Tag Archives: socialist


As a political blogger, I must be more politically astute that the person on the street. To do that, I must constantly watch the news, watch political commentary, and read blogs and articles. There are those who continually challenge me, forcing me to always stay ahead of the game. These challengers are good, but not as good as me. Remember, I must be better than them in order to succeed.

I’ll be the first to admit that I screw up at times. I get things wrong and even though I know better, I don’t always research as thoroughly as I should before putting my words out there. Notwithstanding the above, I’m still better than my challengers.

I am constantly challenged by those who seek to pin the racist label on any of us who disagree with the current president’s policies. It’s really quite fascinating to see how liberals can spin something that has nothing to do with race into racism.

About a year or two ago, I was having lunch with a staunch liberal and current president supporter. She had read some posts on this blog and told me she couldn’t believe the things I said about liberals. She also asked me what I meant when I used the phrase, “take back our country.” This phrase has been coined as a racist phrase by liberals. When I gave her an answer that didn’t mention the current president, you could tell she was frustrated because she was looking to accuse me of not liking the current president because he is half black. Her response to my bemoaning about what was taking place in the country was, “so that’s because of Obama. It’s his fault.” Some of my answers were yes, particularly about health care, but not all of them. There were some things that I felt went back to the Woodrow Wilson administration, the implementer of what we now call progressivism. She was clearly frustrated that none of my answers contained any racial overtones.

Later in the conversation, sensing her frustration, I told her to quit trying to get me to say something disparaging regarding the current president being half black. That wasn’t going to happen. I further told her that I could see through her like glass. I got the better of her and I should have because it’s my job.

During the 1960s, while the cold war was raging and the civil rights movement was taking place, many people thought that the civil rights leaders might be communists. Communism made people shake in their shoes and the possibility of communism infiltrating the United States was unthinkable. Democrats and Republicans alike were anti-communist.

Now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the word communism doesn’t draw the fear in the hearts of Americans as it once did. In fact some of our far left politicians seem to accept communism as a viable form of governance.

Communism fell in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union crumbled in the late 1980s, roughly a quarter of a century ago. While it still remains in China, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea, people, particularly those on the left seemed desensitized to it. It’s no longer scary to the American people.

We have an avowed socialist running for president and according to many media outlets, Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds to hear him speak and the gap between him and probably Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. While Bernie Sanders is still considered a long shot, he is forcing Hillary to move to the left.

In 1972 and 1988, the Democrat party nominated far left candidates for president, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis respectively. Both were blown away in the general election by the Republican nominees, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush. The American people were not going to elect anyone as far left as McGovern and Dukakis.

Fast forward about twenty-five years and we have elected as president twice, one of the most far-left men in the United States, whose goal is to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

According to lessgovisthebest.com, “At the very core of their Godless ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels selected a few important ideas from the Bible they hated and created a false religion out of their own imaginations, a counterfeit copy of Christianity, without God. With God and sinless servants, communism will work. Communism also may work in a society where simple survival is everyone’s goal. I say “may” because I’ve just finished reading a fiction novel where a communist-like government was set up by a remaining remnant after the earth was destroyed by fire and water.
I don’t know what school children are being taught about the Civil War these days, but I remember studying about the session from the Union of certain states. After the war was over, those states were taken back into the Union, but there were horrific things taking place with reconstruction. If it taught us anything, it should have taught us never to let that happen again. The word, “secession,” has been bounced around some in the last few years. While no one is taking any of this talk seriously (at least I hope not), secession articles still appear.

Combined with the flak about the confederate flag and the current president’s obvious disdain for the southern United States and the South’s disdain for him and his policies, could we be taking baby steps toward history repeating itself?

In summary, being labeled a racist in the United States has become the worst thing you can be labeled. Furthermore, the left can assign that label to you for just about anything you express that they don’t like. And guess what, once labeled a racist, you are always a racist. Racial tensions in this country are mounting and I do attribute this to the current President and his administration.

Communism and socialism are no longer words to be feared with practically half of all American citizens accepting their respective philosophies while turning away from the Judeo-Christian principles on which this country was founded. Efforts to completely remove God from our society are ongoing and replacing God with government is happening.

Americans are now fighting amongst themselves over a piece of fabric with some opining that this piece of fabric was responsible for the shootings at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. Could this brou-ha-ha be another tactic to further divide the nation, making us weaker and subject to some kind of take-over?

And while we’re fighting over that piece of fabric, Congress is giving additional powers to the current president, including powers to negotiate deals related to the Trans Pacific Partnership, a treaty that will surely put the sovereignty of the United States in immediate danger.
Sounds like a perfect storm to me.



A liberal Facebook friend posted the following quotes from Senator Bernie Sanders, Socialist, from Vermont recently.

  • Democracy is one person, one vote, and a full discussion of the issues that affect us.
  • Oligarchy is billionaires buying elections, voter suppression, and a concentrated corporate media determining what we see, hear, and read.

Notwithstanding the fact that socialist, Bernie Sanders, said the above, why would a liberal want to post this? I’m confused. Or maybe they’re being truthful. A liberal being truthful? How oxymoronic is that?

Liberals certainly are not in favor of one person, one vote. They’re all against voters having to show a proper ID to  vote. So it’s obvious that they’re okay with anyone being able to vote anywhere and vote as many times as they want to vote.

Liberals in favor of full discussions on the issues? That is so laughable. How many times have you tried to have a reasonable discussion with a liberal and failed. If you try to have an online discussion with one, they won’t read what you have to say. Sometimes I wonder if they’re just too stupid to read and comprehend. But then they claim they’re so smart since most since most of your educators are liberal. A little over a year ago, I had a back and forth with a PHD who did not appear to read what I was saying and failed to respond, in what I considered, an intelligent manner. Instead, this woman started accusing me of things that all liberals accuse conservatives of when they are backed into a corner and can’t win the argument. Furthermore, they change the subject and accuse you of racism, sexism, and every other ‘ism’ they can think of in hopes of putting you on the defensive so that you will forget the real issue at hand. There is only one liberal that I have been able to have a reasonable discussion with in the last several years, a guy that I used to work with. Liberals are definitely not into having an open dialog on the issues.

Liberals love to trash the Koch brothers, but in addition to being unable to comprehend what they read, they also have bad memories. Remember when liberal billionaire George Soros said that he would spend every penny he owned to see that George Bush was not re-elected president in 2004? I do, but the liberals can’t. I have spent many hours in the past twelve years raising money for Alzheimer’s research. Hopefully my efforts will make a real difference. It would also be great if my efforts will help liberals to remember things.

When it comes to voter suppression, I’d like the liberals or anyone for that matter to provide me a list of people who attempted to vote and were not allowed to vote and the reason they were not allowed to vote in any of the elections since 2000. In 2000, I had a liberal friend to tell me that hundreds of thousands of people in the state of Florida were not allowed to vote in that year’s presidential election. She further informed me that these folks were  black and would have voted for Al Gore. I told her that if this were so, please get me a list of 500 who weren’t allowed to vote. Surely there was a list somewhere. If you’re going to make an allegation such as that, you’re going to have to back it up. After several prompts to check on the status of her obtaining the list I requested, she never was able to produce a list. Why? Because her allegations just weren’t true. There may have been a problem with a handful of voters, but her allegation of hundreds of thousands was just not true. Of course, I realize that the definition of voter suppression is like the definition of racism. It’s what the liberals want it to be at a particular time. And it’s subject to change at all times with intervals as short as maybe one hour. Voter suppression could be defined as a voter accidently going to the wrong voting place and not being allowed to vote there and having to drive a few extra miles to the correct voting place. Again, it’s whatever the liberals want it to be defined as.

However, you can bet your first born child on this. If there’s a close election where the Republican candidate is barely edging out the Democrat candidate, there will be some ballots found in the trunk of a car somewhere and after those ballots are counted, the Democrat candidate will have come out on top.

With regard to concentrated media determining what we hear, see, and read; just who has demanded that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservative media be silenced? The Democrats, of course! I have never known of a conservative to demand that MSNBC, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather, Rachel Maddow, etc. be silenced. I, along with other conservatives believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But how many times have we heard liberals calling for the silencing of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. The liberals have the big three networks, most of the major newspapers in the country, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and some talk radio. Talk about concentrated media.

Get a grip, liberals; take a look at yourselves! You don’t support one person, one vote. You don’t support reasonable discussions of the issues. You have your billionaires throwing their money around in order to influence elections, and you control the majority of the media.

But who am I kidding; liberals aren’t capable reading and comprehending. With all of those academic elites out there, it seems strange, doesn’t it?


Where Do You Stand?

The first time that I ever voted, I split my ticket. It was a presidential election year and I voted for the Republican candidate for President. After that, I’ve always voted straight Republican. As you can determine, I have never voted for a Democrat for President or for Governor of Alabama. I became a very outspoken Republican in the 1980s after joining Greater Birmingham Young Republicans.

I truly believe in the Republican philosophy of how we should govern ourselves; less government is best and if the government needs to handle something, it should be done at the lowest level of government possible.

Having said the above, there have been countless times that folks have said to me, “I don’t vote for the party, I vote for the person.” I have more respect for someone who is a big government/socialist/totalitarian leaning Democrat than I have for the person who claims to be independent and “votes for the man.” I include those that “vote for the man” as low information voters and pretty much hold them responsible for the dire situation that this country is in now.

In 2008, they didn’t like President Bush and just because it happened on Bush’s watch, the late summer/early fall collapse of the economy was automatically George Bush’s fault. This country needs change and anything has to be better than what we have. So, without doing any research on the root cause of the 2008 economic collapse, they voted for the sliver-tongued Barak Obama (now I’ve actually said his name) because he promised hope and change.

A low information voter usually gets his or her news from a local newspaper and the evening news. Because the mainstream media is an advocate of liberal causes, low information voters tend to accept, without a doubt, that man-made global warming/climate change is real, that those who reject socialized medicine/Obamacare are racists and don’t want the American people to have access to health care, that Republicans/conservatives are against the current President because he is half black, etc.

In 1992, the year that Bill Clinton was elected President for the first time, I was working with a number of very opinionated women. If you recall, one of the platforms that the Clinton campaign rallied around was the acumen of Bill’s wife, Hillary. They purported that in voting for Bill, you would get two for the price of one. Hillary Clinton was definitely going to be an involved first lady. Several of the women that I worked with were very supportive of Hillary and were excited that a woman, it didn’t matter that she was not actually elected by the people or appointed to a position with the approval of Congress, was going to be heavily involved in the governing of this nation. When I simply told them that I didn’t agree with her politically, they looked at me as though I was a traitor to my sex. It seems that nothing mattered about her except that she was a woman and a self-proclaimed feminist. This group was definitely pro-choice, but on other issues I doubt any of them could discuss much of anything.

Several months ago I recall seeing a post from someone on Facebook to the effect that we should forget about being a Democrat or a Republican and work together to solve our problems. That certainly sounds good, but so many times, we get those “watered down” solutions that no one is happy with. Furthermore, those solutions are usually bad. Republicans seems to be scared to be portrayed in the press as the party of “NO.” Therefore, they end up compromising and government just gets larger.

With a government so unfathomably huge and an administration that is out of control, I think the Republicans should embrace being the party of “NO.” NO to expanding the role of government. NO to more social programs that are making our citizens even more dependent on government than they already are.NO to new taxes. NO to violating the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers.

Being an “Internet Girl,” I spend a substantial amount of time online, a lot of it doing political research. While I mostly peruse conservative sites, I also spend some time on liberal sites such as Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Salon, and Slate. I don’t like seeing things taken out of context and will call out anyone, Democrat or Republican on that.

Now I don’t expect everyone to take an interest in political issues like I do, but I do think it is every American citizen’s duty to be an informed voter. When you voted for the silver-tongued president that promised hope and change, did you do any research regarding what that change might include or did you just go with the mainstream media who were slobbering all over themselves at the site of this guy. Do you know what the difference between a Republican and Democrat is, what the difference between a conservative and a liberal is? Before even getting in close proximity to a voting place, I believe that knowing these differences is an absolute necessity.

As I indicated above, it’s not just the big government liberals that are taking this country down. In fact, the root blame for the descent of this country lies with the low information voters and those who “vote for the man.”