Category Archives: Media

DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH – PART 2

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.

Politifact.com provided the material for this post.

Facebooktwitter

DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH – PART ONE

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!

Facebooktwitter

LIBERALS ACTUALLY THINK THEY’RE PERFECT?

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.

Facebooktwitter

I HATE THE WORD HATE AND ITS DERIVITIVES

When I was growing up, I was taught that the word, “hate,” was a terrible word and should be used only sparingly. You shouldn’t say you hate somebody, you should say you don’t care for somebody. Instead of saying I hate beets, you should say, I don’t care for beets.

In this day and age, though, “hate” and its derivatives have become mainstream words. Now how did that happen? If you’re expecting me to say that the liberals started the “hate” phenomenon, you are correct!

Dating back to the 20th century, liberals embraced the emotion of “hate.” I can recall the animal rights group, PETA, throwing buckets of blood on people who dared wear a fur coat, made from real animal skins. I also remember these same folks attacking laboratories in protest of using animals for testing of various items from cosmetics to over-the-counter drugs. These people were vicious, letting nothing stop them in their quest to destroy anything and anyone who disagreed with them. Instead of approaching their so-called adversaries and seeking to address their concerns, they destroyed property that wasn’t theirs and made many enemies.

Shortly thereafter, we started hearing the term, “hate speech” thrown around by those on the left. While I’m not exactly sure what constitutes hate speech and the liberals change the definition on the fly, I believe it has something to do with what liberals consider disparaging talk with regard to minorities, particularly when it comes to race and sexual preference. Of course, any denigrating speech about southern, white, conservative, straight, Christians is perfectly allowable because southern, white, conservative, straight Christians are so terrible that they deserve it. This was the beginning of Orwellianism in this nation. While you couldn’t be prosecuted for what the liberals considered hate speech, you could certainly be slandered by those on the left.

In the nineties, we also started hearing about “hate crimes” and what constituted a hate crime. If a white person murdered a black person, was it because that person was black? And if so, you were guilty of what the liberals termed a “hate crime” and that “hate crime” was subject to punishment more severe than a “non-hate crime” murder. It became the job of the prosecution to get inside the assailants head and determine what he or she was thinking at the time of the murder. I do have trouble with the “hate crime” concept. How is murdering someone because you don’t like their skin color any different from murdering them for any other reason? Ask a liberal? Again, this is another Orwellian concept of attempting to get into one’s head and determine one’s thoughts. Your thoughts are not your own anymore.

Now, the word, “haters,” is used every day in common place situations. If someone is critical of your efforts, that person is a hater. Of course, liberals commonly accuse conservatives of being haters if they don’t agree with the liberal philosophy of governing or disagree with the current liberal president’s policies. If you’re not for government run healthcare, you hate the sick; if you’re against entitlement spending, you hate the poor; if you’re against affirmative action, you hate minorities; and the list goes on.

One thing that particularly annoys me about liberals and their love affair with the word “hate” and its derivatives, is the way the accuse you of being a hater if you don’t like the current president. Look at how many liberals hated George W. Bush and said terrible things about him. But just let a conservative say he or she doesn’t agree with the current president’s policies, the liberal automatically label him or her as a hater and a racist. They don’t even attempt to engage in a political dialogue.

I made a comment once that it was Democrats that actually looked down on women and advocated paying for all birth control methods for all women because women couldn’t control their libidos. For this comment, I was accused of hating all government programs and those who were recipients of those government programs including Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, etc. Talk about a stretch! So, if you disagree with one government entitlement program, you’re accused by liberals of hating all entitlement programs and those individuals who are recipients of those programs.

If you come to the conclusion that it’s actually the liberals who are haters, you are right. They invented the concepts of hate-speech, hate crimes, and don’t hesitate to call those who disagree with them haters. I live in central Alabama, yes central Alabama and never have I head the current president called the N-word (that would be hate-speech to the liberals). My fellow Republicans do not agree with his policies and most don’t like his disrespect for the American people. His wife is not a favorite of a lot of folks around here; but the root of their dislike is the comments she made to the effect that this was the first time she had ever been proud of her country when her husband became the Democratic nominee for president prior to the 2008 presidential elections.

Liberals don’t want to hear any of this, but they are the actual haters in this nation. The depths of their hatred towards the poor, the middle class, and minorities is so profound that their goals are to keep these people “in their place” by controlling every aspect of their lives. They call the rest of us haters in order to direct the attention away from themselves.

They will not stop until they have control over all of the people they hate, including the poor, the middle class, minorities, Christians, and white people. Should we even try to stop them? One day, we will have to in order to maintain the American way of life. Drastic measures may have to be employed. Are we willing to do what is necessary?

Facebooktwitter

THE TERM ‘OCCUPY’ AND OTHER THINGS

There’s a new liberal Facebook page out there: Occupy Healthcare. I haven’t checked to see if there is a real website by that name, but at this point it doesn’t really matter. The initial “occupy” was the Occupy Wall Street movement in which fringe liberals set up camps in various cities and proceeded to destroy property and commit other acts of debauchery. While it was fringe liberals that were involved, mainstream liberals were sympathetic to their cause. But just let a Tea Party rally take place where a sign or two was in poor taste, and all liberals sent stark raving mad calling those who participated and/or advocated the Tea Party’s efforts anything and everything.

Six months to one year ago, I began seeing Facebook posts from a Facebook page called “Occupy Democrats.” Most of what I was seeing on my news feed was photographs depicting alleged facts that were not facts, but gross misrepresentations. Most, I could pick apart with very little research. This annoyed my liberal Facebook friends. Maybe they should have done a little research before sharing the post.

I’ve just seen a post from a new liberal Facebook page called Occupy Healthcare. The first photo from Occupy Healthcare that appeared on my newsfeed stated the following: They talk about this Great Recession as if it fell out of the sky, like, “Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?” It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. It was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can’t afford that. And now all of a sudden, these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created.” VP Joe Biden.

This was said by Vice President Joe Biden about 2012 Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan. Let’s take the “low hanging fruit” first. The Democrats were actively pushing a prescription drug plan. Wasn’t Al Gore’s mother-in-law having to eat dog food in order to pay for her prescription drugs? Democrats, you demanded it and accused those who were against it as haters of the elderly. You lost on that one. Let’s move on.

You are also griping about Congressman Ryan voting to put two wars on a credit card. Have you forgotten 9/11/2001? Are you suggesting that we not go after those who attacked us? Maybe we should have been more diplomatic in finding out why radical Islam hates us so much and do what we can to appease them. Yeah, right! If it were up to you liberals, we’d be under Sharia law at this very moment.

Then there was the Iraq war. You claimed Bush lied, people died. Well, former President Bill Clinton left office advocating regime change in Iraq. Have you liberals forgotten about that? Congress and the Bush administration had access to the same intelligence that indicated Saddam Hussein did possess weapons of mass destruction. President Bush went to Congress to get approval before invading Iraq. Again, liberals, have you forgotten about that? I suggest you do a little research, but you won’t. You’ll continue to spew your venomous lies knowing the liberal media has your back.

Tax cuts for the wealthy? OH PULEAZE! Every time a Republican proposes a tax cut for those who pay taxes, it’s a tax cut for the wealthy. I get so tired of hearing this old rhetoric. Tax cuts are for those who actually pay taxes, but you liberals seem to think that everyone who lives and breathes within the boundaries of the United States of America should receive some sort of financial benefit.

As for adding to the national debt, the current President has added more to the national debt than all past presidents combined. Yes, President Bush, to my consternation did add to the national debt, but not hear as much as your guy, Obama.

Moving right along, last week, a website, joeforamerican.com posted an article entitled: Greatest Hoax of the 21st Century! 98% Scientists do not Believe in Man-Made Climate Change! On website, there is a little image that says, “Joe the Plumber.” Remember Joe, the Plumber! Liberals, in liberal fashion hate him because he had the audacity to ask presidential candidate, Barak Obama, a difficult question regarding candidate Obama’s position on re-distribution of wealth. Following Joe’s questioning of candidate, Obama, Joe the plumber, who did have some skeletons in his closet was exposed by a city clerk in Cleveland who was a supporter of Obama and a contributor to his campaign.

After I posted this article on Facebook, a liberal disparaged the article, which quoted factual statistics, because the site may have been somehow related to someone they hate, Joe the Plumber.

Okay, liberals. You continually indicated that you’re champions of the working man, the middle class, and the low income earners. Shouldn’t you at least read this article? If indeed man-made climate change is a hoax, you should be glad. You should back away from your goal of snatching us off of inexpensive, reliable fossil fuels and putting us in a world where we are totally dependent upon your green energy which is costly and unreliable.

Yes, we should continue our research into alternate forms of energy with a goal that what we define as green energy will be reliable and cost effective in the future. But to refuse to acknowledge different opinions about man-made climate change, and your avocation of the immediate elimination of fossil fuels which benefit middle and lower income individuals is proving that you liberals are bigoted and look down your noses at the poor and the middle class.

So, preach your big government and your desire to controls us peons because we’re too stupid to make our own decisions about our own lives. But don’t ever tell us that you’re champions of the lower and middle income Americans. I’m poised to rip you to shreds should you dare try.

Facebooktwitter