Monthly Archives: October 2015


In part one of this series, I outlined the Democrat lies about former president George W. Bush with regard to the Iraq war and the WMDs that were not found. I also refuted the Democrat lies about the Bush tax cuts.

In the following paragraphs, I will outline another liberal lie about George W. Bush. It’s the allegation that President Bush borrowed from Social Security to fund the Iraq war and his tax cuts.

We all know that anytime a Republican president cuts taxes, liberals scream to the top of their lungs that it’s a tax cut for only the very wealthy. Not true and I refuted this in part one of this series.

In summary, the Democrats are saying that President Bush spend every dime of Social Security surplus revenue that came in during his presidency. He used it to fund his big tax cuts for the rich, and much of it was spent on wars.

This is what really happened. For about 50 years, Social Security was a “pay as you go” system, meaning annual payroll taxes pretty much covered that year’s benefits’ checks. Then in 1982, President Ronald Reagan enacted a payroll tax hike to prepare for the impending surge of retiring baby boomers, and a surplus began to build.

By law, the U.S. treasury is required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds. The Treasury, meanwhile, uses the cash to fund government expenses, though it has to repay the bonds whenever the Social Security commissioner wants to redeem them.

In this broad sense, President Bush technically “borrowed” Social Security surplus to pay for the Iraq war. But even if this loose definition is used, we still run into a few issues.

The amount that President Bush borrowed is actually around $708 billion, and little more than half of the $1.37 trillion the Democrats have alleged. While around $1.52 trillion in bonds was added to the trust fund from 2000 to 2008, the Treasury only has access to the cash revenue collected every year, not the interest accrued on the entire surplus.

Second, President Bush didn’t exclusively spend it on the war, which has an estimated cost of $1.7 million. Other big costs include the financial bailout in 2008, something the liberals should be cheering, since their guy, Obama, carried on the bailouts.

The cash that the Treasury received from the Social Security surplus was not earmarked for any specific government program, according to Andrew Eschew, a former Social Security research analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office and current spokesperson for the Center on Retirement Research at Boston College. The larger question is whether the existence of the surplus influenced Congress’ spending decisions. But Eschew pointed out that no one can prove what was on the lawmakers’ minds. He further indicated that the idea that lawmakers consciously thought they could only go into Iraq because of a surplus was a stretch.

Eschew concluded that if we characterize the entire trust fund system as the government borrowing from Social Security, Bush was by no means the only debtor. By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used to pay for government expenses. If we agree then this is borrowing, that every president since 1935 has done it to fund all sorts of items. Even if Bush borrowed from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purpose.

As for not paying back, the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020. provided the material for this post.



We’ve heard them all before and most of us are sick of hearing them. Unfortunately, the conservative-learning talking heads, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh, maybe, won’t address them and just roll over whenever Democrats make the accusations and flat-out lie. In this series of articles, I’m going to outline a number of lies that the Democrats have told about former President, George W. Bush and correct the record.

Bush Lied, People Died:

We all remember this from the Iraq War. After pushing back Saddam Hussein’s military, the search for the weapons of mass destruction that intelligence indicated existed were not found.

In all of their pontifications and emotional tirades, liberals have convinced themselves and a lot of others that until the Bush administration began no one was linking Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction and that the reason Bush took us to war in Iraq was to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the assignation attempt on this father, former President George H. W. Bush.

Here’s exactly what happened.

H.J.Res. 114(107th), the authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was the Congressional vote on whether to invade Iraq or not. The resolution passed 296-133. 214 Republicans supported it along with 81 Democrats. Everyone had access to the same intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

President Clinton, while still in office, in a speech at the Pentagon, made the assertion that not acting against Saddam Hussein was tantamount to allowing him to gain, and therefore to use, weapons of mass destruction.  Clinton went on to say, “Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some say, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think everyone of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that too.”

By year’s end, Clinton made good on this threat to attack Iraq with U.S. and British forces engaging in a three-day bombing campaign, Operation Desert Fox, aimed at degrading Saddam Hussein’s presumed WMD capabilities. “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles,” Clinton said as the bombing started. “With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them…and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

Weeks before Desert Fox, on October 31, 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.  In a statement, the President said the following: “Today I am signing into law, the ‘Iraq Liberation Act if 1998.’ This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

What a selective memory liberals have? There were actions by the Clinton administration in the late nineties that were in response to problems in that region. President George W. Bush didn’t just dream this up as liberals still indicate. If you don’t believe me, just visit some of your favorite liberal websites and search on the Iraqi war.

For more detailed information, please see my article posted on Wing Nut Gal dated December 27, 2014 entitled, “Can Democrats be that Forgetful.”

Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Rich:

In 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the largest tax relief package in a generation. In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Among other things, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act reduced tax rates for every American who paid income taxes. It also created a new 10 percent tax bracket. Of course we all know that the Democrats called this tax cuts for the rich, when in effect everyone who paid income taxes received a tax cut. Those not paying income tax would not obviously receive a cut.

Despite being in a recession, due to the .com bust, and 9/11, the economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for twenty-four consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003, the highest since 1984. The President’s tax relief also reduced the marginal effective rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-run, higher wages for workers.

The President’s tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60%. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was strong in President Bush’s second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President’s tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005. The share of taxes paid by the top 10 percent rose from 46.0 percent to 46.4 percent.

Liberals have repeatedly indicated that President Bush stole money from the Social Security trust fund to pay for his tax cuts for the rich. Not true, libs!



It’s been my observation since studying the habits of the modern liberal that they actually think they’re perfect. Of course, when you point out their imperfections, they are taken aback that you would say such things about them. They say they love the poor, the middle class, and minorities. Furthermore, a liberal that votes Democrat could never be a racist; they actually believe that.

They also think they’re smart and deep thinkers, but they have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the current president’s lies.

I don’t know anyone who lives on earth that is perfect and you don’t either. But liberals do have this haughty attitude about themselves and are quick to judge everyone else, especially calling those who oppose the current president’s policies racists. Even though they are supposed to be open-minded human beings, liberals are quick to accuse and label anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Doesn’t sound very open-minded to me.

Several weeks ago, I indicated that I would call any liberal who said anything negative about Dr. Ben Carson a racist. For nearly seven years, I have had to put up with liberals calling me a racist simply because I didn’t agree with the current president’s policies. You can tell the libs until you’re blue in the face that race has nothing to do with it, you just don’t agree with him politically; but for some reason, they can’t comprehend that and continue to accuse you of racism, sexism, homophobia, hating the poor, and hating minorities.

Several weeks ago, I broke into a thread of comments, most, of which, were attacking Dr. Carson. I called the commenters racists. One commenter called me a “nut case.” When I replied as to why I was calling all liberals who attacked Dr. Carson racists, the thread immediately shut down. I commented, “It’s not as much fun when the shoe’s on the other foot is it? What goes around comes around.”

I had one liberal Facebook friend to tell me that I was just being silly. I replied, “Of course, I’m being silly.” I’m also being intolerant, judgmental, and unreasonable and I’m going to continue to be intolerant, judgmental, and unreasonable. I want to demonstrate to liberals just what they are, and it’s so opposite to what they think they are.

I used to work with a liberal that believed all conservatives were evil. She had been told that by her liberal friends and raised that way. When I explained to her the difference between liberals and conservatives/Democrats and Republicans from a political standpoint, she was incredulous. Up until I explained the differences, she just assumed that conservatives hated minorities, the poor, and the middle class, and wanted to make life as hard for them as possible.

While liberalism promotes a strong, powerful, controlling centralized government, I don’t, for one second, think that grass-roots liberals see themselves as promoters of the government controlling every aspect of our lives. Grass-roots liberals, many of which have public sector jobs, do have anti-business tendencies and think, like their elitist counterparts, that corporations are evil. Grass-roots liberals also seem to be advocates of taxing the rich and generally despise the rich and wish to do them harm. They don’t or maybe they refuse to see that heavily taxing the rich may result in layoffs in the private sector. Layoffs in the private sector results in less tax revenue to the government, from where their paychecks come. Most grass-roots liberals love entitlements and again, think the rich should be taxed heavily to provide funding for these entitlements.

Grass-roots liberals, while not totally against the private sector, want to see extensive regulations in the private sector. However, I’ve been on some threads where it seems that all the commenters are totally against anything in the private sector. And, of course, just mention alternative forms of education to a public school teacher (most are liberals) and you’re sure to get an earful.

In other words, grass-roots liberals think they’re good people because they want to destroy the rich and help the poor through excessive taxation of the rich to fund government programs that help the poor. We all know these government programs usually do more harm than good. They almost always get their news from the mainstream media and believe that issues such as man-made climate change is real because they have never heard the other side.

Here in central Alabama, your grass-roots liberals, composed mainly of public sector workers, school teachers, minorities, plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, and union members, maintain an air of superiority, particularly school teachers and plaintiffs’ trial lawyers. They can be hateful at times, also, accusing conservatives of hating the poor, hating public education, and hating minorities. And yes, these liberals think they’re perfect, particularly those in public education. If you question anything they say or point out facts or statistics that might not support their side, you will be accused of being against education.

With the next tiers of liberals, you get into those who actually know the difference between Democrats and Republicans and believe that government should be all powerful and intrusive. These are the liberals that attend conferences and learn how to attack conservatism. It appears all they know how to do is change the subject and accuse you of hating the poor, hating minorities, desiring an unclean environment, etc. Like grass-roots liberals, it’s nearly impossible to have a discussion with upper tier liberals. They all become emotional, accusatory, and judgmental.

Liberals are the true racists and bigots of our time. They’re not perfect like they think they are and can’t, in their wildest dreams, imaging why anyone would call them racist or bigoted.



Every presidential race in which I can recall is supposedly the most important presidential race ever. And I don’t dispute that. As we get closer to the 2016 presidential race, it appears that this race will be a race where the American people choose whether they want to continue governance in the way that our founding fathers indicated that America should be governed, the way that those coming to America, seeking a departure from the European way of governance wanted to be governed. Or do the American people want to return to the socialistic methods of governance steadfastly adhered to by the European culture?

Democratic socialist candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, want to give everybody everything. To do this, you confiscate the possessions of the wealthy, without wealthy being defined. Free college, free medical care, free housing, free transportation, and the list goes on.

Because so many Americans are leaping onto the entitlement bandwagon and Bernie is drawing huge crowds wherever he speaks, Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton is moving farther left than she already was.

According To Bill O’Reilly’s talking points on Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Bernie Sanders wants to do the following:

  • Free Medicare for all Americans at a cost of $15 trillion over ten years.
  • An increase in Social Security payments at a cost of $1.2 trillion.
  • Guaranteed family leave at a cost of $310 billion.
  • Tuition free schools at a cost of $750 billion
  • Rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure at a cost of $1 trillion.
  • Prevent private companies from cutting pensions at a cost of $29 billion.

As someone who has worked hard for everything she has, this makes my head spin. I don’t want government healthcare. I want to be able, through my hard work, to provide for myself, the best healthcare possible. Also, I’ve paid enough into social security that I should be able to get my fair share out of it. However, I don’t want what I’ve put in under my name to be taken away from me and given to somebody else. Currently, I’m working seven days a week so that I don’t have to depend on Social Security which might not be there for me if the Democrats who are turning into socialists/communists get their way.

The rest of the freebies that Bernie wants to force on the American people is communism pure and simple. From each according to each according to his need. And guess who decides what you’re capable of producing and what your needs are? The government, of course.

It sickens me to see many of my liberal Facebook friends leaning toward Bernie Sanders because he is offering free stuff. How many times have your parents told you that there is no free lunch, you pay for what you get? Oh, you occasionally find a bargain such as the three $20.00 purses I purchased at Wal-Mart two years ago. Those purses have not shown one bit of wear and are very stylish. But that doesn’t happen often.

My health insurance sure isn’t a bargain. I’m paying almost a house payment for an insurance plan that is inferior to what I had before I had to purchase health insurance through the market place. I guess the fact that I won’t have to buy purses for a while will offset the high cost of my health insurance.

But wait! Isn’t Bernie offering free healthcare? This translates as a single-payer 100% government run health care. In other words, the government gets to decide what medical procedures you qualify for and which you don’t. Due to having a heart that is not 100% functional, I’m going to have to have a heart valve replacement sometime in the future. At that time, I’m going to be a senior citizen. If the liberals get their way and our government is socialistic/communistic, will I be approved for the procedure? I’m old and useless. Plus, I am the author of blog posts such as this one. So, we have to get rid of her.

When I mentioned this to a liberal friend who is an “Obama-zombie,” she said, “That’s not going to happen.” She thinks our government is one of benevolence. No, our government is not one of benevolence. Our founding fathers wrote into the constitution measures to stop a tyrannical government. Governments lean toward being tyrannical naturally. Only that government that is held accountable by its citizens might be, and I said might be benevolent.

The United States of America was founded on government by the people, for the people, and of the people, not by the state, for the state, and of the state. We, the people, are to hold government accountable, no matter which political philosophy is in office. That means I have a duty to hold a Republican administration and a Republican Congress accountable just as I have a duty to hold a Democrat administration and a Democrat Congress accountable.

The above is all well and good. However, it seems as though many people in this country are choosing to set aside the principals in which our great country was founded and exchange those principles for a government that takes as much from its citizens as it possibly can and gives back only what it thinks its citizens need.

To you liberals, just move to some other socialist country. Don’t ruin it for us who still believe in the principles in which this country was founded and wish to continue to govern ourselves with a capitalistic economy while adhering to Judeo Christian principles. There are plenty of socialist economies out there who also don’t accept Judeo Christian principles. Just go and leave us alone. I might even consider contributing a few dollars toward your one-way ticket. But be aware. If you don’t like it in your new socialist/communist/secular country, don’t come begging me to fund your return.



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.