George Bush - "By advancing the cause of liberty in the Middle East, we will bring hope to millions and security to our own citizens. And we will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."      

T

John Kerry -" I actually did vote for the $87 billion - before I voted against it"

Howard Dean - "The insinuation that the president  continues to make to this day that Osama bin Laden had something to do with supporting terrorists that attacked the United States. That is false." (From May, 2005!) 

October 2, 2005

Hillary Clinton - "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president."

Wannabe-despot

Nancy Pelosi - “What would you do if one of your daughters was raped by a black man?” - during a pro-abortion debate. Umm, why a black man? Is that different than a white man, Nancy? Do I detect some racism there?

Al Gore - "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

"...to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States..." Racist referral to Hispanic Alberto Gonzales and Black judge Janice Brown.

Condoleezza Rice -  "Punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia." (Condi - 2008! She's got my vote!)

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time." Remarks in 2001 by democratic senator Robert Byrd, former KKK recruiter and opponent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, hater of "niggers" and supporter of the resurgence of the KKK "in all states."

Politics in America is about as fun as diarrhea.

On the right end of the political spectrum, the conservatives champion tax cuts, individual empowerment, and occasional fiscal responsibility.

On the left end of the political spectrum, the leftists champion... well, anything that is anti-Bush. It doesn't particularly matter what Bush's position is, whatever it is, the democrats are against it. Often, that anti-Bush positioning is fueled by a virulent hatred.

I'm going to pick on both sides of the aisle, but more so the lefties.

First, the conservatives. The conservatives championed fiscal responsibility in the 1990s. Seems like the majority of conservative congress have conveniently forgotten their ideals. I am sickened by the profligate spending for insanely wasteful projects just because the democrats did it for 40 years before them. Rampant, wasteful spending for 40 years under the liberals is no excuse to abandon conservative principles and do the same as the lefties. Where is the conservative cohesion in Congress to work with the president on the total budget picture?

The lefties are worse. Thrown out of power, first in the white house and then in the congress, the liberals have been reduced to throwing tantrums. All I can see is hate. I hear ugly and sick racist names being thrown at Dr. Condoleezza Rice from the supposed "champions" of the minority races - names no conservative could ever utter. Consider:

Liberal Gary Troudeau of Doonesbury defames Dr. Rice as "Brown Sugar."
The liberal UK Mirror refers to Rice as a trainer of monkeys.
The Washington Post cartoons depict Dr Rice with exagerrated lips and bucked teeth.
Liberal cartoonist Ted Rall depicts Dr Rice calling herself "niggah."

Michelle Malkin (former liberal who got smart) says, "There's nothing the Left hates more than a "person of color" who is a person of substance and stature and intellect and independence first."

Enough of the left's racism; it makes me sick talking about it.

I want to spend some time detailing what real beliefs conservatives and liberals have. I'll also spend some time paying particular attention to the claims the left makes and whether or not those claims are fact or myth.

TAXES

CONSERVATIVES believe that lowering taxes boosts the economy, creates jobs, and thereby increases government tax revenues.

LIBERALS believe that tax cuts are evil, Bush's fault, kill children and wreck the economy. The only reasonable argument there is that tax cuts wreck the economy. The rest is just hysteria. For example, tax cuts killing children (although totally unproveable) is "reasoned" by assuming less government revenues might mean less government spending on school lunches and therefore kids will starve to death right there in the school lunch line. However, the same hysterical reasoning can be used to claim that tax increases hurt poor families and reduce their ability to buy food and feed their kids. Thus, kids will starve right there at the dinner table. See how stupid the hysteria is? It serves no purpose except to get people mad. So I'll focus on the economic issue, instead.

REALITY: The tax cuts that the liberals throw the tantrums over - the 2003 cuts - produced the following results:

*Business investment has increased between 5 and 18 percent in each of the seven quarters following passage of the 2003 tax bill.

*Overall, tax revenues increased 5 percent in 2004, and are now on pace to gain 15 percent in 2005

All of those details and more can be found HERE.

 RESULT: LIBERAL position on TAX CUTS:  MYTH.

HALLIBURTON

CONSERVATIVES have no real position on Halliburton because Halliburton doesn't matter. Conservatives can't understand why Halliburton is supposed to be some bogeyman.

LIBERALS believe Halliburton is the most evil of corporations run by the devil himself (or maybe Jesus, since that would be worse to a liberal) for the sole benefit of Dick Cheney, and that Halliburton is awarded special no-bid contracts in some racist attempt to starve minority businesses out of existence. Oh, and kill children, too. Apart from the lame hysteria, the two valid points of argument are the no-bid and Cheney claims.

REALITY: The Pentagon, with few exceptions, has traditionally conducted logistics and reconstruction services through its own forces under the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. However, in the early 1990’s (UNDER CLINTON), in an attempt to reduce standing forces and costs, the Pentagon developed the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (a.k.a. LOGCAP). LOGCAP provides for a multi-year agreement with the Pentagon wherein a company agrees to be on-call to provide any and all services needed as bid. The operative phrase there is “as bid.” Companies wishing to do business under a LOGCAP Agreement must submit bids to win the service contract. That contract, once awarded, becomes a standing agreement for a pre-determined period thereby alleviating the necessity of obtaining competitive bids each time a need arises.

Full and more detailed analyses of the "Halliburton no-bid" nonsense can be found HERE.

The other claim is that Cheney is benefitting wildly off of Halliburton's mythical "no-contract" bids. Is there any truth to this? Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until the summer before the election in 2000. On the surface, he no longer works for the company, so it shouldn't matter what happens to the company, right? Not so, liberals claim. Cheney still receives compensation from Halliburton. Guess what? That is true! (GASP) But before we accuse the evil genius Cheney of killing children (how he does that by being former CEO of Halliburton, I don't know) let's take a look at that continuing compensation. Cheney took a deferred compensation payment plan for his salary as CEO. What that means to us normal people is that he worked for free on the promise that he would get paid later. On the surface of that the liberals might say that Cheney is interested in the welfare of the company. Dig a little deeper. Cheney took out an insurance policy that cost him $15,000 that guarantees his deferred payments no matter how Halliburton performs and even if the company goes bankrupt. His salary as VP isn't all that much, compared to Barbra Streisand. In fact, it's peanuts. His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generates an annual income of $50,000 to $100,000. He wanted an income that continued into his political term to cover what probably are expenses that exceed his government salary as VP. Guess what? EVERYONE in politics does it, that can. Cheney has NO ties to Halliburton and receives no benefit if the company over-performs or under-performs. He gets nothing out of Halliburton making money. NOTHING. If Cheney is the evil genius liberals claim he is, then their wild claims fall flat in the face of logic.

RESULT: LIBERAL position on HALLIBURTON: MYTH.

WAR ON TERROR

CONSERVATIVES believe that we're at war. They believe that if we don't fight Osama, then Americans will just keep dying.

LIBERALS believe that the War on Terror is all Bush's fault and that Osama would never have struck the US if Bush wasn't president. They also believe that as soon as Bush goes away, so will the War on Terror. They believe that Osama will gladly hold hands with Hillary and agree to stop attacking the US if we get out of Israel. Osama will even sing "kumbaya" as grateful birds settle peacefully on his saintly shoulders. Liberals believe we only need to talk, and 9/11 can all be forgotten. "If we only try to understand the arabs..."

REALITY: Osama gave many interviews and published his demands several times. Claiming that all we need to do is "listen" means that it is LIBERALS who haven't listened to Osama, or simply refuse to listen to him because what he says doesn't fit in with their politically correct muslim apologetics. Liberals hope that Osama, 9/11, the War on Terror, and Bush will simply just "go away."

It's not that easy, however.

The 9/11 report on page 52 details the beginnings of the Osama campaign to make war on the west, and particularly America. His quest started in 1979 with the demonstrably weak responses given by the Carter Administration to Muslim fundamentalism. Osama saw a weakness that indicated America would surrender whenever confronted with determination and will. Osama struck America throughout the 80s, 90s, and to the current date. Blaming Osama on Bush is not only wrong, but retarded. Might as well blame Kerry for the Lincoln assassination if we're going to be that stupid.

Liberals and the mainstream media (MSM) love to ignore Osama's demands. Shall I repeat them here? Here we go:

1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. (Pay careful attention. It is demand #1. If you fail to convert to Islam, then muslims have full Q'uranic authority to kill you by beheading.)

(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves. (It's up to him to decide if we're honest.)

(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. (So that Muslims have no dissenting opinions. Muslims uber alles....)

(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you. (In other words, help us convert you to Islam, immediately.)

What is super-important here that liberals love to ignore is that Osama's #1 demand is fundamentally religious. Basic psychology will tell anyone that Osama views himself as a holy man, following God's will, and unable to compromise. Why? Look at the #1 demand. "Convert to Islam!" That is exactly the primary message of the Q'uran. His call for America to submit to Islam was NOT #2, or #5. It was demand #1. You cannot ever compromise a radical believer's faith. The message of the Q'uran to unbelievers (us) is to convert, serve as slaves, or die. There is no other "compromise." All the demands that follow are intricately tied into demand #1. To wish that Osama will "go away" if we give in to one or two of his demands is like wishing for the sun to reverse its course. It just won't happen. This idiot and his followers will die for their beliefs and liberals will not - which means that Osama has absolutely nothing to lose by demanding all that he wants and absolutely nothing to gain by compromising.

Let me repeat: OSAMA GAINS NOTHING BY COMPROMISING. The idea is simply liberal wishful thinking that has zero basis in reality. Not only can Osama not be dealt with via compromise, but neither are his actions the result of the "hated" Bush, and neither is the continuing wave of murders by Islamic warmongers due to anything Bush has done. Muslims ONLY acknowledge strength, and this is exactly what Bush has shown. The entire War on Terror has become a force of will and determination. We will lose if we back down from the War and America will become a muslim nation with open stoning of gays and women for sport.

RESULT: LIBERAL position on the WAR ON TERROR: MYTH.

THE US IS HATED BECAUSE OF BUSH

CONSERVATIVES believe that other countries don't matter since they're all run by liberals. France has never liked us and never will. It is pointless to try to bend over for the French.

LIBERALS believe that when Bush "stole" the election in 2000, the world rose up in righteous anger and decided to "hate" us. Liberals also believe that Bush dragged us into a war that no one wanted and that also caused the world to hate us. Liberals also believe Bush being re-elected has somehow caused a cloud to cover the world that causes other countries to still hate us. Liberals believe that as soon as Bush is out of office, then the world (the French) will love us again.

REALITY: Liberals just do not like to admit that the US was hated long before Bush was even born. No one ever held our hands and sang kumbaya. Bush didn't spoil the hippie love-in that the US had going on with the world.

*In the 1800s, German poet Heinrich Heine called America "the pig-pen of freedom, inhabited by boors living in equality."

*In the early 1900s, French prime minister Georges Clemenceau sneered that "America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization." Funny, in the 1700s and 1800s, the French were instrumental in stirring up the American Indians and promoting massacres of women and children. French hatred of America is not something that suddenly appeared because of Bush.

*Our help in the defeat of Germany in WWI contributed to a huge swell of anti-Americanism.

*Charles DeGualle hated FDR. Gee..... wasn't FDR a LIBERAL?

*With the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, anti-Americanism reached new heights with much of the activities against America bankrolled by Moscow.

*The Cuban Missile Crisis handled by JFK (gee... another liberal) gave rise to even more anti-Americanism.

*The Vietnam War (which we took over from the FRENCH) swelled anti-Americanism into a tsunami of yankee-hating rants and stunts. The Americans were referred to as nazis for trying to insure the freedom of the South Vietnamese against the atrocities of the communists.

*Reagan's forcing of Moscow during the peak and end of the Cold War (Reagan was victorious) fueled european apocalyptic wailing.

"But but but!" Liberals wring their hands. "When Clinton was president, the world loved us and we all sang kumbaya!"

BZZZZT! WRONG!

Clinton fueled even more anti-American hatred by:

*Unilaterally breaking the UN arms embargo in Yugoslavia.

*Secretly arming the Bosnian Muslims over Europe's objections.

*Refusing to sign the Landmine Treaty.

*Refused to ratify the International Criminal Court for several years (he signed when Bush was declared the winner).

*Launched strike after strike against Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Serbia, and the Sudan to the rage of Europe.

*John Hopkins Professor Fouad Ajami points out that in the 1990s, without any help from Bush or the silliness at Abu Ghraib, anti-Americanism became the uncontested ideology of the French.

RESULT: LIBERAL position on the THE US IS HATED BECAUSE OF BUSH: MYTH.

BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION IN 2000

CONSERVATIVES believe that although the election was close, and that Gore won the popular vote, according to the law of the electoral college and the US Constitution, the election was legitimately won by Bush.

LIBERALS believe that Bush stole the 2000 election by suing and refusing for all the votes to be counted. Liberals believe that Gore was the rightful winner as long as they could continue recounting enough illegal ballots to show Gore the winner. Liberals claim that Bush kept black people from voting by handing out leaflets to gullible blacks claiming that they were supposed to vote on a different day.

REALITY: No matter how many times the vote was recounted, Bush won every single recount. There were six recounts. How many did we need? Fifteen? Thirty-five recounts? I think we all know the answer is that we needed as many recounts as it took to show Gore the winner. The only way Gore could have won the Florida recounts was to exclude the military votes. He tried, but that's when Bush blocked his move in court. For a liberal to whine that every vote needed to be counted, even illegal ballots, but then to try to throw out the military ones only shows how depraved, sick, and hypocritical the liberals are when it comes to voting.

Also note that the silly claim about leaflets has never been proven. Mysteriously, all of these supposed leaflets telling blacks to vote on a different day somehow poofed into thin air. Not even CBS and Dan Rather could phony one up on their word processor. I guess evil Cheney and the wicked Halliburton had something to do with all of these leaflets miraculously vanishing into thin air. But take real careful note of the claim. "Billions" of blacks were turned away from voting and the Bush/Cheney dirty trick lost Gore the election because the BLACKS were STUPID enough to believe these mysterious leaflets that all vanished? The liberals can't even hide their racism here in these wild claims.

Liberals continue to claim that the media recount showed Gore won, no questions asked. The problem is, the MSM found just the opposite of what the liberals still claim. Hell, the findings were so inconvenient that the liberals just ignored the evidence by the liberal media and continue to squawk that Bush stole the election. PBS, the liberal bastion of whacko-ness, had to admit that Bush won. Liberals continue to ignore the facts.

As a side note, Liberals claim Bush stole the Ohio vote in 2004, too, despite the evidence of thousands of dead democrats voting. Know what the Democratic Party report said? Bush still would have won Ohio. Read that HERE.

RESULT: LIBERAL position on the 2000 ELECTION: MYTH.

 I actively engage liberal armchair "experts" on the message boards of places like Yahoo and other political websites. These claims and the wording of them is taken directly from liberals, themselves. What have I determined? I can't find a single idea that the liberals promote except to hate Bush, lie about his presidency, and spew racist hatred in hopes of dividing the country. I'm sick of the race-card. I'm sick of the racism. I'm sick of the lies.

I'm sick of liberals.

Return to the Index