was not art. Guess who Ms. Streep is taking a “swipe at?” Everyday Americans, of course.

The climax of Ms. Steep’s speech came when she, an advocate of the disabled, spewed a scathing rant regarding Donald Trump’s alleged mimicking of a disabled reporter. This allegation by the left has been widely disputed by Trump advocates claiming that the president-elect often sporadically moves his upper body, especially his hands in what appears to be a spastic manner when mimicking those with whom he is at odds. This is a reasonable argument that Donald Trump was not “making fun” of the subject reporter’s disability. Are liberals, who claim to be so tolerant and understanding of all sides, giving the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Trump? Of course not! Once again, that’s tolerance.

In concluding her speech, actress, Meryl Streep indicated that we need a principled press. I can’t dispute that. But was she indicating that the left-leaning mainstream media wasn’t principled according to her standards? Or was she talking about certain media outlets who do respect the conservative point of view? She went on to indicated that we need the support of the “well-heeled” foreign press to support the “Committee to Protect Journalists.” Not sure about this “Committee to Protect Journalists,” but I surmise that this committee will seek to protect left-wing speech and squelch any expressions or opinions that come from conservative America.

Facebooktwitter

THE FAILED PRESIDENCY OF BARACK OBAMA – PART THREE

The following is the third part of a series in which I’m illustrating the failed presidency of Barack Obama. According to an article in townhall.com, dated August 9, 2014, the president got the following things wrong.

  • The Justice Department failed to pursue a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panthers because they were liberal blacks. Former DOJ official, J. Christian Adams quit over the case and accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
  • George W. Bush quit playing golf in 2003 because he didn’t want the mothers of fallen soldiers to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. He also said he thought playing golf during a war sent the wrong signal to the American people. Through June 2014, Obama was up to 177 rounds and is on pace to play twice as much in his second term as in his first term.
  • After promising to unite America when he was running for office in 2008, Obama has been the most hyper-partisan president in decades.
  • Despite the fact that Barack Obama claimed to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman when he was running for president in 2008, his Department of Justice asked states attorney generals to refuse to defend their states’ bans on gay marriage in court.
  • He’s responsible for the dumbing down our education system with Common Core.
  • We first landed on the moon in 2969, but because of Obama, we’re no longer even capable of space travel.
  • Barack Obama engaged in an illegal war in Libya without the permission of Congress that helped turn that country into an unstable basket case run by radical Islamists. How bad is it? America, Libyans, and the rest of the world were better off with Gaddafi in charge.
  • Radical Islamist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan described himself as mujahedeen and yelled Allahu Akbar as he murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. The Obama Administration labeled that as “workplace violence” rather than admitting there was a terrorist attack on his watch.
  • He released 5 Taliban terrorists in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl.
  • Russia annexed Crimea while Obama did nothing of consequence to discourage it from invading. That’s not a surprise for a president who is fond of throwing out “red lines” that don’t mean anything.
  • Barack Obama unilaterally implemented the DREAM Act that Congress didn’t pass and illegally handed out work permits to illegal aliens.
  • The fence on our southern border was supposed to be completed by 2009. The Obama Administration has made it clear that it doesn’t intend to finish it during his presidency.
  • For all practical purposes, Barack Obama has already unilaterally implemented amnesty in America because at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records aren’t being deported.

As of November 2016, Barack Obama had issued 263 executive orders with at least 35 of them dealing with climate change, energy, or the environment, according to insideclimatenews.org.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016, Barack Obama moved to indefinitely block drilling in vast swaths of U.S. waters, according to cnbc.com. In invoking this action, the president used a 1953 law that governs offshore leases. This law allows a president to withdraw any currently unleased lands in the Outer Continental Shelf from future lease sales. Because there is no provision in the law which would allow a president’s successor to repeal the decision, President-elect Trump would not be able to easily undo the action. This could be challenged in the courts, but would probably be tied up there throughout much of Trump’s first term. The Republican -controlled Congress could also try to change the law.

Also, according to cnbc.com, the provision contained in the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, has been invoked in the past to set aside smaller portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, such as coral reefs or natural habitats. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton used the provision to block drilling in much of the Outer Continental Shelf, but for limited periods.  Thus, the Obama administration’s action marks the broadest use of the statute ever because it would be far-reaching in terms of the lands it would protect and come without an expiration.

On December 29, 2016, Breitbart reported that President Barack Obama had decreed two more national monuments while at his vacation home in Hawaii, taking 1.65 million more acres of western land for management by the federal government.

The new Bear Ears Buttes monument includes 1.35 million acres of Utah and the Gold Butte monument includes about 300,000 acres in Nevada. That makes a total of 535 million acres of national lands and waters that Obama has repurposed for conservation and protection using the 1906 Antiquities Act, more than any other president, according to the New York Times. More than 80 percent of Nevada and about 65% of Utah is owned by the federal government, according to National Public Radio.

Obama has used his power to create 29 separate national monuments using the Antiquities Act, but the Washington Post has reported that he is expected to create one or two more in order to match or beat Franklin E. Roosevelt’s record of 30 designations.

It should be obvious to any American that Barack Obama is not and has not ever been interested in insuring that the United States remains an exceptional nation. In fact, with his many actions, one can come to the conclusion that his goals as president of the United States were to either weaken or outright destroy the country. And he came very close to doing just that.

Facebooktwitter