Tag Archives: Christian


By now we all know that the liberals, in cahoots with the main stream/liberal media have released a tape dating back to 2005 where Donald Trump was heard while talking to another man, saying lewd things about how he treated women. Even though he had just married Melania, he was boasting that because of his celebrity status, he could have any woman he wanted.

Fast forward to today when he is running for President of the United States. Since then Mr. Trump has indicated that he has become a Christian, that he doesn’t drink, and that he is now pro-life after being pro-choice.

In 2005, Donald Trump engaged in “locker room talk.” Most men have at one time or another, probably multiple times. While some were probably being truthful regarding their escapades, others may be stretching the truth a bit in order to one-up their male counterparts.

Donald Trump is one of the nation’s most successful businessmen. He’s wealthy beyond anything most of us can imagine. Folks who are in his position are usually egotistical and prone to bad behavior, just because they can get away with it. I’m sure Mr. Trump has been all of the above and more. However, he has indicated that he’s invited Christ into his life and is a Christian. Moreover, several well-known evangelists have come forward and given testimony about Donald. All have inferred that he is a new Christian.

Donald Trump has apologized for his 2005 comments. Is he sincere? That’s between him and God. Would he make those same comments today? I would say no. Will I, an independent woman, still vote for him? Yes, I will vote for Donald Trump.

When looking up the word, “liberal,” in a dictionary, several meanings are listed. Among those meanings the following are included: (1) Of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties; (2) favoring  or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression; (3) free from prejudice, bigotry; tolerant; (4) open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

Tolerance, mentioned above in connection with liberalism, is supposed to be a trait of all liberals. To me this means open-mindedness, giving credence and respect to all thoughts and opinions. About to “bust a stitch, yet?” Liberals when it pertains to politics and how we should govern ourselves are anything but the above. While I could write a lengthy article on the disingenuousness of liberals, and plan to do that soon, I’m going to illustrate only one example here.

Liberals are all over Donald Trump, calling him out over his 2005 remarks. Plus, they are all over any of us who are voting for him. In fact, liberals are calling us names and accusing us of being morally corrupt. What else is new? Donald Trump apologized for his 2005 comments, but are the supposedly open-minded, tolerant liberals going to accept his apology and give him the benefit of the doubt that he would not make comments like those today? Of course not.

The “open-minded, tolerant” left has always accepted former President Bill Clinton’s actions of infidelity, indicating that it shouldn’t matter because of his job he was doing when he was President of the United States was so great. Candidate Hillary Clinton lies, everyone knows she lies. Many of those who have worked for her have indicated that she has the “mouth of a sailor.” Many folks have died who dared to cross the Clintons in any way shape, form, or fashion. She put the security of the American people at risk by her actions of allowing emails to be sent and received through private, unsecured servers. Her dereliction of duty led to the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. The liberals won’t discuss the foregoing, except to say that nothing has been proven.

Open-mindedness and tolerance works both ways. Well, perhaps not when it comes to liberals.



I’m seeing a lot of posts and feeds on FB regarding this year’s Olympics, most of which, I don’t like. And many folks share my views.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was the first time that black athletes were allowed to participate in the Olympics, or even the first time blacks were able to participate in sports.

Probably the best gymnast I’ve ever watched is Olympic champion Simone Biles. I can safely say this because I follow one of the great gymnastics’ dynasties, the University of Alabama Gymtide. The posts on FB page, “Because of them we can by Enrique Jones” have particularly gotten on my nerves. The posts from this page and other posts would have you think that Simone Biles and Gabby Douglas were the first black gymnasts to ever compete for honors, and that their efforts are paving the way for the next round of black gymnasts.


Long before I started my Alabama sports website, I was following Alabama Gymnastics. The Tide won its first national title in 1988. Since then, the Gymtide has won national titles in 1991, 1996, 2002, 2011, and 2012. Many of the gymnasts on the Alabama  teams were black. Through research, I was able to obtain the names of the black women that participated from 2008 forward: Morgan Dennis, Ashley O’Neal, Ashley Sledge, Hunter Dennis, Diandra Milliner, Carley Sims, Katie Bentley, Aja Sims, Kayla Williams, and Kiana Winston. Unfortunately, prior to 2008, I wasn’t able to obtain any names, but do recall Dee Dee Foster, Andrea Pickens, and Ashley Miles. There were more, but I just don’t remember their names. In addition to excelling on the vault, the bars, the beam, and the floor, these gymnasts, along with their teammates excelled in the class room as well. Most of them had GPA’s of 3.0 or better.

Another post that appeared on my news feed showed a picture of the U.S. Olympic Gymnastics team and commented on the diversity of the ladies (two are black, one is Jewish, one is Hispanic, and I think the other is white/Christian). The post read as follows: “This, this is the America that’s on her way, just around the corner. Black, Hispanic, white, Jewish…confident not in spite of her diversity, but because of it.” This poster says to me that America is new to this diversity and inclusion game, but, we’re just about ready to turn the corner. You would think this was 1970 instead of the second decade of the 21st century and a generation after Civil Rights and the Women’s Movements.

So much progress has been made by “other than white males” since the barriers were lifted, but it seems that the left is trying to brainwash us into thinking we’re no better off than we were prior to 1964. That’s and I will call it out when I see it. To imply that America is about ready to turn the corner is wrong. We turned that corner long ago. In 2008, the United States elected its first black president, then re-elected him in 2012. With only 13% of the American population being black, Barak Obama had to have a substantial number of white votes to get elected. Not only have we turned the corner, but we continue to run round and round the block. Is there room for improvement and room to grow? Absolutely! Will we ever be a nation without racism or prejudice? No, because this world will never be a perfect one. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and will continue to do so until that one fine day when Jesus returns  and sets up his 1000 year kingdom on earth.



I should have kept count, but I didn’t, of the number of articles I have read where liberals are blaming Republicans for the riots that have broken out in Baltimore and various cities across the United States in relation to the death of Freddie Gray while he was in the custody of the Baltimore, Maryland police department.

According to alternet.com, a far left rag, “The protests and violent exhalations by Baltimore’s black youth (and others) are the result of a long patter of police abuse, harassment and violence toward that city’s African-American community in the context of systemic class inequality, custodial citizenship and mass incarceration.”

According to the American Spectator, the current President has blamed the Baltimore riots on Republicans for failing to pass his legislative agenda. Hasn’t he just issued executive orders whenever he didn’t get what he wants? The American Spectator, goes on to say that the city does suffer from crippling unemployment, and that the police department has a history of treating criminals as less than human. In just a few short years, the Baltimore PD has paid out millions in jury awards and settlements to arrestees and their families, which, while far from conclusive, shows there might be a problem with the aggressive nature of law enforcement.

If what has been said about the Baltimore Police Department is true, it’s not the fault of the Republicans, it’s the fault of the city government, particularly the mayor, who happens to be the secretary of the Democrat National Committee.

You can blame the Great Society programs which led to the denigration of the black family and the increase in poverty in our nation’s black communities, but I’m going to go back farther. I’m going to blame it on the taking of God out of our lives, something the liberals started in the sixties and are still doing today.

In 1962, the United States Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that a prayer approved by the New York Board of Regents for use in schools violated the First Amendment by constituting an establishment of religion. The following year, in Abington School District v. Schempp, the Court disallowed Bible readings in public schools for similar reasons. According to religionandpolitics.org, these two landmark Supreme Court decisions entered on the place of religion in public education, and particularly the place of Protestantism, which had long been accepted as the given American faith tradition. Both decisions ultimately changed the face of American civil society, and in turn, helped usher in the last half-century of the culture wars.

After the taking of God out of our society, church attendance dropped and children were not attending church and growing up with the teachings of the Lord. Of course, they didn’t pray or get to hear scripture in their school either. As years passed, we began seeing the liberal efforts to diminish the value of our traditional holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, even though Thanksgiving does not celebrate a biblical event. Liberals love to pontificate over the “separation of church and state” even though that phrase is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

When I was growing up in a traditional Christian family, I was taken to Sunday school and church. I was taught to follow the Lord and be thankful for all the blessings that he bestowed upon me. While my family wasn’t the richest in my hometown of Cullman, Alabama, we weren’t the poorest either. Some children with whom I grew up had more than me and some had less than me. There’s no such thing as a level playing field. All of us have some God given talents and all of us have shortcomings and hurdles to jump as we’re making our way in this world of ours.

The liberals blame us conservatives and Republicans for not supporting the throwing of good money after bad when it comes to entitlement programs, particularly those that throw money at poverty stricken areas. It appalls me that Democrats, even operating on one brain cell, can’t comprehend that throwing money at poverty doesn’t make it go away, it only exacerbates it.

And look what’s happened now, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a socialist democrat, has announced his intention to seek the Democrat nomination for President. Bernie is calling for, guess what, tax increases for the wealthiest Americans. He also wants to provide a college education for everyone. He continues and I’m sure will continue to pontificate on income inequality which he considers and abomination.

Today on social media, I have seen many Democrats come out in favor of Bernie Sanders, with many of them indicating that Bernie wouldn’t get very far against Hillary. However, these far left individuals have indicated that they hope Bernie will bring Hillary further left as she pursues the presidency.

The United States of America is a country that I don’t recognize anymore. Criminals are glorified, free speech has disappeared, we’re turning our backs on our trusted allies, we’re turning our backs on God and appearing to sympathize with Muslims. The federal government is talking about coming in and re-training our local police forces. It’s just so over-whelming and depressing. While I certainly have a lot of material for this blog, I never wanted this much material, I never wanted our country to become what it has become.

We have strayed so far from the vision our founding fathers had for us. I can continue to write and hopefully continue to expose what’s going on, but we’re going to have to do something else if we hope to take back our country. We have to pray, and pray with everything we have. God is still in charge and we much remember that only he can put this nation on the right track again.



According to allenbwest.com, former head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under the current President, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn said the administration’s foreign policy approach has led to an “almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East” and described it with two harsh words: “willful ignorance.”

Willful means intentional and ignorance means without knowledge. So, the current President approaches foreign policy related to the Middle East, as someone who just doesn’t want to know what’s taking place there.

On January 3, 2014, newspapers reported that the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) had captured and raised its flag over Fallujah, where Marines in 2004 had fought one of the bloodiest battles of the Iraqi war. The Washington Post reported: “A rejuvenated al-Qadea-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq over two years ago. The upheaval also affirmed the soaring capabilities of ISIS, the rebranded version of the al-Qaeda in Iraq organization that was formed a decade ago to confront U.S. troops and expanded into Syria last year while escalating its activities in Iraq.

The current President was asked where this was going now that al-Qaeda is resurgent in Iraq, Syria, and Africa by David Remnick of the New Yorker. His reply was as follows, “I think the analogy we user around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

Mr. Remnick then indicated to the current President that the JV team he was describing just took over Fallujah. The President then responded, “But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.

In January 2014, the President viewed the situation in Iraq, particularly Fallujah as a local matter between jihadists, but now, the United States is striking ISIS targets in an effort to turn back its advance across Iraqi territory.

With the passage of time, the current President’s JV comment does look ignorant, so White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is trying to cover up body odor with cheap perfume in suggesting that what is now known as the Islamic State was not the subject of the January 2014 conversation. In a Washington Post article, Glenn Kessler wrote that the context of Mr. Remnick’s question makes it clear that he was asking about ISIS.

The Middle East is a mess. In September 2014, the current President said that Yemen’s war on terror was a success. In January 2015, Shiite insurgents overran Yemen’s presidential palace, posing a coup-style threat to President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The U.S. was forced to close its embassy in Yemen and embassy personnel had to flee the country.

Now, the Secretary of State, under the direction of the current President has completed talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program. According to various news sources, only the framework of an agreement has been negotiated. I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would think that Obama’s deal would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But we all remember, “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” So I was expecting the current President to at least say that it’s a good plan and that we would have to read it to see what was in it.

However, the current President is now admitting the deal does no such thing according to caintv.com. Caintv.com goes on to indicate that even assuming Iran’s complete cooperation with all of the alleged terms, even assuming to cheating, even assuming they allow inspections when our side says they’re warranted, and even assuming no covert sites spinning centrifuges, we’re looking at a nuclear Iran probably sometime in the next decade.

The current President promised us that Iran would not have a nuclear weapon while he was President. It looks like the President has done just that. There may not be a nuclear weapon under his watch, but his watch ends in less than two years. What about the next President? Did the current President merely kick the can down the road? If Iran does get a nuclear weapon in ten months, will the drive-by media allow the President to blame Barack Obama like Barack Obama has blamed George Bush for the last six plus years? The Obama approach is to remove all threats of military action, remove all economic sanctions, trust Iran to keep its work, and then sign a deal that even he doesn’t claim keeps them from getting the bomb.

This makes me knot up inside. What is this President doing to the United States of America? Do we really think that Iran is going to cooperate with the terms of this agreement? They’re not! What scares me even more, though, is that this President is, at least, an admirer of Islam. Some folks out there say that he’s Islamic and that he bows to the east. I’m not going to say he’s Islamic; I’m just going to say that he is an admirer of Islam. On several occasion, he has said that he is a Christian.

According to wnd.com, at a White House breakfast, Tuesday morning, April 7, the current President took a swipe at Christians, saying Christians are supposed to love all their neighbors, but that he sometimes hears less than loving expressions by Christians. That concerns him. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I do it all the time. Humans are sinful by nature. Before stepping off into it, the President did “pull back.”
Now what about all the things that Muslims say about their neighbors and all the threats that Muslims make? He didn’t mention that.

I’ve always said and I will continue to say that this President’s goals are not to strengthen the United States of America and continue to strive for exceptionalism; rather the goals of this President are to destroy the United States of America and all that it stands for. Could this Iranian nuclear deal possibly have been negotiated so that Iran would deliberately put off developing and deploying nuclear weapons until this President is out of office, and then? Can you say “Willful Ignorance?”



On March 18, 2015, the Huffington Post ran an article entitled, “Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces without White People.” My immediate thought was, “What?” This will certainly go into my Stupid Liberal Article’s folder. As I read the article, I didn’t find it as obnoxious as the title.

The article arose out of an incident at Ryerson University in Toronto. Two first-year journalism students were turned away from an even organized a campus group called “Racialized Students’ Collective.” “Racialized Students’ Collective is a group of “students of color/minorities” who wanted to have a gathering where they could discuss the difficulties in their lives that have arisen as a result of the color of their skin or their ethnicity. The first-year journalism students were white.

First of all, this is Canada, not the United States. According to a substantial number of those on the left, the United States is an unjust, racist, bigoted nation; much more so than other nations. So, how could it be that racism occurs in Canada when, according to the tolerant left, we are so racist and everyone else is so pure?

Sure, the minority students should be able to have a meeting or convocation to discuss whatever topics they want to discuss. They also should have the right to exclude anyone they want to exclude.

According to the article in the Huffington Post, many of the students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sorts of events allow people of color to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment.

Again, what kinds of treatment are these students exposed to? What kind of civil rights laws does Canada have on their books? If you take the word of our tolerant left here in the United States, we’re so much worse than other countries. So, here in the United States, individuals of color must experience things that are so much worse that what the student in Canada are experiencing.

My black friends here in the Birmingham, Alabama area go out to eat at nice restaurants, go shopping, live in nice houses in nice neighborhoods, take trips, get their hair and nails done, etc. They do pretty much all the things that I do. They have jobs and/or own their own businesses. If they’re suffering in any sort of way like the Canadian students claim they’re suffering, I want to know about it.

We all know that liberals change the definition or racism, sexism, and every other “ism” to suit their needs at a particular point in time. I am curious, though, to hear about the racist experiences that blacks say they are exposed to in this, the second decade of the twenty-first century. Is someone white physically assaulting them and telling them they’re physically hurting them because they’re black? Is someone white calling them the “N” word and verbally taunting them just because they’re black? Are restaurants refusing to seat them and telling them it’s because they’re black? What is happening to them? I want to know.

I had a black friend to get all out of shape because she went into a fast food burger joint and the teenage white clerk at register acted like she didn’t want to wait on her. She did get her food, sat down, ate, and left. If I’m in a fast food burger joint, I’m not there for a fine dining experience. I’m there because I need to get something to eat quickly and then be on my way. I really don’t care of the black teenage clerk at the register acts like he or she doesn’t want to wait on me. As long as I get my food and get out of there quickly, I’m fine. Again, I’m not there for a fine dining experience.

We’ve all had experiences at nicer restaurants where, for whatever reason, people that arrived after we arrived were seated before us. Then when we were finally seated, we got a table by the kitchen door and then the service was terrible. That’s aggravating and will ruin a perfectly good evening. I don’t blame anyone for being mad about something like that. Did it happen because one or two of your people in your party were black and the hostess was prejudice? Possibly, but unless the hostess specifically says this is the case, you can’t be sure. If this happens, just give the restaurant another chance. If happens again, cross that establishment off of your list. Because I travel a lot, I’ve had issues about being a lone female diner. Sometimes, I’ll opt to sit at the bar, other times I’ll ask to be seated. Sometimes you just have to put up with life’s little nuances.

There are some minorities out there that will accuse a white person of racism if that white person doesn’t smile at them. If you’re a minority and are having to deal with a white person in some sort of customer service capacity and the person is rude, acts like it is an imposition to wait on you, is “short” with you, etc., don’t necessarily assume it is racism. You don’t know anything about that person. The person may not feel well. The person may be having family problems. The person may be having financial problems, health problems, etc. And yes, the person may just be a rude and nasty person. Could they possibly be racist? Of course, but you don’t know that unless they tell you they are. And don’t even think that all white people have perfect lives and should be happy and joyous all the time. That’s not true. Everyone has their problems and their crosses to bear.

If you consider yourself a liberal and a member of the tolerant left, you’re not being very tolerant if you accuse a white person of racism just because they appear distracted when they’re waiting on you, are you? There’s been numerous articles on various leftist websites indicating that all of us white people are naturally racist, that’s in our makeup. BS, I say. As a white person, I resent those kinds of articles. Instead of bringing us together, these articles are causing friction and I don’t like it one bit. We’ve come a long way in fifty years, and it pains this southern white conservative Christian that the “tolerant” left wants to tear down all the progress we have made.