Tag Archives: conservative

DEFINING LIBERALISM

A liberal Facebook friend posted a meme defining liberalism several weeks ago. This definition allegedly was from Webster’s Dictionary and stated the following: “1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart, bountiful. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed. II.a.1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech, or action. “The liberal FB friend went on to comment that if this was defining liberalism, then she was proud to be a liberal.

definition-liberal-meme-facebook-mcclures-websters

My response back to her was as follows: “So, this is the dictionary definition of liberalism. The liberals I’ve been exposed to have anything but a free and generous heart. Their idea of helping those less fortunate is supporting mostly worthless government programs where the tax dollar goes up the ladder and then down the ladder where only 3 to 5 cents of that dollar actually makes it to the cause. A broad enlightened mine? Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed? Don’t make me laugh. Liberals are the real racists, bigots, and hypocrites in today’s America. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech, or action. Again, don’t make me laugh. Liberals have been fighting free speech and free thought for decades. I don’t know one liberal, not one, who stands for the above.”

In researching the above, I happened upon another defining liberalism meme from The Federalist Papers that states the following:”1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart with the earnings of others; very stingy with their own earnings. 2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a narrow and darkened mind. 3. Free or obligated to be narrow-minded, bigoted or bondage to unlawful authority or immoral creed. II.n 1. Any person who advocates anti-God/Life, pro-murdering, idiotic perversions, pro-tax redistribution of others wealth schemes, anti-American, anti-Family, pro-Marxist, pro-Communist propaganda and Big-Brother government.“

liberals-defined-750

Of course, the above definition was meant to be a spoof, but the meme is certainly defining liberalism in this, the second half of the second decade of the twenty-first century. It has been my observation that a typical liberal is most, if not all the above. Note: If former president Barack Obama can use the term, ‘typical white woman,’ I can use the term, ‘typical liberal.’

Liberals are not that generous, unless it is with someone else’s money. Statistics show that conservatives are more likely to donate to charitable causes and engage is hands-on community service than liberals. Until recently, I was a member of an international service organization. Within the United States, about ninety percent of the members of this organization were conservative/Republican. All liberals I know are extremely narrow-minded and bigoted, not open to new thoughts and ideas, only seeing things the way they want to see them. Furthermore, they have no tolerance for ideas, thoughts, philosophies, etc. unless those ideas, thoughts, and philosophies the same as their ideas, thoughts, and philosophies.

Most atheists and pro-abortion activists are liberal. In defining liberalism, the spoofy Federalist Papers indicates that liberals are ‘pro-murdering.’ Well, that’s not exactly true all the time. Liberals are for killing the unborn who have done nothing to anyone. On the flip-side, most liberals are against capital punishment, the putting to death of those who have destroyed other people’s lives.

Here is a quote by John F. Kennedy from the Good Reads website: “If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

This, of course, took place over a generation ago and some of it’s not clear, but it’s certainly different from the dictionary definition quoted in the first paragraph of this article. I would probably be a liberal according to the JFK definition and so would most of my readers, I hope. We care about the welfare of the people, their health, housing, schools, jobs, civil rights, and civil liberties. Liberals say they care about these things, but we know differently. Liberals only want to control your lives…what you say, what you eat, what you drive, your thermostat setting in your house, etc. They think they know more about what’s best for you than you do.

I’m usually working in my office when Sean Hannity airs on Fox News, so I don’t often watch the show, except for snippets. During the last two weeks, though, I’ve watch the show in its entirety for the purpose of determining whether or not what liberals have been saying about his show, that it’s all about hate and vitriol with the segments coming only from far-right hate websites, is true.

Duh! Silly me! Do liberals ever tell the truth? Do they care about the truth? Do they care about facts? I’ve given you a few examples of liberalism defined. Still confused? Don’t be alarmed. It’s fact that liberals change the definition of racism to suit their needs of the moment and don’t hesitate to change it back if later, their needs change. They don’t know what they’re about. All they know is that they hate anyone who doesn’t agree with them and feel that it’s okay to destroy anyone who runs afoul of them, by any means necessary.

Facebooktwitter

1984 ARE WE THERE – PART THREE

Remember newspeak? It’s the fictional language in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. Newspeak was created by Mr. Orwell’s totalitarian state of Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought or what was commonly referred to in the novel as “thought crime.”

In order to maintain maximum control over the outer party, words and phrases were eliminated and replaced with inner party approved or politically correct verbiage.

The aim of newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts that reinforce the total dominance of the state.

In the past forty or fifty years, many words, at the behest of the left have been considered politically incorrect to utter. These words were replaced by other words that the left considered acceptable and less offensive. One such example includes the words, “retarded” or “handicapped.” “Retarded” and “handicapped” have now been replaced with the word, “challenged.” We have the politically correct terms, physically challenged and mentally challenged, and to utter the words retarded or handicapped is considered offensive and language that shouldn’t ever be used. Perhaps the word, “challenged” is more acceptable and less demeaning, but we’ve come to a point where uttering either retarded or handicapped can get you in trouble with the left, sometimes to the point of losing your job and/or being socially ostracized.

Has a liberal ever asked you what you mean when you say, “Take our country back?” Of course, it means getting rid of the liberals and liberal philosophy that have been elected to office or appointed to certain governmental positions. When explaining that to a liberal, you may see a look of disappointment on their faces. They didn’t want to hear that, they wanted you to say that you wanted the strip Obama of the presidency because of the color of his skin. Because of the wishes of the left, the term “take our country back,” is now considered a buzz phrase for take our country back from its black president. Liberals decided this and it’s a lie!

Presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s campaign theme, “Make America Great Again,” is now considered racist. Liberals are insisting that it means take America back to before Civil Rights legislation was enacted (1964). That’s ridiculous and we all know it. But the liberals are pounding a racism connotation to Mr. Trump’s theme and the main stream media is running with it. Thus, those who are not particularly politically astute or don’t follow politics, opting instead to watch mindless TV such as “Dancing with the Stars,” have no choice but to believe that it’s true. The result is votes for Hillary.

Even using what the left considers improper in describing a person of color is labeled racism. The University of Alabama football team has had string of excellent running backs, all of them black.  A few years ago, one of these great running backs was referred to as a “beast.” He was. But the left tried to make that into something racist. Thankfully, they didn’t get far. Don’t you panty-waists interject yourselves into our football! You will regret it!

I don’t deal in buzz words or phrases, and when confronted with a liberal saying to you, “this is a buzzword for thus and so,” tell that liberal to take a hike.

Another good example of how liberals are attempting to force “newspeak” upon us is the renaming of “illegal aliens/immigrants” to “undocumented workers.” Even the conservative leaning media outlets are saying “undocumented workers.” While we all know that undocumented workers are nothing but illegal aliens or immigrants, liberals have repetitively forced this language on us to the extent that we hear it and think nothing about it or about using the new term ourselves. Furthermore, the left generally refuses to distinguish between legal immigrants who are here in this country legally and may be preparing for rightfully becoming U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who have broken the law and entered this country illegally, but think they are entitled to the same benefits as all American citizens. With the left continually failing to make this distinction, people are once again being brainwashed into assuming that conservatives are against all forms of immigration. This is, of course, another leftist lie.

In 1984, the novel, the inner party was working to convert the language of the outer party in the region called, Oceania, from oldspeak to newspeak and had established a timeline of sixty or so years to do so.

While liberals claim to be advocates of tolerance and free thinking, it’s not true. In fact, nothing could be any further from the truth, unless your free thought aligns up with liberal thought. Is the left attempting to alter the way we talk and adopt a politically correct language such as newspeak? I’m giving you my opinion and you can decided.

Facebooktwitter

MINDBOGGLING!

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015, talkingpointsmemo.com ran an article entitled, “Obama: Harry Reid and I are Teaming up to Take on the Crazies.” The current president had just returned from vacation and said in a Monday night fundraising event held near Las Vegas he attended with Harry Reid, that he felt refreshed and ready to “deal with the crazies” with the Senator’s help. The “crazies” that the current president is referring to are possibly those Americans who do not support him or his policies.

The link to this article was shared by one of my liberal Facebook friends. After reading the article, I viewed the comments made to the Facebook link and then wrote the following comment: “I’m sure that while in private, Presidents Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 made remarks about those who disagreed with them, I don’t remember either one of them, except maybe in campaigns, disparaging or belittling Americans whose views weren’t in lockstep with theirs. In fact all three of these Republican presidents respected the right of the American people to disagree with their elected officials and hold them accountable.”

To my comment, a liberal 1 replied: “So, spending five years pretending that Obama is a Kenyan is dismissed as “not being in lockstep”?

I wasn’t sure what this person meant so I indicated the following to him: “I think you may have missed my point. It appears that Obama is calling those who don’t agree with him, “crazies.” My point is that I don’t recall Reagan, Bush 1, or Bush 2 calling those who didn’t agree with them denigrating names, with the exception of maybe on the campaign trail where all gloves are off.”

Liberal 2 Replied as follows: “Remember the Dixie chicks that the Shrub went after, difference is he just told his henchmen to do his dirty work like a crime family does, that way they’ve plausible denial to go with their missing testicles.”

It’s been my observation that liberals often do not understand what they read or they don’t want to understand what they read. So, I replied back to Liberal 2: “You obviously either are not capable of reading comprehension or you’re attempting to change the subject, something you liberals always do when you’re on the losing side.”

The rest of the thread went as follows:

Liberal 1 (again): “I think you’re the one who says that Obama is calling “those who don’t agree with him” “crazies”. I would say that he’s only calling “crazies” “crazies”. Why do you think he’s extending that word to nearly half the country? There are plenty of crazies out there without needing to pretend that he’s a jackass who calls everybody who disagrees with him crazy.”

Liberal 3: “you know shutting down the government because youdont like the black president is CRAZY! voting against the presidents healthcare plan 57 times because you dont like the black president is CRAZY! voting against the peace deal with iran because you dont like the black president is CRAZY! yes the president has had to’work’ with the CRAZIES for 7years! he has ever right to call it for what it is with a 9% approval rating the crazies on the right have earned that name and anyone who doesnt see this is also CRAZY!”

Possible Conservative: So half of America is crazy (Liberal 1)? Doomasss.

Liberal 1 to possible conservative: “Yeah, that’s an apt response to my statement saying exactly the opposite. #idiot “Why do you think he’s extending that word to nearly half the country?” means “of course he’s not extending that word to nearly half the country.”

Liberal 3: “Nancy G you are really a foolish thing. you hear and see what you want to. these people call this mighty president everything in the book except the child of GOD. That’s why the world hate the repub’s.”

Me: “(Liberal 3), you need to work on your reading comprehension like most of your liberal counterparts. I did not say that those who don’t care for the current President have never called him names. In fact all presidents have been called names since this country was founded. I would ask that you read it again, but I’m afraid you still wouldn’t understand the point I’m making.”

Liberal 4: “You don’t think it’s CRAZY to sign a pledge to obstruct the president is appropriate? You don’t think that screaming at kindergartners attending an English/Arabic school is crazy? You don’t think that grown men mobilize to shut down a military excercise (Jade Helm) is crazy? You don’t think killing people over abortion is crazy? You don’t think imposing a narrow set of religious creed on an entire nation is crazy? You don’t think advocating killing gays is crazy? You don’t think that carrying an assault rifle wherever you go is crazy? Guess what, Nancy, you stupid backward thing, YOU ARE CRAZY”

Me: “Liberal 4, you’re another liberal who needs to work on reading comprehension. You are totally off the subject of my post.”

Liberal 5: “Much of the rhetoric coming for GOP politicians is crazy. There’s nothing wrong with being honest. Don’t like being called crazy, QUIT ACTING LIKE IT”

Liberal 6: “We all read your post Nancy. You talked about respecting those who disagree with one’s viewpoint. This was largely true of Reagan and Bush 1, *as well as* their Democratic counterparts in Congress and presidential nominees. When Clinton was first elected though, his *Republican* opponents did not respect him and tried very hard (outside of elections) to get rid of him, through nasty and unwarranted investigations and legal technicalities. And months after Bush 2 was elected, he and Cheney tried to tar opponents as being unpatriotic and dangerous: “you’re with us or you’re against us”. The tactics of GOP have become more extreme since the 80s. Witness in your own state, where the governor has gone after Planned Parenthood. Where’s the respect for differing views you talked about?”

Me: “I didn’t say anything about respect for differing views, I said respect for people who have differing views. Having said that, having respect for those who differ with you, doesn’t mean that as an elected official you are not allowed to pursue your policies. Every president has his political enemies and Bill Clinton was no exception. That wasn’t the point of my post. For a President of United States to call those who disagree with him crazies is out of line. He is the President of the United States and should act Presidential. If some Democrat Congressman wants to call me and my conservative counterparts crazy, idiots, morons, I’m not going to think that much about it. It’s politics and it is what it is. That’s not to say that I won’t comment about it on a forum or on my political blog, though. I do remember something about the “unpatriotic” comment during the Bush administration. In googling, I couldn’t find anything about Bush 2 saying that, though. And in my post, I said I didn’t recall. The “either you’re with us or you’re against us” comment was made to other countries when President Bush was trying to get a coalition together to fight the war on terror after the 9/11 attacks”

Liberal 7: “Nancy is an uneducated wannabe, who believe the real GOP like her. Not…they hate you and your kind.”

Me: “I read every comment on this post and below there are some comments made by persons, possibly conservative, who don’t seem to care for Harry Reid and the current president. But my post struck a nerve and triggered vitriolic comments. Yes, my post was a little different from those below. Being a conservative blogger, I don’t let comments such as those above bother me.”

Liberal 8: Dixie Chicks ring a bell?
Me: “Here is what President Bush said about the Dixie Chicks: But President Bush argued: “The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say.… they shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. Here is the link to the article: http://www.thenation.com/…/ten-years-ago-today-dixie…/”

I’m a professional blogger and if I’m going to put my views in writing out there, I have to be prepared to endure comments such as these. This back and forth went on from the afternoon of 8/25 to the morning of 8/26 when I apparently shut these folks up with my research and my link. After that, I heard nothing more. While getting embroiled in something like this was not what I wanted, I’m glad that I stuck it out and was finally able to end it with the truth, something liberals can’t stand.
I have this thread documented and plan to show it to a few Democrat friends and asked them if the people who said the things above are really people you want to associate yourself with.

My original post was true and not necessarily that significant. If any of the posters felt that I was wrong, they could have said it and pointed me to the error of my ways. But the above is what I got. Amazing, isn’t it?

Facebooktwitter

TO THE “TOLERANT LEFT”: GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE

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.

Facebooktwitter

SOTU ACCORDING TO WING NUT GAL

By now we’ve heard a plethora of summaries and opinions about Monday’s State of the Union address by the current President of the United States. And here’s another one. While most of the following may be a re-hash of what you’ve already heard, I do have a few insights that are my own, or either I haven’t heard anyone else say these things.

As normal for any Democrat administration, increasing entitlements and government hand-outs is always proposed, with a tax increase for the rich in order to pay for these new “freebies.” New entitlements proposed in the speech include the following:

• First two years of community college tuition for free if the student meets certain      requirements.
• A $3,000 child care tax credit.
• Seven days of sick leave for all American workers.

While these proposals may sound good, bottom line, they are simply mechanisms by which to grow the government and increase the number of people feeding at the government trough. While I’m certainly a believer in safety nets, we just can’t keep giving stuff away. Somebody’s got to pay for it and that somebody is always “the rich.” Your typical liberal will always say, go after the wealthy, they can afford it. And the wealthy can, but can the middle class afford it? It’s ultimately going to be the middle class that gets hurt. When Mr. Rich Man or Ms. Rich Woman finds themselves having to pay more in taxes, that money is going to the government rather than into the private sector, particularly to small businesses. We’d be much better off with that money going into the private sector, growing the economy. When the private sector prospers, more money generally goes to the government, thereby increasing revenue. This is one of those issues that takes two brain cells to understand and liberals either don’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. I could discuss each of the three bulleted points in depth, but that will be left for another blog post.

The current president also touted the U.S. economy, indicating that its growing and creating jobs at the fastest rate since 1999. Yes, there is some optimism out there due to falling gas prices. More Americans have a little extra money in their pockets. However, when you dig deeper, you find a very sluggish economy. In 2009, there were 33 million people on food stamps, now; 46.5 million people are receiving food stamps. The number of people on some sort of government welfare program has doubled since the current president has taken office. Yes, the employment rate is down, but that doesn’t account for the millions of people who have dropped out of the work force entirely. Right now, there are approximately 92 million people not working.

Of course, the current president is going to boast about healthcare, stating that there are so many more Americans insured today than there were a year ago. However, insurance premiums have increased for most of us and the healthcare we’re getting is not as good as most of us had. When the extra money in the pockets of the middle class due to falling gas prices disappears due to the increase in health insurance premiums, how optimistic are folks going to be? Also, average income has dropped steadily since 2009.

The economy is still in dire straits and can only improve with a strong private sector, something this president and the liberals are fighting and will continue fighting tooth and nail.

Now for my favorite, falling energy prices. In his speech, the president took credit for falling gas prices. Once again, the falling gas prices are due to increased exploration on state and private lands and a little innovation called hydraulic fracturing or more commonly known as fracking. And you know something; liberals are against fracking and increased oil exploration. They hate it and want to further regulate it. In fact, the current administration is planning on implementing additional regulations for oil exploration on state and federal lands. Now what’s this going to result in? If you said gasoline prices increasing, you’re right. I suspect, though, that these regulations will be timed so that the effects will be felt sometime around the 2016 presidential election. If a Republican wins the Whitehouse, he or she and the rest of the Republicans will be blamed for increases in the price of gas. If a Democrat wins the Whitehouse, it will be business as usual. Democrats don’t care about anything except controlling as many aspects of our lives as possible. They’ll somehow blame everything on the Republicans with the mainstream media getting on board with them. Like I’ve said before, facts don’t matter to Democrats.

With respect to foreign policy, remember Baghdad Bob? He was the Iraqi official that kept telling his people that Iraq was winning the war with the allied forces, including the United States, while we were continually bombing them. He became somewhat of a comical character. While this president was discussing foreign policy in his State of the Union address, I couldn’t help think about Baghdad Bob. The world is a dangerous place. ISIS or ISIL is getting stronger and continues to conquer, torture, and kill anyone they don’t like. In fact, ISIL controls more territory in Syria than it did when U.S. airstrikes began six months ago. The threat that there will be another attack on U.S. soil is increasing every day. Four months ago, this president announced that the Arab country of Yemen was stable and served as a model for Middle Eastern states. However, the day of the State of the Union address, Shiite Houthi rebels overtook the presidential palace in Yemen’s capital city of Sanaa, making what a government minister called, “the completion of a coup,” according to CNN.com.

Of course, we all know that the president did not mention the words, Al Qaeda, in his speech and refuses to use the phrase, “Islamic Terrorism.” The primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to keep this country and its people safe from our enemies around the globe. But this president doesn’t seem engaged at all in foreign policy. When the Paris terrorist attacks took place, this president was off touting his great economic policies and didn’t see the need to attend the “we stand with the French” rally that was attended by numerous heads of state from all over the planet, including our allies. Again, this president is not engaged in foreign policy and seems to dismiss the fact that the world is a dangerous place due to the aggressiveness of Islamic terrorism.

And if the above weren’t enough, the current administration is talking with Iran about Iran’s nuclear program in spite of a number of high level democrats who are against negotiations with Iran. Congressional leaders in both chambers are considering a proposal to increase sanctions while international negotiators try to reach an agreement. The president has indicated that he will veto any bill that comes to his desk to increase sanctions on Iran because he feels that such sanctions, which would go into effect June 30, if agreements are not reached, would derail any talks about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The most ridiculous statement made by the current president in the State of the Union is that climate change is the biggest threat to our future. I almost choked on that one. The president went on to state that records show 2014 was the warmest year on record. Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have fallen during the first fifteen years of this century. According to James Delingpole, author of The Little Green Book of Eco-Facism, if you were to take the year 1850 as a starting point, we have experienced about 0.8 degrees Celsius of “global warming.” But if you used a 1,000 year time scale, you’d find that the world’s temperatures had been gently cooling since their high point in the Medieval Warming Period. So, Mr. Delingpole opines that global warming may be happening or it may not be happening. Either way, it doesn’t matter because nothing that climate has been doing in our lifetime is in any way more dramatic than anything it has been doing in the last 10,000 or so years. This says to me that climate change is not really significant and certainly not caused by industrial nations such as the United States.

While I could certainly write a lot more, I’m not because this post may be a little too long to keep your attention. It would be my hope that the above is one of the better analyses of the 2015 State of the Union address, one that you can refer to for reference.

Facebooktwitter