Tag Archives: Tea Party

SO MUCH USE OF THE WORD HATE

When I was growing up, my parents would scold me if I used the word, “hate.” I was taught that hate was a terrible word and should only be used sparingly, if not at all.

ZTrannies-777x437

Instead of saying, “I hate turnip greens,” I was supposed to say that I didn’t care for turnip greens. Furthermore, I was never to say that I hated somebody. Again, I was supposed to say that I didn’t care for somebody. I was taught not to hate anyone or anything, except maybe snakes.

Fast forward to the second decade of the twenty-first century and what do we constantly hear…hate speech, hate groups, hate crimes, haters. The word hate is thrown out there by liberals constantly that no one thinks about the intensity of the word anymore.

In February, 1989, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act is reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. It required the Department of Justice to collect and publish data about crimes motivated by hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In April, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signs the bill into law.

In March of 1993, the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act is reintroduced in the House. It would allow judges to impose harsher penalties for hate crimes, including hate crimes based on gender, disability, and sexual orientation that occur in national parks and on other federal property. In November, 1993, the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act is added as an amendment to the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It is later enacted.

In November, 1997, HRC asks the White House to focus also on how law enforcement officials are trained to investigate and prosecute bias crimes. Before a White House summit on hate crimes concluded, Clinton unveiled a package of initiatives that included expending federal hate crimes laws to encompass crimes aimed at people because they are gay, disabled, or because of their sex.

In March 1999, The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is re-introduced in the Senate and in the House. In July, 1999, the Senate passes the Hate Crimes Prevention Act after it is incorporated as an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill.

In October, 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law as a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The above illustrates only the high points in the history of Federal late crimes legislation. According to Wikipedia, while all states have their hate crime laws and all states vary, current statutes permit prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.

While the history of “hate speech” goes back a ways, I wasn’t able to pin down when the term became somewhat of a household term in the U.S. But if I had to guess, I would say the term became commonplace around the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Later, we learned about hate groups where it seemed as though liberals were calling every group that didn’t agree with them about the issues as hate groups. Among the groups they labeled as hate groups included The Tea Party. For example, a staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) told reporters than Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo) had been spat on by a protestor. Also Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga), a hero of the civil rights movement was call the n-word. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News offered anyone $100,000 who could verify that this happened. No one could. The Tea Party is comprised of pro-limited government individuals, most are over fifty, who feel that we’re taxed enough already. Occasionally, you might see a sign or placard that might not be in the best of taste, but certainly not qualify as “hate speech.” But it seems as though liberals classify anything that does not agree with their view points as hate speech, and any group that does not fit within the boundaries of their views as hate groups.

I once indicated in a Facebook comment that the Democrat party was only concerned about controlling every aspect of people’s lives. I was then informed by a liberal that the federal government has so many wonderful programs that are designed to help people, and this liberal asked me if I hated all people who were beneficiaries of government programs. She followed by saying that she was trying to get me to stop saying such hateful things. Saying that the Democrat party was only concerned about controlling every aspect of people’s lives was hateful speech? NO! There’s no in between with liberals. If they don’t like what you say, it’s hate speech.

The Southern Law Poverty Center, a far left organization in Montgomery, Alabama, has a list of Hate groups that they supposedly watch. Among the groups they classify as Hate Groups are the American College of Pediatricians and the American Family organization. They also include the Conservative Republicans of Texas, the Dr. James Kennedy Ministries, the Christian Action Network, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. These are organizations with which I am familiar and these organization are certainly not hate groups. But I will say, to their credit, they have the New Black Panthers listed as a hate group, along with other Islamic organizations.

I can’t possibly go through all the groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers as hate groups, but it’s obvious that many Christian groups are listed, as well as right-wing groups. I keep wondering when I’m going to be listed as a hater.

My point is this. If you don’t agree fully with the liberal doctrine, you are part of a hate group, guilty of uttering hate speech, and a hater in general. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the word, “hate.” As I indicated in the beginning of this article, I was taught that “hate” is a terrible word. Just because you don’t like something or disagree with someone or some philosophy doesn’t mean you’re are a hater. If you express that disagreement, it doesn’t mean you are guilty of hate speech or a part of a hate group who has similar ideology as you do.

While I’m sick of the word, hate, it doesn’t appear that liberals are going to let go of their focus on this word anytime soon. And I’d certainly check the Southern Poverty Law Center website often to make sure that you, your church, or any club to which you might belong is not listed as one of their “hate groups.”

Facebooktwitter

INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED LIBERALS

I don’t like to call people stupid. It doesn’t show class, and as the old adage goes, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” Does calling folks intellectually challenged invoke more class? Not really, but I’m going to use the term for the sake of political correctness, even though I strive on a daily basis not to be politically correct.

Years ago, I was having a conversation with a few friends, one was a liberal, about politics. When I said to the group that I felt the best way to govern ourselves was the Republican philosophy that stuff, items, issues, should be handled in the private sector or the lowest level of government possible. The liberal, an academician, indicated that most higher ups in the academic sector, instead, believed that a strong centralized government with tighter control and more regulations was the best way to govern. Of course, I knew that. The liberal was attempting to illustrate that individuals with advanced degrees who teach in our institutions of higher learning, and are much smarter than someone like me who only has a bachelor’s degree, know what’s best for all of us because they are so smart.

While I certainly don’t think those higher up academics know what’s best for me, and definitely don’t agree with them on how the United States of America should be governed, I’ve never doubted their smarts or their intellectually ability.

I was willing to acknowledge that the Democrats, liberals, progressives, whatever, probably had higher grade point averages that us conservatives. I was also willing to acknowledge that maybe their level of education is higher than that of conservatives. In other words, I never thought of liberals being stupid…oops, intellectually challenged, until I started this website and began having interactions with liberals on social media and other political websites.

Instead of making reasonable arguments on behalf of their side, I was and still am called every bad name under the sun…moron, idiot, nutcase, racist, homophobe, and disgrace to my gender, just to name a few.  I am also called a Fox News watcher and a Rush Limbaugh listener, even though I don’t consider these terms bad, liberals spit them out with venomous hate. Very few liberals with whom I have “back and forths,” are able to cite facts or statistics to back up their views. Liberals just don’t care about facts. I said that first and now Bill O’Reilly says the same.

Liberals also can’t seem to read something and comprehend what they’ve read. Countless times, I’ve had to ask liberals to re-read what I’ve written and explain. This also goes hand in hand with their inclination to constantly change the subject of a post, a meme, and even an entire article. They can’t seem to stay on point and I’m constantly having to remind them of this.

From yesterday, I can cite two examples from Facebook where I can’t describe the liberals involved except to say that both are intellectually challenged.

Earlier, I interjected myself into a liberal FB friend’s post and replies. The post was Senator Elizabeth Warren’s aka Fauxkahontas, response to Speaker Paul Ryan’s “poverty agenda.” The speaker’s solution included cutting taxes and lifting onerous regulations on businesses in order to create jobs and grow the economy thereby giving more folks a chance to be prosperous. The senator’s way of diminishing poverty is, of course, to further tax the rich, including businesses that actually create jobs and grow the economy plus place more punishing regulations on businesses. In other words, just confiscate wealth someone else created and give it to those in need, thereby creating more dependence on government, and giving government more control over the people.

I made my feelings known and much to my surprise, I wasn’t called unflattering things. However, one of the liberals posting on the thread visited my personal FB page and posted the following: “CE0/CFO/CTO, now I understand why you are so defensive.” On my personal FB page, I have as my occupation, CE0/CFO/CTO/Adm Asst/Janitor of NMG Enterprises. This should be obvious to anyone operating with at least two brain cells that I’m a one person business. Yet this chick copied the CEO/CFO/CTO from my page and tries to paint me as some wealthy business tycoon while leaving off “Admn Asst/Janitor.” Even if I had just listed the big three and nothing else, anyone, again operating with at least two brain cells, should pick up that it’s a very small business. No one can possibly handle those three positions for a large business, a medium sized business or even for a semi-small business. Also, could this person actually think that she could get by with what she posted? Did she think that I was too stupid to pick up on it? I will say this for her, though. When I called her out and told her that I was a one person LLC who works twelve hours a day trying to get rich instead of knocking the rich, she replied, “Good for you! Keep at it girl!”

I mentioned above that liberals also have difficulty staying on point. They love to change the subject, especially when they can’t win on the subject being discussed. I have reason to believe that many Democrats, especially those who belong grass roots’ organizations, are taught, at leadership and other conferences, to do this when discussing issues. I also believe they are taught to direct unsubstantiated accusations at their sparring opponents, in hopes of throwing their opponents off course. One of the first online arguments that I had was with a local prominent Democrat who used the above tactics. It was almost as if she went into a trance.

From yesterday, I also had an experience that left me shaking my head at how intellectually challenged liberals can be. I shared a meme that is making the rounds on FB. The top picture is one of smiling Tea Party members waving American flags and holding up signs stating their position on certain issues. The Tea Party members are mostly well-dressed seniors. The bottom picture depicts a riot where property is being destroyed or damaged. The wording was directed at the media pointing out the difference between a protest and a riot. After writing a sarcastic reply, I shared it with friends.

The mainstream media should learn the difference between a protest and a riot.

Courtesy of Blacksphere.

Immediately after posting, I received a reply by a liberal FB friend who I suspect stalks or trolls me that was totally off the subject of the meme. I pointed that out to him and went further by responding to the off-subject post. I thought I would have received a response by now, but no. I’m sure it will come sooner or later.

Liberals are intellectually challenged, liberals are dumb. Maybe these aren’t nice things to say or put in print. But with the above two examples happening in one day and all the other things that liberals do, I’m sadly coming to that conclusion even though they often boast about having the academicians in their corner.

Facebooktwitter

HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY GET ELECTED FOR A THIRD TIME

This past Tuesday, July 28, 2015, the current president said he felt he had been a “pretty good” President of the United States and was confident that he would be elected again if he could run again. Most conservatives responded to this saying no way. These are the same folks who were so sure that he would not be re-elected in November 2012. And look what happened!

If he was able to run for a third term, my prediction is that he would definitely have an excellent chance of being re-elected. He has majority of the media on his side, low information voters have generally supported him, and of course, everyone from the far left to the slightly left of center support him.

In 2012, I felt good about Mitt Romney’s candidacy after the first presidential debate. The current president seemed week and off-balance. Furthermore, candidate Romney did blow holes through the president’s socialist policies. Then came the debate on foreign policy when candidate Romney questioned the President about his labeling of the Benghazi killings as acts of violence and not terrorist attacks. Mediator Candy Crowley indicated that the President did call them acts of terror. However, it wasn’t until two weeks after the attacks that the President admitted they were terrorist attacks. Initially, the current President, through U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, publicly blamed the attacks on an anti-Islamic video. Candidate Romney seemed off-balance and no longer pursued Benghazi. When this happened, I thought to myself, Romney has just handed the election to the current President. Romney had his chance to expose the President for actions taken/not taken by him and his administration regarding Benghazi, but he blew it.

Enter Hurricane Sandy that traveled up the east coast wreaking havoc on densely populated areas. The President seemed genuinely concerned about the plight of the affected Americans and the loss or property. So, people who were undecided and might be leaning toward Romney, did an about face and voted for the current President.

Come election night, every toss-up state went for the current President. I thought that a bit strange because in most Presidential elections, the candidates split the toss-ups. Am I insinuating that there may have been some fraud? Yes, I think that’s a possibility, especially in Ohio. Can I prove it? No.

Conservatives do have a better message than liberals. If I had the chance to debate a liberal and had at my fingertips, all the facts and figures, I have no doubt that I would win the debate. However, in all likelihood, my liberal counterpart would get frustrated and emotional and start yelling all sorts of things at me, including racism, sexism, hater of the poor, hater of minorities, hater of the elderly, and the list goes on. I would find myself having to disprove the allegations. Of course, I can to that. But having to do that would derail the message I was attempting to deliver.
I have a huge imagination. In fact, it’s too big for my own good. But it’s proved useful for my fiction writing. Currently, I’m imagining that all of Hillary’s scandals come home to roost. Because Senator Bernie Sanders is an old white guy and not very exciting, it looks like the Democrat party may be down on their luck. Then in some unimaginable way, the current President is able to qualify and run for a third term, and comes in to save the Democrat party. Unfortunately, I know some Obama-zombies who would literally weep with joy should that happen. Sickening, isn’t it?

While I’ve always said that if most people really knew the difference between Republicans and Democrats, most people would be Republicans. In the summer of 2015, I’m not so sure. A liberal friend of mine, in failing to win an argument with me on Obamacare, indicated that the American people would get used to the increased premiums, diminished quality of healthcare, and the fact that the Federal Government, in forcing the American people to purchase something, is unconstitutional. I guess that will become part of the liberals’ mantra…”you’ll soon get used to it.”

The United States of America seems to have lost its moral compass. People are more outraged over the killing of a lion in Africa than they are over the illegal harvesting of organs from aborted fetuses. Twenty-five years ago, most American were pro-choice, but most of those pro-choice folks were against partial birth abortions and were pro-choice because they felt, that in the early stages of pregnancy, an embryo was not yet a human being. Liberals are set to ruin the life of the Minnesota dentist that killed Cecil, the lion. They are demonstrating outside of his closed office seething with hate. It seems okay for liberals to do this to the dentist, but not okay for pro-life groups to conduct organized protests outside various Planned Parenthood offices. It’s okay to have that awful George Soros pay protesters to destroy property and lives in the towns of Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, but if there’s a sign at a Tea Party rally that may not be in the best of taste, those people are all dubbed terrorists and subjected to being called lots of bad names.

I don’t know that there’s any one person or group of people who can save the United States of America. But the United States of American can be saved and I believe it will be saved. Only God, at this point, can.

Facebooktwitter

DEFINITION OF HATER

I’ve often said that it seems the liberals/Democrats change the definition of racism to suit themselves. When they can’t win an argument with a conservative, which is well over 90 percent of the time, they begin hurling insults at you and one of those insults is usually racist, even if your discussion did not even touch upon race. My conclusion regarding this is since the current President of the United States is half black, if you disagree with his policies, you’re a racist.

Well, now it seems that if you disagree with the current President’s policies that you are deemed a hater. I’ve told this story many times and I’ll tell it again and again. When I was a little girl, the cold war was raging and Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the central committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union, declared to American parents that their children would live under Communism. I didn’t know what Communism was, but knew it was bad. When I was about five, I asked my grandmother about Communism. I don’t remember that much about the conversation, but I do remember my grandmother telling me that here in the United States, if you didn’t like or disagreed with your elected officials, you could say it right out loud. In the Soviet Union and other Communist nations, you couldn’t say bad things about the government. Even though I’m sure that my grandmother talked about free elections and other things, being able to say that I didn’t like what the government was doing stuck with me. As you know, I do exercise that right.

Hate is a powerful emotion and we should not hate. I can remember my mother, whenever I said that I hated someone, would remind me that it was a sin to hate. Instead, Mama told me that I should say that I didn’t care for someone.
I remember all the hate that was directed to former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. When I saw liberals depicting President Bush hanging from a tree, I would wince. When I saw the left depicting President Reagan as a clown, I would wince also. But you go on with your life, it’s politics. Now, it seems that if you disagree with the current President on policies that you are automatically dubbed a hater.

In a Daily Kos article dated January 4, 2015, Bernard Pliers wrote an article entitled, “Dear Obama Hater – You Just Wasted a Decade of Your Life.” I’m not sure if this article was directed at someone like me. I do not agree with this President politically and there is not a single issue on which I agree with him. I believe that he is a racist, a bigot, an Islamic terrorist sympathizer, and a socialist bordering on communist. I agree 100 percent with Rudy Giuliani that this President does not love the United States of America and has as his ultimate goal, the substantial weakening of this country. He is certainly not a President to all Americans and doesn’t care at all about the middle class. But, he might be fun to party with.

With regard to the above cited article, Mr. Pliers trashes conservatives and Tea Party members and indicates that they have wasted ten years of their lives and have nothing to show for it. Mr. Pliers goes on to chastise those who he deems Obama haters, indicating that while they wasted time hating the current President, they could have accomplished many things such as getting a college degree, writing a book, running their first marathon, and learning a foreign language. Now, I earned a college degree quite a few years before the current President was first elected and inaugurated. But I did write book during his administration and hope to have several more while he is still in office. I’ve also started a business, even though, according to the current President, I didn’t build it.
Then Mr. Pliers infers that we conservatives wouldn’t have done any of those things anyway because we were waiting for impeachment and for the GOP candidates to “take off the gloves.”

Mr. Pliers, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a political junkie, nothing wrong with keeping up with current events, nothing wrong with disagreeing with your elected officials and letting them know it. In fact, that’s what our country’s forefathers intended us to do if we were to preserve our freedoms. Mr. Pliers, I’m not going to accept that the ACA was jammed down our throats utilizing every legislative trick the liberals could possible use. I’m not going to accept that this President or any President can, with the stroke of a pen, grant benefits to illegal aliens, change laws passed by Congress, shut down commerce, etc. I don’t like executive orders and think that they should be used sparingly, not when the President knows that something can’t get through Congress.

Furthermore, Mr. Pliers, I have a computer, in fact, I have three, and I have word processing software. I intend to make my feelings about our government officials known, whether I agree with them or not. I also hope to convey knowledge along the way. As Americans, we must hold our elected officials accountable, we must not accept everything they say and do. We must question all of them. Anyone that runs for public office should be prepared to answer questions and be held accountable. In fact, he or she should expect to be grilled and should welcome it.

You ended your article with this: “And the next time there is a GOP president, just remember that there will be fatal embassy attacks under the GOP president, just like the dozens of fatal embassy attacks that occurred under previous Republican presidents. Except Democrats won’t be working themselves into a frenzy of conspiracy theories when it happens, they won’ be cheerleading for the terrorists, and they won’t be trying to overthrow the U.S. government every time something happens.

Yes, Mr. Pliers, there will probably be additional embassy attacks, but it is my hope that any President, if embassy attacks occur under his or her watch, will be engaged and will take all precautions necessary to prevent the attack. If the attack does occur and Americans are killed, call the attack what it is and authorize the appropriate investigations into why the attack happened and how to prevent such attacks from occurring in the future. And then don’t lie to the American people about what actually caused the attack. If the current President and the “then” Secretary of State has been fully engaged before and after the attack and had not lied to the American people, telling them it was caused by a video, I doubt that many people, Republicans or Democrats would have said much of anything.

Conservatives are not cheerleading for terrorists. I don’t know where you got that from, but you are telling a lie. I don’t recall anyone making a prominent case for overthrowing the government. Again, that’s a lie.

Instead of trying to convince people who don’t agree with you, like me, with facts and statistics, you, like other liberals can only hurl insults. There are so many untruths in your article and I have only been able to get to a few of them. Hopefully, I will be able to address them in the future. Meanwhile, I have many other things to do, such as run my business, work on my next novel, and market my just released novel.

Facebooktwitter