Posts Tagged ‘Liberals’

PRIVILEGE

June 22, 2020

It’s amazing to me how some people can find racism hiding behind every word written or spoken unless it is from their own pen, keyboard or mouth.

Mayor Ben Rozier of Bloomingdale, GA was asked to resign over a Facebook post that was perceived as racist. Here’s what Rozier wrote:

What is privilege?….

Privilege” is wearing $200 sneakers when you’ve never had a job.

Privilege” is wearing $300 Beats headphones while living on public assistance.

Privilege” is having a Smartphone with a Data plan which you receive no bill for.

Privilege” is living in subsidized housing where you don’t have a water bill, where rising property taxes and rents and energy costs have absolutely no effect on the amount of food you can put on your table.

Privilege” is the ability to go march against, and protest anything that triggers you without worrying about calling out of work and the consequences that accompany such behavior.

“Privilege” is having as many children as you want, regardless of your employment status, and [to] be able to send them off to daycare or school you don’t pay for.

“Privilege” is sending your kids to school early for the before-school programs and breakfast, and then keeping them there for the after-school program…paid for by the people who DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH RISING TAXES AND COSTS! …you know, us so-called ‘PRIVILEGED’ the ones who pay while you TAKE TAKE TAKE!

This, of course, is a call-out by people without color who want to deepen the chasm between people like themselves and people of color in the name of diversity. To imply that there is anything inherently racist in the wording above is, in itself, racist.

As a rational individual, I see no reference to any ethnicity or heritage. A person has to interject their own bias into the wording in order for there to be an inkling of racism. It’s nothing like Joe Biden saying, “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.” There’s no mistaking the thoughts behind that statement.

As one not seeking to divide the people of this or any other nation to specifically cause a confrontation, I read this posting somewhat differently. I see this as a frustration coming from one who is tired of paying exorbitant taxes only to hear people complain that their government entitlements are insufficient.

*I might also add to Rozier’s rant that anyone who has thousands of dollars in tattoos and piercings or has drugs in their system while drawing a monthly government stipend is also advantaged by privilege.

THE TRIAL WAS RIGGED

February 12, 2020

Even now, a week beyond the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, there is ongoing banter about how he was “Impeached Forever”. The impeachment had the affect of ending a losing argument with “You’re a Racist”. It was false, and though the vile and viscous Democrats of the House did manage to muddle their way through and reach a predetermined and patently partisan consensus vote on loosely written Articles of Impeachment, they continue to try wiping the egg from their faces forever creviced with anger.

Crazy Mazie Hirono of Hawaii stated on CNN that President Trump was not acquitted of the Articles of Impeachment. “He wasn’t acquitted; it was a rigged trial”, she said.

Doubling down on stupid, she prattled on, “You don’t get acquitted when you don’t even get to call witnesses or relevant witnesses or have the documents because the president stonewalled all efforts on the part of the House to get the information they requested.”

It’s as if the Democrats, in their never ending attempts to destroy Donald Trump and all future presidencies, are so blinded with hatred they cannot even see their own reflections in a mirror. If it was a rigged trial it was most certainly a rigged indictment. The president’s attorneys followed the law when asking the courts for confirmation of need and appropriateness of the requested documents. It was his only available defense because he was not allowed representation during the House hearings. He was not allowed any rebuttal witnesses and, of those witnesses called by the prosecuting body, none had direct knowledge of any wrong doing. What was presented was all hearsay or secondary water cooler repetition.

Each and every witness, with the exception of only one, was a confirmed Never-Trumper and/or a diplomat who felt they were in charge of foreign policy rather than the Chief Executive. The one honest and knowledgeable voice was legal scholar and law professor, Jonathan Turley. In his opening statement, Turley offered that he is not a Trump supporter and, in fact, had voted against him. He shocked the panel when he gave honest historic testimony regarding the dangers of impeachment under the prescribed conditions and damage it would cause to future presidencies and to the Constitution. They denied and disregarded his testimony.

When questioned directly by Republican members, all witnesses agreed they were aware of no crimes committed by, or on behalf of, the president. Other than Turley’s, the “testimonies” included mind-reading and personal interpretations illustrating bias of what was said or what actually occurred.

So, if the Senate trial of Donald John Trump was “rigged” as declared by the Honorable Ms. Hirono, the basis for the Articles brought forth to the Senate were certainly flawed and essentially rigged by the proceedings within the House.

Let us be clear. The Impeachment of President Trump had nothing to do with “High Crimes or Misdemeanors” as described in the Constitution or abuse of power or obstruction of Congress. It was all about anger and frustration. The Democrat’s only position of power is having a majority in the House of Representatives at the present and they chose to abuse that position. Their anger is now deep seated and the frustration over the election loss of 2016 combined with the gaining of congressional seats in 2018 should not be a basis for destroying our nation.

These are the very angry Democrats seeking the next presidency. It is unimaginable how much destruction might be caused with such a resentful and vindictive figure in the White House.

DEMOCRATS NEVER LOSE

February 3, 2020

In their own minds, Democrats never lose. The political faction of liberals and progressives are known as Democrats and they refuse to accept any loss. Thus, they never lose.

A quick look at some recent history of elections tells the story.

Mr. Hanging Chad cannot be forgotten. In 2000, Al Gore lost the State of Florida and it’s 25 electoral votes giving George W. Bush a win with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. After weeks of partisan bickering and multiple recounts by a Democrat controlled elections commission, Bush was declared the winner. Gore claimed to have been cheated out of the presidency and George W. Bush was an illegitimate president.

Vindictively, almost all the “W” keys were removed from White House computers prior to Bush’s inauguration.

To this day, Hillary Clinton tours the countryside telling anyone who will listen how she won the presidential election of 2016. She claims that because she received a greater percentage of the popular vote (2.86 million votes), she is by default the president, yet was denied the White House simply because she is female. Electoral College be damned despite the assurances the Founding Fathers gave to the people of rural areas that their vote is as worthy as those amassed in the cities.

Stacey Abrams of Georgia, on the other hand, refuses to accept the popular vote count of her state and brags that she is the rightful heir to the governor’s mansion. Though the election, deemed fair and lawful was held in 2018, Ms. Abrams refuses to concede the loss to this day.

With a deficit of more than 50,000 votes, Stacey cited voter suppression, and black voters in particular because the voter roles had been recently purged of people no longer allowed to vote in GA, in particular dead people. The lawsuit she filed was found to be without substantiation. In her own words, “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election.”

With the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment, Nancy had to hush (almost threateningly) the Democrats who became giddy when they forgot it was a solemn and somber day that they had to impeach a sitting president. However, she later stated that the president would not be acquitted because it is impossible to hold a trial in which there are no new witnesses. This is a win-win for Democrats. The president will, in her words, be “impeached forever” by the House, but cannot be legitimately acquitted by the Senate.

When confronted with facts or reason contrary to their argument, liberals will always win. They do it by yelling “you’re a racist” or “you’re a bigot” or “you’re a homophobe” (transphobe where applicable) or some such thing and walking away. It is then up to the reasoned individual to disprove the negative allegation. Always a win for liberals!

THE PROBLEM WITH DOG WHISTLES

January 21, 2019

I will be the very first to admit my hearing is deficient. While I can hear hissing and crickets and birds chirping all day long, there are certain sounds that are beyond my receptive capabilities. It’s called nerve damage and tinnitus. Until recently I was bothered by what are supposed to be ultra-high frequency alarm systems when they were left on during the day in retail stores. Basically, I guess you could say, in the frequency range nearing that of a dog whistle. I could not, for instance, stay in K-mart longer than about 8 seconds before I had a headache. Dog whistles, however…can’t say that I’ve ever heard one.

What does it say about liberals that they are the only ones who can hear “dog whistles”. To them, dog whistles connote racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc. But they, liberals, are the only people on earth who can hear and define the “ism” or “phobia”.

A liberal can apparently hear one of their dog whistles in virtually every scene, sentence or word. In particular, if a liberal says something absolutely foolish regarding a person of color and you correct him or her or Ze, you are racist. If a sane person attempts to reason with a liberal and present facts that do not support a particular wacko theory, they will immediately hear a dog whistle for an ism or phobia. Should you say “sir” to a person with a stubble, Adam’s apple, large biceps and extended breasts your dog whistle connotes trans-phobia.

The perception of liberals is transcendental within their limited world. Even some of their own kind get caught up in the loop of insanity. Today they are picking apart conversations gone and forgotten for the past ten and twenty years to find something that they can call offensive to someone somewhere. Yet, they fail to recognize their own transgressions of the moment. E.g. saying black lives matter is commendable but saying all lives matter somehow diminishes the value of black lives as if they are not part of the whole. These are the very people who claim equality and seek inclusiveness.

Raw cotton on stems caused hysteria to a liberal Texas woman because 160 years ago slaves were made to pick cotton by hand. She saw racism in the floral display at Hobby Lobby. To secure our southern border and preserve law, order and national independence for our country, President Trump is decried as a xenophobe. The dog whistle is obvious only to his vehement opponents.

One ignorant civil rights attorney, Areva Martin (black liberal) <link>, made a call to the radio talk show of David Webb (a black conservative). Knowing him only as a conservative talk show host, she mistakenly called out his “white privilege”(stereo-typically only white people can be conservative). David courteously corrected her and let her know that his hard work and qualifications gained him his position, not the color of his skin. Did the liberals hear a dog whistle in that conversation? Nope! Their hearing, collectively, was immediately as poor as my own.

And that my friends is the problem with dog whistles. They only occur when convenient to liberals. I guess there are no conservative dogs. If you believe anything different, you are a walking, breathing dog whistle no matter what your sex, gender, chosen gender or ethnic background You are despicable, deplorable and not worthy of taking up space on this earth.

GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS AND VOTE FOR YOURSELF

November 27, 2018

Compared to men and women in uniform who willingly risk their lives to retain our way of life and give citizens around the globe humanitarian opportunities, our government elite are excessively compensated. For instance, a U.S. military member with a pay grade of E-6 (five earned pay grades above entry level) having given more than two years service to our country receives a base pay of only $2,802/mo.($33,264/yr.) This is scheduled to be raised for 2019 by 2.4% to a whopping $2,869/mo. A serviceman’s work schedule includes readiness twenty-four hours a day and often includes weeks on end without a stand down.

Compare that to the average Amazon carton handler who now earns $15.00/hr. That’s 2,580/mo. or nearly $31,000/yr. for placing boxes on a conveyor belt 8 hours a day.  When the bell rings ending the shift, they’re outta there!  An over-the-road trucker earns an average of $23.00/hr or almost $78,000 annually if they really go at it.  Consider what the average retail store manager is paid.  Good ones make approximately $46,000 a year.

Military accommodations often consist of living in tents, bathing in streams or ponds when available with clothing changes welcomed whenever possible. Granted, they do receive an extra stipend when deployed to areas or subjected to situations where death is imminent.

Why should congressional members protected by the secret service and capitol police make so much more?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wears designer ensembles costing more than the average soldier makes in a month to her campaign venues. While campaigning, she has been seen wearing outfits of estimated cost exceeding $3,500 including shoes with a price tag of $625. Though she dresses for success, she’s whining that she cannot afford to live in the city or suburbs surrounding her new job.

Not even seated yet, the socialist darling of the left is suggesting legislation that would give congressional members a housing allowance in excess of the freshman base pay of $174,000. And, the members vote themselves raises at will. *Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay.

Some current members, known to sleep in their offices and bathe in the gym locker room (not the Potomac River), have suggested a housing allowance while in session amounting to $2,500 per month.

Returning to reason perhaps we, the American voters, should consider something along the lines of a government housing facility for our downtrodden elected leaders like the projects offered by H.U.D. There are numerous vacant government owned buildings in and about Washington D.C. that could easily be converted into dorms or apartments.

For those choosing this option, the accommodations might be paid for by deducting $1,500 – $2,500 per month ($18,000 – 30,000/yr) from the base we now pay them. Nancy would consider it just “crumbs”. Most of them can probably scrape by on the remaining measly $144,000 per year. A transportation allowance of $5.00 per round trip to and from the dorm and capitol could be an additional benefit for consideration.

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s next proposal is probably for a congressional clothing allowance and meal per diem to go along with the housing allowance. After all, we must redistribute the wealth from those who worked hard to earn their bounty. Soon thereafter, I’m sure, she’ll and the others will consider working for the people who elected them instead of what they can do to benefit themselves.  Yeah, right!

Congressional staffers and interns live and commute under the same circumstances and seem to get by on their pay of $30,000 – $85,000 per year without such perks. And they do much, if not most, of the work for which the elected elite receive their salaries.