Tag Archives: Bill O’Reilly

STORY ABOUT THE NFL – HOW IMPORTANT IS IT?

Throughout social media, people are questioning the news media’s covering of the NFL Story regarding multiple players refusing to stand while the National Anthem is played before football games. The coverage has been almost non-stop, and as one would expect, with the exception of Fox News and One America News, the media is taking the side that it’s perfectly okay to kneel for the National Anthem in protest of a cruel United States of America with a history of slavery and oppression of minorities.

When President Trump came out of Friday night, September 22, at a rally in Huntsville, Alabama, advising NFL team owners that they should fire “those SOBs who refuse to stand for the anthem,” a widespread movement swept among the players to kneel when the anthem was played.

Many folks are now boycotting the NFL and as you can imagine, there have been “opinions galore” out there. For the record, here’s mine. I blame the owners for allowing this kerfuffle to escalate to the extent it has. These players signed contracts with their respective teams, and when you sign a contract of employment, no matter what you position is, you agree to do what your employer tells you to do. The owners could have told the players, “stand for the National Anthem or be fired.” The end! But they didn’t. They wimped out.

While, of course, the players are to be held accountable for their actions and will certainly suffer repercussions, they are young men, many of them under the age of twenty-five. And they’re millionaires to boot. Groomed since childhood to be football stars, they held press conferences while in high school to announce the college they had chosen. Once they got on campus, they became the most popular guys on campus. In some states, such as my own, they became the most important people in the state, being loved, adored, and looked up to by many. After being drafted and signing multi-million-dollar contracts, they played football, and continued to be everyone’s darling. Pretty heady stuff.

Playing for an NFL team is hard work. Practices are grueling and pressure is never ending. These players are not your average twenty-four-year-old college graduates who are trying to “make it” in fields such as accounting, computer science, teaching, banking, etc. Do they watch the news, do they regularly visit news websites? Probably not. Majority of these players are black and many came from poor families. Furthermore, when someone tells them that the United States of America is a cruel racist country, and that’s why there are so many people living under the poverty line, many of them minorities, these players want to be seen as doing something good, plus they’re young and idealistic. They also want to fit in, to be popular with their peers. Thus, I put more of the blame on the owners and NFL management for allowing this to happen.  Like Bill O’Reilly said last night, it’s “pack mentality.” Also, many are not mature enough to think through what their actions might lead to down the road.

Having said all of the above, I’m also reading articles where many folks are complaining, saying that we have much more important stuff to cover and obsess on instead of football; things such as the damages and continued suffering of those affected by the recent hurricanes, plus “Little Rocket Man” on the other side of the world threatening to annihilate all of us. And let’s not forget the terrorist attack on a small church in Antioch, Tennessee where a gunman from the Sudan killed a woman church-goer in the parking lot and injured others, shooting until he was subdued by another church-goer with a carry permit and a gun. The mainstream media would not have covered the church shooting story anyway, because a black Islamic terrorist shooting at, killing and injuring white Christians, particularly southern white Christians is just not newsworthy, nor did it trigger widespread riots, looting, and allegations of police brutality.

I beg to differ with those who think the NFL story is immaterial in the wake of what else is taking place in the country and in the world.

The NFL and sports in general have always been large parts of our culture where all people regardless of financial status, social status, religion, ethnicity, ideology, etc. could come together for fun, and fellowship. The ultra-liberal sitting next to you in the stands wants the same thing as you want…for your team to win. As the United States of America becomes more polarized with respect to how we should govern ourselves now and in the future, the sports culture, where historically politics didn’t exist, has become increasingly important as a refuge and a uniting mechanism.

As I watched the left go nuclear at the president’s comments, calling him a racist (the media calling the president a racist…what else is new), when he didn’t even mention race or skin color in his remarks, followed by Roger Goodell’s actions and the team owners’ actions, it became all too apparent that this whole melee was being fueled by the left with its systematic methodologies to destroy the United States of America by vaporizing its history, including the constitution, and destroying its culture, institution by institution.

The organizers of the leftist movement to annihilate the United State of America, have now seen an opportunity to break up one of the nation’s cultural bastions, the National Football League. There have been calls for boycotting, not just the games, but boycotting NFL sponsors. And TV ratings have been down.  If the fans lose interest, income will go down, the owners will suffer, and eventually the players will suffer, not to mention all the people who work for the NFL and NFL teams in various capacities from grounds keepers, secretaries, accountants, etc. This could very well lead to a recession, especially if the left continues to attack and destroy other institutions.

Like Bill O’Reilly said last night on Hannity, left not only wants to destroy President Trump, they want to destroy his supporters, and they want to destroy the United States of America and build it back up according to their specifications, starting with a new constitution, the abolishment of the electoral college, the abolishment the three branches of government and the system of checks and balances. And who can predict what else. It’s “1984,” folks.

On Hannity last night, I noticed a slight apprehension that pervaded the Bill O’Reilly segment. Sean and Bill were both critical of the main stream media reiterating that it was as corrupt as it’s ever been. With what our young people are being taught in the public schools, or not being taught in the public schools, they have no knowledge of this country and its history, except that America has allowed the institution of slavery and continues to oppress minorities. Furthermore, since the end of the cold war, they have not been taught or nor have they seen the evils of communism and the effects of socialism. Thus, many millennials think communism and socialism are good philosophies as compared to the evils of capitalism in which we now live under.

How can this happen when the Republicans have the house, the Senate, and the presidency? I’ll tell you how, the far left has the press, a press that lives to denigrate President Trump every day, a press that promotes the lies, the hatred, the bigotry and the hypocrisy emanating from the left. If the only news that you watch are snippets of the network news or a few minutes of CNN or MSNBC, all you hear is “Russia, Russia, Russia,” Trump’s a racist, Trump’s a misogynist, Trump’s a homophobe, all Trump cares about are his wealthy friends, his supporters are ignorant, especially those southern white conservative Christians.

With a corrupt media, that promotes the left and lies about the right.  a large segment of the population that knows nothing about the cold war and the evils of communism, and conservatives who are scared of their own shadows who tremble at the thought of being called a racist, we can easily lose this nation. This is no laughing matter.

Facebooktwitter

BACK TO RACISM

President Donald Trump was elected President of the United States five months ago. He was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States two and a half months ago. Yet, Democrats still can’t decide why their candidate, Hillary Roddam Clinton, wife of former president, beloved by all Democrats, Bill Clinton, lost.

During the presidential campaign, we heard all sorts of allegations of sexism, or the trendier term, misogyny, against those who did not support the Democrat nominee. Of course, for the eight previous years of Obama, we heard nothing but racism allegations against those who were not supportive of the 44th President of the United States. So, first it is racism for which the right is guilty, then enters candidate Clinton, and it is sexism for which the right is guilty.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. Does anybody focus on issues? It is evident that the Democrats are not focused on issues. Some of them do have enough smarts to know they cannot win on issues, but the rest of the Democrats are too ignorant to focus on the issues. So, there we go. I have called Democrats ignorant, and I am not taking it back. They are ignorant. Notice, I said ignorant, not stupid. If you do not know the difference, look it up in Webster’s.

An article came across my news feed from theintercept.com, a website with which I was not familiar, entitled: Top Democrats are Wrong: Trump Supporters were more Motivated by Racism than Economic Issues. Truth be known, I was not aware that Democrats were even entertaining the idea that their beloved Hillary Clinton lost the President election except for us racist, sexist Republicans.

According to the author of the article, Mehdi Hasan, Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the Resistance stated, “Some people think that those who voted for Trump are racists, sexists, homophobes and deplorable folks.”

This statement was made at a rally in Boston, alongside socialist/communist Senator, Elizabeth Warren. Can’t believe that Fauxkahontas was silent on this one. Mr. Hasan does not agree with Senators Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren. Hasan further indicates that, in the New York Times, three days after the November election, the Vermont Senator claimed that Trump voters were “expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.”

Mr. Hasan feels that both Sanders and Fauxkahontas, I mean Warren, seem much keener to lay the blame at the feet of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Hasan goes on to state that their deflection is not surprising, nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate.

In his article, Hasan says that “He gets it,” and agrees that it is hard to accept that millions of their fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as “racial resentment.” (I have not heard that term before.) He further acknowledges that the reluctance to admit that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still widespread in society is understandable. Hasan then asks the question, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

What did I get from the above? Some Democrats may be willing to justify Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump because Democrats are out of touch with middle-class America. With respect to the issues, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, energy, the environment, and health care, Democrats are diametrically opposite to mainstream America, also known as the fly-over country. However, that is a mighty big but, other Democrats are continuing to hurl accusations of racism, sexism, and whatever else they can throw at those who disagree with them.

I was one of the first pundits to label Democrats/ liberals/progressives or whatever they want to call themselves these days as the “tolerant left.” I am sarcastic. The left is anything but open-minded and tolerant. Later Bill O’Reilly also used that term. Maybe I should have had it copyrighted.

As I have indicated in many of my writings, liberals are the real racists, hypocrites, liars, and bigots. If some left-winger hurls the racism accusation at me, I know that I have won the debate, the argument, or whatever. Liberals change the definition or racism to whatever suits their needs of the moment. If they cannot justify the hurling of other accusations at someone with whom they do not agree, they will resort to racism.

Hasan cites American National Election data and a “plethora” of studies that have concluded that since the start of the 2016 presidential campaign that the race was about race. Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College, and an expert on race relations (that’s what the article said), grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter was to ask that person if Obama was a Muslim.  If the person said yes and the person was white, 89% of the time that person would have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. So, anyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim and has white skin, probably a racist.

Wow! That’s what I call scientific.

Hasan also indicated that other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump,” with rump supporters being more likely to describe African Americans as criminal, unintelligent, lazy, and violent. Also, Trump voters were most likely to believe that people of color are taking white jobs, and a majority of them rate blacks as less evolved than whites.

My regular readers know that I am from the state of Alabama and currently live in the Birmingham area. Yes, Birmingham, Alabama. I do not hear or observe any of the attitudes or statements that Mr. Hasan makes in the above paragraphs in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. These attitudes may have been common in the late sixties/early to mid-seventies. But not now. Alternatively yet, maybe folks up north have these attitudes, but not here in the south.

Because Trump managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income, or education, racial identity and attitudes displaced class as the central battleground of American politics as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have espoused.

Hasan does cover the question, “how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012?” Klinkner covers that by stating that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do. Did he? I followed the campaign closely, and it did not appear to me that Donald Trump was “pushing buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways.” The comments made about Mexicans who crossed the border illegally being criminals and rapists did not appear racist to me, nor did it to most conservatives. Liberals, of course, went ballistic, but what else is new?

So, based on the above notions, which are abstract at best, Mr. Hasan, concludes: “It isn’t the economy. It’s the racism, stupid.” But wait…is Mrs. Clinton not a white woman? Yes, Mrs. Clinton is indeed a white woman, who campaigned on continuing the policies of Barack Obama. So, if the voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama were pleased with the direction in which the country was heading, but just did not like Obama because of the color of his skin, they should be ecstatic that someone white was running and was promising to continue Obama-style governance.

Mr. Hasan’s reasoning is substantially flawed. Plus, these studies, which he sites sound bogus to me. Remember, though, Mr. Hasan is a liberal, and liberals do not have to be correct. They just have to say something over and over again until the fact that what they are saying is a lie no longer matters. It is now the truth. Liberals no longer have to be consistent. Being hypocritical is accepted in liberal land.

Are liberals ever going to stop hurling false accusations and those who do not agree with them? We all know the answer to that one. Are we ever going to get liberals to change? Of course not! Then why bother? Because we must continue to stand up for what is right. Standing down and letting the left continue to spout forth their lies and hypocrisies, allows them to win in the end.

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

UNLEASHED LIBERALS

Years and years ago, I heard Rush Limbaugh comment that liberals were the craziest when they were out of power.

Now that the left no longer has the presidency, the Congress, and hopefully soon, power will return to the right on the Supreme Court, we have unleashed liberals, saying anything to get attention, not caring if it is true or false.

I often use the term, “tolerant left.” I have even told some folks that I coined the term. Bill O’Reilly has used the term, but only after I used it. It’s no secret to anyone that liberals are the most tolerant and open-minded people on earth except when you don’t agree with them and where they stand on political issues. Then you are subject to ridicule and being called a moron, idiot, clueless, and a few other monikers which I won’t put in print.

A week ago, an interesting looking article appeared on my newsfeed. The headline read: Trump Takes Breather from White House, Hold Rally this Weekend

This article was shared by a liberal and contained comments by unleashed liberals. According to most news outlets, President Trump has worked every day since he’s been in office, but these unleashed liberals were accusing him of taking the weekends off. In fact, on this particular weekend, it was announced early on Friday (February 17, 2017) that after going to the Charleston Boeing plant for the unveiling of a new plane, that he would be spending a weekend working at Mar-a-Lago. The unleashed liberals claimed that he had already taken three vacations since becoming president. The unleashed liberals were also complaining about the so-called campaign rally that he was holding late Saturday afternoon, saying that he had better things to do with his time that attend a rally. One poster on another thread implied that the president only worked 9-5, five days a week.

The problems with these unleashed liberals, among other things, is they can’t seem to understand what they read. Ever since I’ve been commenting on liberal threads, I often must explain what I write two or three times to get a liberal to understand what I’m writing about. It makes me wonder if, to avoid admitting to being wrong, they’re attempting to change the subject.

When I commented, asking the participants on the thread, would they rather the president play golf or go on a date night like Obama was continuously doing, the comments were generally that he should be doing the country’s work, instead. One commenter even said there was no precedence for such a rally. Again, the unleashed liberals can’t comprehend what they read or hear. No precedence for such a rally? Does there have to be. Remember, Jimmy Carter started his presidency out with those fireside chats, a new thing in the era of television. Not since Franklin Roosevelt had that been done. I further pointed out to the unleashed liberals that Obama held multiple rallies when foisting Obamacare on the American people. They denied it, but, as usual, they were wrong. After one commenter kept insisting that he had better things with that two hours Saturday evening that to hold a rally, I got a little chippy and indicated that she should apply for the position of scheduling advisor.

These threads, whether they are conservative leaning or liberal leaning always get off subject. One commenter asked about FEMA aid for the New Orleans tornado victims and for the Oroville damn scenario in California. I had read where California Governor Moonbeam had an acknowledgement from President Trump that assistance was approved and on the way. While I never heard anything about FEMA assistance to New Orleans. If it had been delayed, we would have heard about it. You can “betcha” bottom dollar. Of course, one unleashed liberal whined because she thought President Trump should have said something about the disasters. Upon this, I informed her that during the Nashville, Tennessee flood of 2010, Obama never talked about it, nor did he visit the Nashville area. I then threw in the fact that after the generational tornado outbreak on April 27, 2011 where parts of the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia were devastated by long-form violent tornadoes, the only thing Obama did was visit Tuscaloosa, Alabama a few weeks after the fact.

The thread got very contentions with a number of the commenters piling on me, which is nothing new. At one point, one of the commenters attacked me in way that I have never been attacked, even by the most hate-filled unleashed liberals. At first, I laughed and shook my head. But after several hours, I started thinking that this particular attack was way out of line. I responded to the commenter that his/her (couldn’t tell from first name if man or woman) comments may have crossed the line when it comes to appropriateness. I then asked this person to take the comments down. I wasn’t holding my breath that the comments would be removed, but in less than twenty-four hours, they were.

Before their gal lost the election, liberals were the real haters, racists, bigots, and liars. Plus, they’ve always had trouble with reading comprehension and don’t care about the truth. Get ready, this new wave of unleashed liberals is becoming their former selves on steroids.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERAL ADMISSION, THEY WON’T DEBATE

The following meme, from Liberal Identity, appeared on my Facebook newsfeed.

liberalIdentityPhoto

The creator of this meme indicated what he or she stood for as a liberal and even admitted to being one of those liberal elites.

There is one point, point eight, in which I agree. Safety nets are needed because we are a civilized country with our roots based on Judeo-Christian principles. As individuals, Jesus has instructed to help those who are less fortunate than we are. However, we should never become a nation that allows people to die in the streets from hunger, exposure, and/or disease. While I have been involved in debates between conservatives and liberals regarding just what kind of safety nets we should provide and can afford, I know of no conservative who is against any type of safety nets provided by the government.

Okay, fine, this liberal is admitting his or her beliefs and they are diametrically opposite to mine and to most who call themselves conservatives. Everyone has the right to their opinions and I’m certainly not going to belittle someone for expressing their views in the manner that the “tolerant” left does.

Eyeball down to the bottom of the meme where this liberal has indicated that he or she does not wish to debate these points, and that he or she will never change their view on these issues. Never say never, your views can change. While I’ve always leaned conservative, there was a time when I considered myself a moderate Republican. Not anymore, though.

It’s highly unusual, and many conservatives will back me up, to bring a liberal into a debate on the issues. They can’t win and they know it. So, instead, they hurl accusations of racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, and other stuff at you. They accuse you of hating the poor if you question the efficiency of an entitlement program. If you disagree with Barak Obama’s policies, you’re called a racist, even though you didn’t belittle the president because of his skin color. If you believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, you’re a homophobe. If you believe in school choice and question anything related to the public schools and public school teachers, you are against education and hate teachers.

I used to think it was something about me that made liberals want to hurl insults at me. I soon, though, realized that it wasn’t me. Everyone who attempts to have a debate with a liberal on the issues has insults hurled at them. Many conservatives give up, and that’s unfortunate.

The “tolerant” left needs to be reminded constantly that there are different viewpoints out there. They also need to be reminded that debate, including freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights of citizenship bestowed upon us by our creator and solidified in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Plus, the worse the names they can call you, the more classless they appear.

I’ve expressed my angst regarding liberals’ refusal to debate the issues, and preferring to make themselves even more unattractive with their insults. I started using the phrase, “tolerant” left months ago, being sarcastic, of course. Since I started using it in my writings, I have heard Bill O’Reilly use it a time or two. I wonder which one of us coined it first.

We didn’t learn anything new about liberals today. Instead, we now have it from the “horse’s mouth.” Liberals are admitting that they refuse to respect differing points of view, much less debate their points of view. It’s their way or the highway. Furthermore, they have indicated they prefer to live in a totalitarian state.

According to dictionary.com, liberal means the following:

  • Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
  • Noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
  • Of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
  • Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
  • Favoring of permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief of expression.

Liberals, you certainly don’t favor any of the above concepts. In fact, under your own liberal admission, you are certainly not advocates of progressive political reform. Your philosophy dates back to when the planet consisted of kingdoms, ruled by kings, chosen by divine right.

Maybe you need to change what you call yourselves.

Facebooktwitter