Tag Archives: Mike Pense

ARE FEMINISTS DESTROYING WOMEN?

With the many recent revelations by women who are alleging to have suffered sexual assault and abuse by various men, most of them famous in some way or the other, I’m getting the feeling that men are getting scared, and may become hesitant to have lunch, coffee, dinner, or meet in an office alone with any woman, even if that woman has been a valued colleague of theirs for years.

Vice President, Mike Pence, has indicated that he will not have lunch, dinner, or meet with a woman unless his wife is present. While that is certainly admiral, I think it’s carrying things a little too far. I had a job for over fifteen years where I worked and traveled mostly with men. I frequently had lunch and dinner with colleagues, met with them alone, and have even met with them in hotel rooms. All of these associates were consummate professionals and nothing out of the ordinary took place and wasn’t even thinkable.

With all the women who are trotting out and getting their fifteen minutes of fame, I believe that some are legitimate, but I also believe that some may be lying through their teeth. In the case of Judge Roy Moore, candidate for U.S. Senator from Alabama, some women are only alleging that he asked them out when they were in their teens and he was in his early thirties. The act of asking a young woman out on a date is not a crime, nor does it constitute sexual abuse. But once the woman comes out and speaks, feminists began screaming that the so-called victim deserves to be believed, and the man should be demonized for life. As in the cases of Michael Brown and the Duke University Lacrosse team, the alleged assailants are guilty, and the victims are innocent. Even if facts and investigations prove otherwise at later dates, the men’s lives are ruined anyway.

If I’m a working man with a family whose job it is to regularly interact with others in my field, both men and women, should I be concerned that some woman, a subordinate, a colleague, or even a boss may decide that they want to make trouble for me, and allege that I behaved inappropriately when alone with them? Maybe. It’s certainly something to think about.

If men are apprehensive about being around women because they fear being accused of inappropriate behavior, what’s this going to do to the progress women have made since the early seventies when it became commonplace for women to be hired to perform jobs that had traditionally been held by men? If a woman and a man are the top two candidates for a job such as the one I had for years, would the person in charge of hiring, to be on the safe side, opt to hire the man? What about promotions. Is this going to hurt qualified women’s chances of getting well-deserved promotions?

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, many big decisions and strategies are made over lunch, dinner, coffee, and even drinks late at night in a bar.  If restrictions are put on these types of meetings, less is going to get done. Sure, guidelines can be implemented. But isn’t this just adding more layers of bureaucracy and more layers of stress?

From the day after President Trump’s inauguration, radical feminists have fought everything he and his administration have done, and are continuing to do so. They thought they were cute dressing up as women’s body parts and wearing the so-called vagina hats. But all they were doing were embarrassing themselves and, embarrassing the good and decent hard-working women out there who want to have the same opportunities as men, and compete for the same jobs as men, but don’t want to destroy men, our fathers, our brothers, our cousins, our nephews, our uncles, our sons, our husbands, and our boyfriends.

Furthermore, these feminists, including the queen of them all, Hillary Clinton, not only want to destroy men, particularly men who are white, Christian, and conservative, they also want to destroy the women who don’t see eye to eye with them. Women who didn’t support Hillary Clinton are of course, deplorables, but we are also problematic and a disgrace to our gender.

Several years ago, young black conservative, Jason Riley authored a book directed at the left entitled, “Please stop helping us.” He’s asking the liberal establishment to please stop helping blacks and describes how the liberal establishment has actually hurt blacks, not helped them.

Could the same thing be happening to women, could the radical feminists possibly destroy all the progress for which women have worked so hard? I believe that’s possible. So, to you, radical feminists, please stop helping us. You nothing but problematic and a disgrace to my gender.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERALS HAVE THE MATURITY OF HIGH SCHOOL SOPHOMORES

Think back to your high school days, those days where the “cool crowd” ruled. The “cool crowd” consisted mostly of the athletes, beauty queens, the talented, those whose parents had money, and yes, maybe those who were extremely smart. Those not in the “cool crowd” were the students who were not the very talented, not the very beautiful, not the very athletic, etc. Even the teachers favored the students who were part of the “cool crowd,” often taking an interest in the top two or three in the class, to the detriment of the remainder of the other students. The students who were part of the “cool crowd” often mistreated those students were not a part of the “cool crowd,” often to the point of hurting them so much that they experienced difficulties later in life. I shouldn’t have to further illustrate this because you surely get my drift.

My high school graduating class currently has socials once a quarter. At a recent reunion, it was suggested by one of the class leaders that we put our petty issues behind us and go forward as a class and be there for one another. In a recent email, another class leader acknowledged that for some classmates, high school was not a pleasant experience, but urged those folks who may not have warm fuzzy feeling about their high school days to come back and be a part of the class.

Today’s liberals, even though they are well into adulthood, still have the maturity of high school sophomores. They think of themselves as the “cool crowd,” and often mistreat anyone who doesn’t have the same political philosophy as they do. I was purposefully not invited to a cousin’s wedding because of my political ideology. I have an alleged friend who entertains a lot, mostly dinner parties for her little clique. She’s a liberal and has never invited me to one of her little soirees because I’m a conservative and might embarrass her in front of her elitist friends. I also suspect that I was left out of an Aunt’s will because of my political philosophy. And if you’re wondering, I do have a few liberals in my family.

Liberals are nothing but bullies. As we all know, they don’t hesitate to call anyone who doesn’t agree with them names such as moron, idiot, clueless, dumb, mentally retarded (even though that term is not politically correct, except when it pertains to conservatives), etc.

Even though central Alabama is one of the major conservative strongholds, we do have liberals. And those liberals are likely to be nasty, hateful people, because they are in the minority, and they know it. But that doesn’t keep these liberals from acting like high school sophomores.

A guy who was a year ahead of me in high school requested friendship from me back in 2010. He was and still is very brilliant, and was one of those students who the teachers favored. Because he was a strong liberal, he, his liberal friends, and I often got into serious political discussions. Like all liberals, he is full of hate and abhors all who do not agree with him politically. After Donald Trump received the Republican nomination for president, this FB friend indicated that he would unfriend anyone who was a Trump supporter because of his hatred for Trump and Trump supporters. After indicating that I was a Trump supporter, he promptly unfriended me. If I were to ever meet up with this person face to face, I have no doubt he would be the same snooty elitist person toward me now as he was to me in high school, even though I was one of the smart, talented, and pretty students in my high school.

Another guy who was in my graduating class and one of the smart, elitist, teacher favorites in high school is now a big liberal and an educator in one of the liberal strongholds of the United States. Even though I was never FB friends with him, he was one of those who indicated that anyone who didn’t support the policies of Barack Obama was a racist. He was one of those folks who felt that all white people were born racist and because of that should give themselves lashes with a whip (well maybe not a whip, maybe a fly swatter) every night before going to sleep to atone for their racist indwelling. He and I had a back and forth on a mutual friend’s thread. In the end, I sent him a private message telling him just what I thought about him and his elitist self. I even went back to our high school days. Needless to say, he never responded back to me.

Does it sound like these individuals who I have discussed above never matured past high school? Or maybe you might say, well, these are examples of only a few of “not so nice” people, but not all liberals are like this. Wrong. That’s not what I’ve observed over the years that I’ve been observing the behavior of the left.

Look around. Get on liberal Internet forums and discussion threads. It’s not illegal to do that; nor is it illegal to make comments on these threads. It is very rare to find a liberal thread where four-letter words are not used on a regular basis. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Kellyanne Conway, and other administration officials and prominent Republicans are constantly trashed and called and accused of unspeakable things. Issues are never discussed, just all-out mud-slinging takes place on these forums. Calling people names, especially with regard to their looks and their actions? Sure sounds sophomoric to me.

And this failure by liberals to get over Hillary Clinton’s loss in her bid for the presidency is, perhaps, the most glaring example of the immature left. This reminds me of high school beauty pageants, particularly mine. With few exceptions, the winner was generally a surprise contestant. Judges for the pageant almost always lived outside the area; and thus, had no idea regarding the popularity of the young ladies competing for the crown. However, there were always two or three girls who were the favorites. One year, in my high school’s beauty pageant, a relatively unknown young woman was crowned, while one of the favorites, in a rage, attempted to storm off the stage when the winner was announced. Luckily the loser was corralled before it became obvious to the audience what was taking place. Spoiled and immature? Yep! The loser acted then just like liberals are acting now. There is one difference, though. The young lady who lost, like the rest of us, eventually grew up. The Hillary supports are adults who give the appearance of never having grown up.

Liberals are the true racists, bigots, hypocrites, liars, and haters. They don’t seem capable of discussing the issues. Instead, they resort to their name-calling, their hate, and their venom-spewing. Like the members of the “cool crowds,” common to all high schools, they think they can do anything and get by with it because they’re smart, beautiful, athletic, and talented. The teacher loved maybe the top five of them and couldn’t care less about the other students. So, they were allowed to get by with being snobby, often making the lives of other students miserable to the point that these students suffered difficulties later in life. However, what do they care?

Liberals don’t care about anything except themselves and controlling the lives of everyone else. They certainly don’t care about anyone’s happiness or well-being, unless, of course, you carry water for their leftist/socialist/communist agenda.
Liberals have only the maturity of high school students, and I don’t look for that to change anytime soon.

Facebooktwitter

LIBERALS MAKE POLITICAL HAY FROM LOUISIANA FLOODING

When Katrina make landfall on the coast of Mississippi and levees were breached in New Orleans, causing city-wide flooding and other extreme damage, especially in the low income area known as the Ninth Ward, my thoughts were as follows: these are our neighbors to the west, a half-day drive from the Birmingham area, and they are in peril. It was reported by the media that the New Orleans Superdome, a shelter for those who were unable to leave the city, was not safe itself and the atmosphere inside the dome, occupied by many stranded Americans was chaotic. Where was the mayor of New Orleans?

Then, all of a sudden, we hear that the reason for all the suffering by our neighbors to the west was because George W. Bush, along with all Republicans/conservatives hated blacks. This, of course, began with liberals telling us that the reason folks could not get help from the government was one of racism. This, of course, added a new dimension to the already unfathomable scene in New Orleans.

When the rains came and the flood waters rose to epic levels in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and surrounding areas, I hoped the liberals would not politicize  this natural disaster where our neighbors and fellow Americans were in peril.

My hopes were soon dashed when I discovered an article on the Modern Liberals website, Conservative Louisiana Flood Victims are Suddenly Silent about Big Government. The purpose of this article was nothing but to express vitriolic hate for conservatives. A commenter on the article went on to insinuate that conservative flood victims should not be allowed to accept FEMA or other government assistant; instead, they should have to fend for themselves.

One of the paragraphs reads, “Now that the Louisiana Flood of 2016 is beginning to recede, guess who is outraged that the federal government isn’t moving fast enough to help them? If you guessed the conservative residents of Louisiana who do not understand how government or federal disaster declarations work, you would be correct.” About ten to fifteen minutes of research indicated that the above is just not true. I could not find a single writing where conservatives were griping about government help or the lack thereof.

Of course, liberals couldn’t stop themselves from talking about the Bush response to Katrina and the much despised fly-over when many felt that President Bush should have set foot on the ground in the hurricane ravaged areas. As of this writing, the current President has been playing golf and not spoken out about the floods. I hear, though, he is planning a visit to Louisiana in the near future, but there is speculation that he’s only doing it because close advisors have reminded him of the flack President Bush caught for the fly-over.

Liberals also resurrected 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, blaming Congressional Republicans for stalling the passage of a relief bill for Hurricane Sandy. According to townhall.com, the Republican led Congress wrote up Hurricane Sandy Relief legislation, and then Harry Reid’s Democrat controlled Senate loaded it with pork, including many things that could hardly count as relief for victims. The barbecue feast included, but was not limited to, more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for Homeland Security, $150 million for the NOAA to dole out to fisheries in Alaska, and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in D.C. Also, a whopping $13 billion would go to mitigation projects to prepare for future storms.  Budget watchdogs dubbed the 94-page emergency spending bill, “Sandy Scam.”

Of course, the main stream media jumped all over Speaker Boehner’s pulling of the non-relief bill as leaving the Sandy victims out in the cold, while failing to lay any of the blame on Harry Reid’s Senate, for not sending the house a clean bill.

Also, what episode of liberal hate toward conservatives would be complete without some tidbit from the “Occupy Democrats” organization? According to that group of liars, Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, took the opportunity to score some cheap political points by visiting flood-ravaged Louisiana when Governor, John Bel Edwards pleaded with politicians not to interfere. Occupy Democrats alleges that candidate Trump and Vice Presidential running mate, Mike Pense, began causing problems because personnel had to be pulled from aiding in the relief efforts to provide security for the candidates, when in actuality, Trump provided his own private security for which he pays, not the tax payers.

It was also indicated by Occupy Democrats that Trump and Pense, handed out supplied for about one minute. Then Trump caused chaos at the scene by shaking hands and signing autographs, which diverted the attention of volunteers away from their appointed tasks.

According to numerous sources, Governor Edwards and former Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, were grateful for candidate Trump’s visit and hope that both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton will visit Louisiana.

The Occupy Democrats article did not mention one thing about the truckload of supplies that Donald Trump sent to the flooded area, nor did they mention that the candidate spent some time talking to people and touring some of the damaged homes.

And how did the Trump jet get permission to land in Louisiana? A flight plan had to be filed, so someone had to okay that. Another little fact conveniently forgotten by Occupy Democrats.

As they do with almost everything, liberals have made the Louisiana floods and the ongoing relief efforts political. Wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, liberals could get through a major issue without exuding their intense hatred for Republicans and conservatives, or without blaming George W. Bush?

I haven’t heard anything about climate change, but I’m sure it’s coming.

Facebooktwitter

JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS?

On Thursday, March 26, Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Following the signing, many politicians, celebrities, and journalists were outraged, saying the law was a license to discriminate against gay people. Liberal rag, Daily Kos calls it a hate law and Indiana’s new right to discriminate law.
According to weeklystandard.com, the first RFRA was a 1997 federal law that signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representative where it was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer. Then it sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law re-established a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases. The law allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

If there is already a federal law in place, then why would any state see the need to pass its own RFRA? According weeklystandard.com, in a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. When Senator Schumer was asked to comment on Indiana now passing RFRA, the Senator declined.

It certainly doesn’t appear that Indiana’s RFRA grants a license to discriminate. In fact, twenty-eight other states have enacted their own RFRAs. These states, including Indiana, have never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations.

As a free market capitalist, I do believe that a private business owner or owners do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone on any basis. I can just hear a liberal asking me the following, “So, you believe it’s okay to discriminate?” My answer to that liberal would be no, it is definitely not okay to discriminate. I should have that right, though.

I’ve used this example many times and I’m going to use it again. I have a cake-baking business located in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I’m an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and will not bake Auburn cakes. Is that a smart business plan? Absolutely not and I will probably go out of business soon. But ultimately, I should have that right. I’ll give you another example. I own a restaurant. Do I have the right to refuse to seat Blacks? Yes, I have that right. Is that a smart business strategy? No, and I will probably go out of business if my restaurant’s not burned to the ground first. I should have that right, though.

I’ve always said this, “Just because you have a right to do it, doesn’t make it right to do it.” This is something the tolerant left doesn’t seem to understand. They can’t seem to make the distinction. Aren’t they supposed to be so smart? They do have the academic elites in their corner. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend one time. The discussion accelerated to the point that I did raise my voice. Actually, I think she did understand, but just wanted to be whiny like a lot of liberals.

Why are liberals making such a big deal out of Indiana’s RFRA law? Like I’ve said many times, liberals don’t care about facts and while they can read words on a page or on a screen, they are incapable of understanding what they read (at least that’s been my experience). Since they don’t care about facts, they’re not going to take the time to research anything. If they can twist something a conservative does to make that conservative look like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a hater of any kind, they’re going to jump on it.

Facebooktwitter

JUST WHAT IS MEANT BY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS?

On Thursday, March 26, Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Following the signing, many politicians, celebrities, and journalists were outraged, saying the law was a license to discriminate against gay people. Liberal rag, Daily Kos calls it a hate law and Indiana’s new right to discriminate law.
According to weeklystandard.com, the first RFRA was a 1997 federal law that signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representative where it was sponsored by then Congressman Chuck Schumer. Then it sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote. The law re-established a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases. The law allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

If there is already a federal law in place, then why would any state see the need to pass its own RFRA? According weeklystandard.com, in a 1997 Supreme Court case (City of Boerne v. Flores), the court held that federal RFRA was generally inapplicable against state and local laws. Since then, a number of states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. When Senator Schumer was asked to comment on Indiana now passing RFRA, the Senator declined.

It certainly doesn’t appear that Indiana’s RFRA grants a license to discriminate. In fact, twenty-eight other states have enacted their own RFRAs. These states, including Indiana, have never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations.

As a free market capitalist, I do believe that a private business owner or owners do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone on any basis. I can just hear a liberal asking me the following, “So, you believe it’s okay to discriminate?” My answer to that liberal would be no, it is definitely not okay to discriminate. I should have that right, though.

I’ve used this example many times and I’m going to use it again. I have a cake-baking business located in the Birmingham, Alabama area. I’m an Alabama Crimson Tide fan and will not bake Auburn cakes. Is that a smart business plan? Absolutely not and I will probably go out of business soon. But ultimately, I should have that right. I’ll give you another example. I own a restaurant. Do I have the right to refuse to seat Blacks? Yes, I have that right. Is that a smart business strategy? No, and I will probably go out of business if my restaurant’s not burned to the ground first. I should have that right, though.

I’ve always said this, “Just because you have a right to do it, doesn’t make it right to do it.” This is something the tolerant left doesn’t seem to understand. They can’t seem to make the distinction. Aren’t they supposed to be so smart? They do have the academic elites in their corner. I tried to explain this to a liberal friend one time. The discussion accelerated to the point that I did raise my voice. Actually, I think she did understand, but just wanted to be whiny like a lot of liberals.

Why are liberals making such a big deal out of Indiana’s RFRA law? Like I’ve said many times, liberals don’t care about facts and while they can read words on a page or on a screen, they are incapable of understanding what they read (at least that’s been my experience). Since they don’t care about facts, they’re not going to take the time to research anything. If they can twist something a conservative does to make that conservative look like a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or a hater of any kind, they’re going to jump on it.

Facebooktwitter