Tag Archives: liberal

THE LIBERAL WAR ON GUNS, AGAIN!

Whenever there’s a mass shooting, the first thing the current president pontificates about is gun violence and how we need more gun laws in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Chicago mayor and White House staffer under Clinton and Obama, Rahm Emanuel, has always said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Of course, Rahm, aka “Dead Fish” meant that another crisis would allow the liberals to further constrict our liberties and therefore allow the government more control over our lives.

The first time I ever shot a gun, I was in my twenties. My apartment had been broken into and I asked my Dad to either give me one of his guns or go with me to buy a gun; then teach me to shoot it. He gave me one of his and the first time I shot it, I fully realized just what power I held in my hands. I had the power to kill someone. Before he would let me take the gun home with me, Daddy asked me, “Are you prepared to use the gun? If you’re not, I won’t let you have it. If you’re not going to use it and be confident in using it, a perpetrator will just wrestle it away from you and perhaps use it on you.” I still have that gun.

Ever since I can remember, Daddy kept a shotgun and a rifle in the back of his closet and a revolver in the night stand drawer on his side of the bed. I think the shotgun and rifle were always loaded and the bullets for the revolver were in the nightstand drawer beside Mama’s side of the bed. From my earliest remembrance, I was not allowed to touch Daddy’s closet door and I didn’t. Furthermore, I was not allowed to touch either of the night stands on either side of their bed. Those places in their bedroom were off-limits to me, plain and simple. There was only a few times I remember Daddy loading the revolver and that was when there had been some sort of incident in Cullman, Alabama.

Fast forward to becoming a teenager and learning to drive. Upon getting my driver’s license, I began driving and there was never a thought as to the deadly weapon I was in charge of. And there still isn’t. When I get in one of my vehicles to go somewhere, I never think about the fact that I’m in control of a deadly weapon, but I am. In fact, I’m constantly touching things that are deadly: a sharp knife, a bottle of drain cleaner, ant hill crystals, etc.

With all this dangerous stuff around at all times, why are liberals continually focusing on guns? Why are they always getting bent out of shape at the mention of the National Rifle Association and not at the mention of one of the many automobile clubs around? The National Rifle Association promotes gun ownership and gun safety while most sanctioned automobile clubs promote the ownership of automobiles and automobile safety.

My best guess that a liberal might give would be that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill whether it be an animal of a person. Whereas, automobiles, drain cleaner, knives, and ant hill crystals have purposes other than to kill. And we all need those things.

There is something else that can be deadly that, in my opinion, none of us need, but some have as pets are big snakes, boa constrictors come to mind. I’ve known a few people that have had them as pets; all guys and in college. If it gets mad, a large boa constrictor can wrap around a person and squeeze in just the right way and kill the person. And what good is a boa constrictor? It’s not going to greet you and the door with its tail wagging. It’s not going to come sit in your lap and watch television with you. It’s not smart to let it sleep in the bed with you. Furthermore, girls are probably not going to like it at all. So why don’t liberals declare war on having boa constrictors as pets? Who needs a boa constrictor?

Since the Umpqua Community College shooting, I’ve seen some of the most ridiculous posts by liberals. Many citing deaths of children, teenagers steeling their Dads’ guns and using the guns to commit murder. But children have been known to get car keys, start the car, and attempt to drive. Teenagers too young to drive have also been knows to do the same.

Nowhere in the constitution are automobiles, knives, ant hill crystals, drain cleaner, or boa constrictors addressed. The right to bear arms is addressed in the second amendment of the constitution and was put there so that citizens could protect themselves from tyrannical government and intruders.

Liberals claim their intentions with gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We all know that’s a joke. We also know that the cities with the strictest gun control laws seem to have the highest gun violence rates.

During the Third Reich, guns were confiscated from all citizens. When the Nazi regime was sending many of its citizens, including Jewish citizens off to the death camps, the people were unable to fight back because they had no guns. Liberals laugh at this and say it couldn’t happen here because our current president and his liberal henchman are such caring persons that they would never do such a thing. I say to this, B.S.

Liberals continue to claim that they are not attempting to abscond with all our guns, but only certain individuals should be allowed to have guns. In other words, you must pass a background check. Well, most states have these in place. The left also wants to ban certain types of firearms. A liberal Facebook friend once posted that there is absolutely no need for anyone to own assault rifles. So, now you have liberals telling us what we need and don’t need. Sounds like communism to me.

There’s so much that I could write about liberals and their goal of creating a society where only criminals and government officials can have guns, thereby asserting additional controls over the populace. But I’ll leave it for another day.

Facebooktwitter

HAS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY BECOME THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE USA?

Former liberal (you might even say Marxist) turned conservative David Horowitz has published a ten-volume compendium of his writings on leftism, The Black Book of the American Left in November 2013. In a November 2013 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Horowitz described his transition from left to right, and discussed the short comings of a conservative movement unwilling to deal with the ugly realities of what the American left represents.

In his speech, Horowitz labeled himself “monomaniacal” in his focus on the left and its relation to communism. His parents self-identified themselves as progressives. The agenda was a Soviet America and the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Something like the liberals describe themselves in the 21st century.

The theme of Horowitz’s speech that day was how the communists had taken over the Democrat party. Horowitz goes on to point out that F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby describes the rich as people who break things and leave them for others to clean up. He thinks that’s a great description of the left and so do I. Remember what mess the individuals in the Clinton Administration left the White House in for the Bush administration personnel to clean up?

Horowitz goes on to indicate that the modern left had learned stealth from their failures in the sixties and that’s why they have succeeded now. Furthermore, Horowitz has pointed out that the right/conservatives have failed to acknowledge that reality. With respect to Obamacare, Horowitz railed against the language used by the left: “single-payer.” Instead, he said, “it is communism,” pointing out that it was state ownership of the means of production. He further indicated that the left hates the Constitution because Madison designed it to thwart the left.

Horowitz then analyzed what he claimed were the four features of leftist mentality. First, he said, the left and the right are on opposite sides for the fundamental divide of the modern age. He feels that the left believes that human beings are inherently good and infinitely malleable, and so can be shaped by proper state guidance. Conservative, by contrast, believe that human beings are responsible for social problems, and concentrating power in the hands of humans is dangerous.

I’m not sure whether I agree with Mr. Horowitz in the above paragraph. Actually, I think the left abhors human beings. They think that you as a human being are stupid to make your own decisions and need the “almighty” left to make you major decisions for you; decisions such as choosing you healthcare plans, choosing your retirement plan, choosing the food you eat, the care you drive, the type of dwelling in which you reside. I definitely think conservatives have a higher respect for their fellow human beings than liberals do.

Mr. Horowitz goes on to state that he feels that conservatives believe that human beings are responsible for social problems and concentrating power in the hand of humans in dangerous. Actually, we are all responsible for the social problems that plague this planet. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Concentrating power in the hand of humans is dangerous? I’m just going to have to leave this one. Who are we to award power to with respect to how we govern ourselves on this planet. Though, government should be by the people and for the people, not the state. Liberals favor a more powerful government and believe that big government can solve our problems. In other words, people exist for the government. Conservative believe that government exists for the people.

Liberals believe that leftism is a crypto-religion. According to Horowitz, they see themselves as a savior People who believe that redemption will take place in this life and I will be a part of it, adhere to the philosophies of Adolph Hitler, and Mao…that’s the American left.

Horowitz also said that the left was characterized by “alienation from this country. What weakens America is actually good. Horowitz cited the Obama administration’s eager withdrawal from Iraq as evidence of the proposition: Obama betrayed every American who gave their life for the people of Iraq. Horowitz also slammed the Obama administration with regard to Benghazi. He indicate d that Benghazi is the most shameful act in the history of the American presidency.

Finally, in his speech, Mr. Horowitz said that the American left lie and you cannot be a leftist without lying about the most basic strategic facts about who you are. He further indicates that we are within reach of a totalitarian state in the country and dark day are ahead.

The right has to put a stop to it, pure and simple.

This article is a summary of an article posted on Brietbart.com entitled, Horowitz at Heritage Foundation: The Communist Party is the Democratic Party. I extend my deepest appreciation to brietbart.com.

Facebooktwitter

AFTER LABOR DAY THOUGHTS

For his Labor Day thoughts, former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, Robert Reich was bemoaning that 24% of private sector workers didn’t get a paid holiday for Labor Day. He was also lamenting that 23% of private sector workers get no paid vacation time during the year. The former Labor secretary also goes on to indicate that what you get in the private sector depends on where you are in the pecking order. He further cites a report from the Economic Policy Institute which shows that only 34$ of workers in the lowest 10 percent by income get any paid holidays and only 39% get any paid vacation. But among the top 10% of workers by income, 93 percent get both paid holidays and paid vacation.

In reality, the 24% of workers that don’t get paid holidays and the 23% that don’t get paid vacation is really pretty good when you take into consideration certain factors. What about contractors? Contractors are folks who are hired by a company or an in-between recruiter to work for a specified hourly rate. Most of the time no benefits are included, and when you don’t work, you don’t get paid. A lot of people choose to be contractors. I was an independent contractor for my first IT job and I was very grateful to have landed that position. I got my foot in the door. Then many folks, as they are winding down their careers choose to go the contracting route. The purpose of this post is not to discuss contracting vs. full employment, but to point out that contracting is a large part of the workforce in the private sector and many do choose it.

With respect to not getting Labor Day off as a paid holiday, remember retailers, food and beverage service workers, and workers in the leisure services may not get Labor Day as a paid holiday. Those people, who enhance our holiday experience, usually get a day off to make up for it.

With respect to Secretary Reich’s lament that 23% of private sectors get to vacation time during the year, you must, again, factor in contractors. If you’re good at what you do and companies seek you out, you have some negotiating power. A good contractor in negotiating his or her hourly rate will take into consideration holidays and vacation. When I’m evaluating a contract position, I decide rates based on a 48-week work year.

I also wonder if the Secretary is taking into consideration the standard custom and practice for new hires in the private sector. Generally new hires, for the first three months of their employment are on a probation. During these first three months no vacation can be taken. It’s been like this since way before I entered the workplace. Also, up until recently, newer employees were not eligible for vacation until after a year. You had to earn vacation first, then you could take it. That trend, though, has reversed and many companies allow an employee to take vacation after their three month probationary period is finished.
Of course, there are workers who work for small businesses who don’t get paid when they don’t work. And while I haven’t done any research on the subject, I suspect that these are young workers just starting out or older workers who may need some income to supplement their Social Security and retirement income.

Of course, this is the same tired old liberal propaganda. In order to take more control over your life, liberals want a government mandate that employers award their employees with paid vacation and paid holidays. They hate capitalism and the private sector because the government/liberals have less control over American citizens.

Up until recently, it was understood, for folks who had less desirable jobs, work hard, take classes, and do what was necessary to get out of that not so desirable situation. In other words, it was up to the individual to plot his or her own destiny. Now it seems as though liberals, having one of their kind as dictator and having a willing media which goes along with anything they do, want the government to come in and further erode our system of free enterprise and capitalism.

To any American, the above should be insulting. It should tell all Americans that the “tolerant left” thinks you’re stupid, thinks you’re morons, and thinks that you are incapable of getting yourself out of a bad job situation and/or plotting your own destiny. They want to control all of that for you.

Sure, there are unfortunate situations out there. Instead of letting free enterprise and capitalism work, liberals are hell bent on showcasing those low percentage hardship cases and righting those; most of the time to the detriment of those who are successful and making an effort to be successful. Look at they did to the best healthcare system on the planet. In order that 15% of the American population who didn’t have health insurance (or so they say) could have health insurance, they made life more difficult for the 85% of Americans who did have health insurance and/or access to healthcare. Even liberals are telling those of us whose life was made more difficult by the ACA, that we’ll get used to the higher premiums and lower standards.

It wasn’t about strengthening our healthcare system, nor was it about providing health care access to those who didn’t have it. It was about usurping one-sixth of the nation’s economy and putting it under the government umbrella.

So goes it…the pontificating of Secretary Robert Reich is not because he and his comrades on the left care so much about you. It’s about bigger government and taking more control your lives.

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

REASONABLE DISCUSSIONS WITH LIBERALS – HOW OXYMORONIC IS THAT?

Conservative Icon, Ann Coulter, has written many books about liberals. One of them is entitled, “How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must.” It was released in 2004 and I can’t remember for the life of me if I’ve read it, and trying to find it in my vast book collection is not on my current list of things to do.

Every boss I’ve ever had has told me that I lacked self-confidence and I do. One even said that he had more confidence in me than I had in me. I also have a tendency to let people take advantage of me or “roll over me.” The lack of self-confidence dates back to my early childhood years. Letting people “roll over me” or take advantage of me comes from being an only child. Not having siblings, I never learned the skill of taking up for myself.

Lacking self-confidence and letting others take advantage of me does not a political blogger/pundit make. I don’t blame family and friends who I grew up around for my short comings. It is what it is and I just have to try a little harder.

The first time I was attacked by a liberal after setting myself out as a political blogger, I was very upset. I realized, though, that as long as I put my feelings and opinions out there, I would be subject to more attacks. Could I stand the heat or did I need to get out of the kitchen. Now, over a year and a half later, I’m still blogging, but do have to remind myself that my stand on the issues is solid and liberal stands on the issues can be refuted.

Liberals think they’re so smart. In fact, most educators/academicians are liberal. That includes your elementary school teachers all the way up to those with doctorates who occupy the ivory towers of institutions of higher education.

Since becoming a political blogger and a utilizer of social media, I have had encounters with numerous liberals. If they’re so smart and so much better than us unenlightened oafs, how come they can’t read something and understand its meaning. I often post something, only to have a liberal make comments that are unrelated to the subject of the post. Sometimes I will have to ask them to go back and re-read what I said.

Liberals also love to accuse conservatives/Republicans of hating minorities and the poor. I can and do regularly deep-six those accusations. It isn’t hard to do.

I’ve also had experiences where I wasn’t discussing politics at all, only to have a liberal inject themselves in a conversation because he or she heard some kind of buzzword or phrase that they didn’t like. When this happens, I never fail to point out that the conversation or thread had nothing to do with a political concept. This is again, an example of liberals not being able to comprehend what is written or said.

Talk about short memories; “liberals, they got em.” On June 17, 2015, a lone gunman who was a known racist and had been pictured in a photo holding up a Confederate battle flag, shot and killed nine black members of a Charleston, South Carolina church. All of a sudden the responsibility for the shooting did not lie with a deranged young man, the responsibility, instead, was the fault of the Confederate flag. Liberals, in their ever continuing rush to judgment, started demanding that Confederate flags cease flying over government buildings. Of course, removing a few flags from a few southern state capitals was not going to satisfy them. They began attacking statutes of military men who fought valiantly for the South. Then, the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP demanded that the historic carving on Stone Mountain, just outside of Atlanta, showcasing Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson be sanded away. That struck a nerve with me and apparently it stuck a nerve with a lot of people.

The City of Birmingham has voted to remove a monument honoring Confederate soldiers and sailors who died during the Civil War.

On Monday, July 15, 2015, nine Alabama state senators introduced a bill at the beginning of a special legislative session that is designed to protect monuments on publicly owned property. The bill would outlaw the removal or relation of any statute or monument on public property honoring individuals or groups which participated in seventeen different military campaigns. Any group that wants to be exempt from the law would have to get permission from the Alabama Historical Commission. So, the state of Alabama is scrambling to keep the Feds and their wrecking balls from descending upon us and destroying history. I don’t know if other southern states are following suit. This is all well and good, but with the way the current dictator is taking us, those wrecking balls may be headed this way and states’ rights and the U.S. Constitution be damned.

Now, an alleged Islamic terrorist has killed five Marines in Chattanooga and I’ve heard very little talk regarding whether or not we should get rid of all symbols and statutes relating to Islam. Liberals who claim to be fair-minded and caring aren’t saying a word. While both liberals and conservatives lamented the shooting of the nine Charlestonians, I haven’t seen one liberal condemn the shooting. Instead, they are playing a waiting game to see how the investigation plays out. They didn’t do this in the shooting of Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, nor did they do this in the death of Freddie Gray of Baltimore.

The current President has often lectured the American people, stating that we should not judge the religion of Islam by the acts of a few, but I haven’t heard him say anything about not judging southerners by the actions of one who was obviously deranged.

Could liberalism be a pre-cursor to Alzheimer’s? Ann’s book was published in 2004. Maybe I should read it or re-read it.

Facebooktwitter