Brownbackistan is a beautiful land of the free… just be patient!

Welcome to KansasLower taxes and less regulation lead to a host of good ends—more employment, more tax revenue, fewer mosquitoes and less unattractive belly fat. That’s why it’s important to carefully parse the news coming out of Kansas recently. Sam “The Repealer” Brownback was elected governor there in 2011. Since both state houses are strongly Republican, the stage was set for a mighty Republican renaissance.

Brownback began with a 25% tax cut for the richest Kansans, erasing income taxes for small businesses and creating a new “Office of the Repealer” tasked with eliminating regulations and agencies that choke business with their insistence on preserving an ecosystem for the next generation. Even guaranteed teacher tenure fell beneath the fury of Sultan Sam’s mighty pen.

All that’s left, at this point, is to wait for blooming prosperity in Kansas to inspire legions of imitators and usher in the new era of national, Reaganesque utopia!

Kansas General Fund BalanceBut, like other brave pioneers before him, including his mentor and advisor, Art Laffer, Brownback is still facing skepticism… a mere three years in. Some of this is related to the squandering of the budget surplus Brownback inherited. Tax revenue in Kansas fell by $685 million in the first year in spite of an upward adjustment in the state sales tax, leaving the state with an annual $300 million shortfall. This led to a downgrade of the state’s credit rating by the faithless, liberal pantywaists at Moody’s.

The more squeamish Kansans have grown tired of waiting for Brownback’s new economy to bear fruit, complaining that the Kansas economy is expanding at just half the rate of its four neighbors, that Kansas still has fewer jobs than in 2008, and that poverty has increased including among children. Others traitorous covert socialists counsel Brownback and his legislature to take the mark of the beast by accepting hundreds of millions of dollars to expand Medicaid as part of Obamacare instead of treating the uninsured in emergency rooms as God intended.

GDP Growth Comparison

Patriots should arm themselves with some important facts:

FACT 1. The economy in Kansas is growing, unlike under the previous governor. What’s even more telling, the previous governor enjoyed, at least for a few years, the dynamic, freedom-infused George W. Bush economy, while Brownback has been saddled with the unquestionably sluggish and impotent Obama economy for his entire term.

FACT 2. Fiscal reforms can take a long time to come to fruition. For example, the pro-job policies of George W. Bush, such as deficit-funded tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and a tax holiday for companies with untaxed profits in offshore tax havens, led to 53 months of uninterrupted job growth… but, you know, not until Bush had been out of office for 18 months.

FACT 3. It takes time for job-creators from around the nation to relocate to Kansas. Unlike relocating wealth to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, it can take time to get your kids into the right schools, hire a moving van, etc. We can expect job-creators to come in just 3 years. It’s not at all like when raising federal taxes encourages all the captains of industry to flee to Galt’s Gulch.


So, patience is the new watchword in Brownbackistan. To teachers vacuuming their own classrooms due to reduced funding for janitors, we say patience. To the 100,000 Kansans eligible for federally-paid health care coverage under the Medicaid expansion but disappointed by the decision to postpone debate to 2015, patience. It’s always darkest before the sweet, conservative dawn.

5 graphs that Teaparty conservatives will LOVE, proving Obama has destroyed everything!

Income gap soars under Obama

We present to you 5 graphs that conclusively prove, visually and beyond a doubt, that Obama has pretty much destroyed everything and failed America. How can graphs lie?

The inspiration for this list has been passed around by conservatives and Tea Party Republicans for the last several days. It shows that income inequality was flat under Bush, but grew under Obama and Clinton. It is graph number 1.

1. Income gap soars under Obama!

Income gap soars under Obama
NOTE: This graph was NOT created by us as a parody. This graph was actually created by conservatives to “prove” that the income gap has soared under Obama.

Now, before we get to our list, you need to look really hard at this graph. Take it in. Appreciate the fullness of its beauty and meaning.  Now that you have done that, you will also be able to appreciate the following graphs… all of which absolutely prove that Obama is a failed President in every possible way.

2. Stock markets stagnate under liberals!

The stock market just SOARED during Bush’s terms in office. By contrast, once you account for the after-effects of H.W. Bush that were impacting the beginning of Clinton’s term and the natural “rebound” from recession after W. Bush’s term, the increases in the stock market during Clinton and Obama were just pathetic!  Look at these trend lines:

Stock Market under Obama failed president

3. Obama has completely exploded unemployment!

We actually published a version of this graph before, but clearly in that version we simply had not drawn the correct trend lines. Here, we have added good, conservative trend lines to counteract any liberal bias!

You should also note that we have re-classified a teeny tiny portion of 2008 as blue instead of red, putting it under “Obama”. This is because Once Obama took office, he obviously retroactively became responsible for the entire unemployment rate. Plus, Sean Hannity has postulated that the unemployment rate skyrocketed pre-emptively because employers were scared that Obama might become president. Which seems completely plausible.

Unemployment under liberals

4. Obama has completely exploded the deficit!

This is one of the MOST well-known facts about Obama: he has exploded the deficit completely! This graph proves it. As you can see, Carter and Reagan/Bush kept the deficit pretty much flat during their terms. Clinton and W. Bush both decreased the deficit slightly. But WHOAH OMG can you see that trend line we drew for Obama!!??  It just goes up and up!

Now, some of you might think we took some liberties with that trend line. For one thing, we sort of started it in 2007, but everyone knows that this is because of the pre-emptive problems caused by Obama. Some say it might even have been the influence of his time machine (the same one he used to go back in time to plant fake birth certificates in Hawaii). But either way, what matters is that trend line that we drew: LOOK AT IT! Disgusting, huh?

Deficits under liberals what a failure Obama sucks

5. Attacks on diplomatic targets reach unprecedented heights under Obama!

Of course, we can’t forget about Benghazi! This graph shows that the number of attacks on diplomatic targets has just completely gotten out of control under Obama. Obviously something is very wrong. Obama is projecting an image of weakness which explains why that attacks have INCREASED SO MUCH during his presidency. Just look at these trendlines!

In fact, you better only look at the trend lines with this one. The graph isn’t much help, because it doesn’t truly illustrate the conservative philosophy of the real importance of Benghazi. We have added our own annotation to the graph for this… but really, just look at the trendline arrow. Isn’t it awful???

Benghazi disaster emphasizes US diplomatic attacks and Obama failure

So, clearly you can see what we mean. All it takes is a few well-drawn trend-lines, and the conservative message becomes crystal clear!

The deficit is getting bigger…. and scarier!!

Eric Cantor says the deficit is getting big and scary.

Eric Cantor says the deficit is getting big and scary.


Eric Cantor says that the biggest problem in America today is the growing deficit.

He is clearly using the above, GOP-approved, unskewed graph.  As you can see in this illustration, the deficit in 2013 is very, very large. And scary. And kind of weird-looking.  Obviously, that’s the problem we need to focus on.


original graph found via: Maddowblog

related article: Boring deficit is still decreasing. How boring.

The word “loophole” has a liberal bias



People in the liberal media are using the term “loophole” incorrectly. It’s time for us to set the record straight.

You SHOULD NOT use the term “loophole” for these things:

The 1993 CEO Compensation Rule:  When Congress tried to cap the deductibility of executive compensation to no more than $1 million per year, somewhere along the way a special provision was entered in so that the limitation was only applied to performance-based pay. So, CEO’s started getting paid bonuses in the form of stock options instead of cash, and the “limitation” became completely useless.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $8 billion a year.  Honeywell made $5 billion from 2009-2012 and paid only $50 million in federal income taxes – a tax subsidy of $1.7 billion – which they were able to do in part because of this loophole.

Everyone knows that CEO’s should not pay any taxes.  They are delicate and dainty, and if you get them mad then they might hire even fewer people. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

Therefore, this is a “tax feature” not a “tax loophole”.

The Off-Shore Tax Laws:  When companies build stuff in other countries, they do not get taxed by the United States. This was originally set up to encourage American companies to go and build stuff abroad. However, in the last few decades they have also been registering patents and trademarks in low-tax countries, even when the discoveries that those patents represent were really made in the United States, so that the income the company receives for those patents and trademarks does not get taxed.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $90 billion a year. Citigroup had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  ExxonMobil had $43 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  General Electric had $108 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Honeywell had $11.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  Just to take four examples.

This also should not be called a “loophole”, because everyone knows that corporations are over-taxed already. Just look at the four examples given above. They obviously need these tax breaks because they are struggling oh so badly.

You SHOULD use the term “loophole” for these things:


Employee benefits:  Employer-paid health insurance are a HUGE loophole.  Also pension plans, plus life insurance, vision and even group legal plans.

These are loopholes because the costs are tax-free unless you pay for them yourself. Plus, they benefit middle class and poor people who obviously don’t need any help with money, those lazy useless creeps.

Home Ownership Exemption: When selling a primary residence (effective 1997) capital gains are totally exempt up to $250,000 ($500,000 if married)  Congress keeps increasing this exemption to include a majority of middle-class voters.  The cap on that exemption targets it to the middle class only — which makes it a loophole for middle-class people.

Who do these people think they are, asking for tax breaks? I mean, it’s not like middle-class people do anything useful or productive the way Exxon Mobile does.


When you use the term “loophole” to apply to those poor, put-upon rich people and corporations, it’s really just showing your liberal bias!!!


sourcesInstitute for Policy Studies, Liberty Issues

Boring deficit still decreasing. How boring.

Deficit to GDP

Deficit to GDP

The deficit has been decreasing sharply for most of the time Obama has been in office. So what? That’s boring. I know it must be boring, because nobody is talking about it.

The above graph appeared on a well-known anti-Christian communist website, and therefore is steeped in liberal bias. But for the most part, neither liberals nor conservatives are really spending any time talking about the fact that the deficit is going down, and the budget that broke at the end of the previous administration is getting fixed under the Obama administration, and we’re rapidly headed toward having a smaller deficit-to-GDP ratio than we had in 2004 under George W. Bush.

Actually, we here at have been reporting for a year that federal deficit statistics have a liberal bias, for example:

Federal Spending Graph: UNSKEWED!!!!

Federal spending graph refuses to cooperate with GOP agenda



…..yet the fact of the matter is, everyone is pretty much over it.

People have made up their minds, and don’t want to hear any more “facts” and “evidence” and whatnot.

This new graph is nothing new.  If, before seeing this graph, you believed that Obama is “exploding the debt” and is “on a spending spree” and has “stolen money from our children and grandchildren“, then what reason would you possibly have for thinking otherwise now?

None at all.

There is nothing to see here.

Please move on.


graph data source: Treasury Department
graph found via: Wonkblog, Washington Post



Numerical Deficit

People vote on reality.

This graph proves that the Federal Deficit is getting bigger. Anyone who disagrees therefore hates freedom and democracy, and clearly has a liberal bias.

According to this graph, 62% of the people voted to believe that the deficit is getting bigger, 28% voted to believe that it is roughly the same, and only 6% voted to believe that the deficit is shrinking. By a clear majority, the American people have decided that  the deficit is increasing.  In a representative government like the United States, that means they must be right.

Numerical DeficitNow, if you are weak-willed or easily confused, you might point to other graphs that seem to show the numerical value of the deficit decreasing every year since 2009.   From that, you might be fooled into believing that the deficit is not increasing.

But saying stuff like that is to completely disrespect the power of the people.  If someone says that the deficit is “actually” decreasing and that 90% of the people are “wrong”, you need to respond by saying:


Then you will have obviously won the argument.

As Mitt Romney’s noble and glorious presidential campaign said: we will not allow our beliefs to be dictated by fact-checkers!


graphs found via: Steve Benen, MaddowBlog (graph  1) (graph 2)

This graph DARES to imply that lazy people aren’t the problem!

Interest is the problem

Interest is the problem

According to this graph, entitlements for lazy people are NOT the main reason that the Federal Deficit will explode over the long term. This contradicts conservative values and therefore must be wrong.

We are always hearing from the great conservative minds of our time that our current economic path is unsustainable, and the reason is because the government gives free stuff to lazy people with Obama phones. We are specifically told that Medicare and Medicaid and Socialist Security are all spinning out of control, and that their costs will “explode the deficit” over time.

It seems strange, then, that this graph, produced by the socialist far-left organization known as the “Treasury Department”, shows that these gifts-for-lazy-people are actually remarkably stable over time and do not increase the deficit!

Instead, according to this graph, the biggest problem is the interest on existing debt.

In fact, if you look at the difference between the black line (total receipts) and the dotted line that marks the top of the colored area (non-interest spending), the total non-interest deficit is extremely small, and much smaller than the overall spending for entitlements for lazy people.

There really isn’t a lot to say about this graph, except that it’s obviously wrong.  We’re not entirely sure how it’s wrong, or why. But, it contradicts Sean Hannity… so it must, in some way or other, be guilty of liberal bias!!!


graph data source: Treasury Department report
graph found via: The Fiscal Times

Long-term debt projections have a liberal bias!

Long-term debt projections

Long-term debt projections

If Obama has been destroying our economy, then why has the long-term fiscal outlook for the country improved every single year that he’s been in office? There’s really only one explanation: liberal bias!

There really isn’t a lot to say about this graph. Every year, the Communist Budget Office (CBO) predicts what the long-term economy will look like for the country in the foreseeable future if it continues with the same economic policies that it has at that time, the “baseline scenario” for that year.

The year that Obama took office, the CBO was projecting that the total federal debt would explode by 500% in 75 years. In other words, if things kept on going the same way that they were in 2009, with no changes, the debt would be more than 300% of GDP in 75 years time.

Each year that Obama was in office, of course, things changed. We conservatives know that all of these changes were bad, because Obama is a Kenyan socialist who can’t do anything right.

Yet weirdly, this graph shows that each year the projection was revised to show an improvement.

In fact, although conservatives are still telling us today that the debt is exploding out-of-control, this graph shows something different. According to this graph, the current policies in place are putting us on the road to a long-term balanced budget.


Clearly, the CBO’s so-called “long term debt projections” are nothing but witchery and wishful thinking.  Just like Nate Silver’s election predictions: just a bunch of liberal bias.


 graph data source: CBO
graph found via: Economic Policy Institute

Obama causes lightning, cats and suicide

Stuff Obama Did.

Obama’s nefarious influence could be much more far-reaching than previously thought. In addition to everything else, he could be responsible for increases in suicide, lightning deaths, and much much more.

For years, conservative champions have taught us how to use logic and reason to evaluate the numbers and statistics associated with the Obama administration.

Sean Hannity has taught us that Obama has caused unemployment to go up. How does he know? In January of 2008, unemployment was 4.9% and in January of this year unemployment was 8.3%. Since it went up during Obama’s presidency, it was obviously caused by Obama.

Every conservative commentator on television has repeatedly told us that Obama has caused the deficit to increase. How do they know? In 2008 the federal deficit was $459 billion and in 2012 the federal deficit is $1,089 billion. Since the deficit went up during Obama’s presidency, it was obviously caused by Obama.

Recently, a television campaign ad aired explaining that Obamacare has caused health care costs to explode. This is true: average HMO costs were $8,213 in 2008 and are $11,151 now. Since it went up during Obama’s presidency, it was obviously because of Obamacare.

Mark Levin observed on his radio show that Obama has been terrible for students, pointing out that tuition costs have gone through the roof. He is correct: in 2008 average tuition was $24,780.75, and in 2012 the average tuition is $28,500.00. Since it went up during Obama’s presidency, it’s clear that this was also because of Obama.

All of these great conservative thinkers have been teaching us how to understand the Obama presidency. But it is time to take this line of thinking to the next level.

President Obama is such a terrible president that he is making people commit suicide. How do we know? In 2008, the total number of suicide deaths was 36,035. In 2012, they are expecting the number of suicide deaths to top 40,000. Since this increase happened during Obama’s presidency, obviously these deaths were caused by Obama.

President Obama has caused the number of pet cats in the country to increase. How do we know? In 2008, the estimated number of pet cats was 84 million, and in 2012 this increased to an estimated 86.4 million. Since this increase happened during Obama’s presidency, it’s clear that this was caused by Obama.

Even more frightening, in 2008 there were 28 people who died because they were struck by lightning. So far in 2012, exactly 28 people were struck by lightning and the year isn’t over yet.  If even one more person dies as a result of being struck by lightning this year, that is yet another death that lies on the shoulders of the evil and sinister President Obama.

Finally–and you should be warned that this is by far the most disturbing result that we have yet to report–in 2008 there were only 2 movies released in 3D, while by the end of 2012 there will have been 40 movies released in 3D.

That’s right! Obama is single-handedly responsible for a 1900% increase in the number of 3D movies released per year.

I ask you: is that really the America that YOU want to live in?

I didn’t think so.


graph produced by:
graph data sources: American Foundation for Suicide Prevention,  Aon Hewitt health care cost analysis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service, USA Today,, and other various sources. Values plotted on a logarithmic scale. NOTE: cat-related data is estimated and may suffer from a lack of precision.

Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition

Big Bird Is A Liberal Communist Loser Suckling Off The State.

Liberals have been circulating this chart around the internet and saying: “Look how small the spending is for PBS! Isn’t it stupid to cut funding for Sesame Street when it will make almost no difference at all to the deficit?”

Obviously, these liberals know nothing about business. So, in order to educate stupid, ignorant liberals about how to run business, we here at present to you a Classroom-Style Lesson, called: “Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition.

Hello, boys and girls! Today we are going to talk about budgets!

To help you to understand about budgets and deficits, I’d like you to imagine for a moment your family’s household budget. As you know, daddy earns lots and lots of money for you and mommy to spend.  Then, that money gets spent. What happens if more money gets spent than daddy earns? That’s called a deficit, and it makes baby Jesus cry.

So, whenever there is a deficit, your family has to find a way to decrease spending. They cannot possibly find ways of getting more income, because that would interfere with daddy’s free time. Instead, your family will make a list of stuff that costs money, and it will include things like this:

$1100 per month for daddy’s new Mercedes
$880 per month for mommy’s spa treatments
$34 per month for the family to see a movie in the big movie theater!

…and so on. Now, daddy has to decide what to cut.

Obviously, he can’t sell his new Mercedes and get a cheaper car. Daddy works very hard and deserves to have a nice car. If you take away his car, he will have no motivation to work really hard and you all will suffer.

Obviously, mommy can’t give up her spa treatments, because without her spa treatments, mommy will be in a very bad mood. Very, very bad. You don’t want that to happen, do you? Because if mommy is angry, who knows what she might do.

So, the only thing left to cut is the movie tickets! You can’t go out to the movies any more, because daddy needs to cut back on spending. It’s really the only logical conclusion.

What does this have to do with Big Bird?  Big Bird is like the movie tickets. It may not cost that much, but it’s the only thing that daddy and mommy don’t care that much about… so it has to go.

It will make mommy and daddy feel better, to think that they’re saving at least something. And you want mommy and daddy to feel better, don’t you?



graph found via: Think Progress


How to combat liberal CBO numbers

Liberal CBO Numbers

The radical left-wing propaganda-machine Communist Budget Office (CBO) regularly uses “numbers” to fool people into believing liberal talking-points. The above graph is a perfect example.

The above graph seems to suggest that eliminating tax breaks for the rich would reduce the deficit. This false impression is created by the fact that getting rid of tax breaks for the rich would decrease the size of the deficit.

If you are a good conservative, you are naturally befuddled by numbers like this, and they can cause some dizziness and confusion.  So, as a public service, we are here to tell you what to think and how to respond when someone puts numbers like this in front of you.

1) Getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts will not solve the problem. As you can see in this graph, the pale blue area is much much smaller than the dark blue area. This means that reducing tax breaks on the wealthy is just a stupid idea. I mean, if it won’t solve the problem completely, why do it at all?

2) Increasing taxes never reduces deficits. Never never never. Everyone knows this, because in the past there was this one time when Reagan cut taxes and revenue went up, and this proves beyond a doubt that taxes will never reduce the deficit.

3) Why do you hate freedom? Reducing the deficit by stealing money from hard-working billionaires and trillionaires simply isn’t the correct way to solve the problem. If you do that, they will get mad and take their cheesy-poofs and go home. And you don’t want that, now do you?

These are the top three most researched methods for combating numbers like those shown above. These tactics, or variations of them in one form or another, can be heard almost every day on conservative talk radio.

If you hear others, please feel free to share them with us here.


Graph Data Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Graph Found Via:

What did Obama really spend? The shocking truth.

Unbiased Federal Spending Growth

Liberal Obama Spends Liberal Money

This has been the single most debated political graph on the web in the last month. Originally appearing on Market Watch and then picked up by Forbes, the graph soon was spread like the angry spores of a liberal biological weapon across the entire internet. According to irrational and easily-fooled liberals, this graph shows that government spending has increased less under Obama than under any previous president going all the way back to Eisenhower.

It would just be too exhausting and boring to go through every single argument that has been made about this graph. So just to give a few examples:

Newsbusters points out: Obama’s low number is based partly on the CBO’s so-called “baseline projection” which assumes that Obama will unfairly break the backs of small-business owners by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire.

Newbusters also points out that Obama voted for the Bush Stimulus Program when he was a Senator and therefore the entire 2009 budget should be considered Obama’s fault.

A blog at makes the same points that the Newsbusters article makes. In fact, many of the actual sentences are identical in both articles. I’m sure this isn’t because one site plagiarized the other, but is simply because great conservative minds think alike.  Exactly. Alike.

You also have blogs and other sites pointing out that the graph is misleading because it clearly says that it is showing you the “growth in spending” but some people might believe that it represents “total spending.” Even though there isn’t really any evidence that anyone misunderstood the graph this way, it could be misunderstood that way and is therefore obviously a big fat lie.

All of these are excellent arguments, of course, and are in no way refuted by any of the detailed statistical analyses that can be found on radically biased websites like Politifact.

But since all of this has been written about already, what additional insight could we possibly have to offer?

The one thing that has been missing from this entire discussion is: THE TRUTH.

Namely: what should this graph look like, when all of the lies are corrected and accounted for?

To make sure that we cover every possible conservative argument that has been made, we would have to attribute all of 2009 spending to Obama.  We also should really add an extra $200 billion on to the expected spending in 2013 because we know that Obama will not cut any spending and plus he will do other sneaky things.

Thus, Obama’s column should show an increase from $2.98 trillion in 2009 to $3.83 trillion in 2013, which is an increase of 28.5% over 5 years, totally an annual increase of 5.7%.

So we now offer you, exclusively from, the correct conservative re-analysis of the data and the unbiased version of the graph.

Unbiased Federal Spending Growth

Isn’t that SHOCKING????

When you give Obama the blame for all of the spending that happened during the entire year of 2009, and also give him all of the blame for all of the spending that might happen after his term is over in 2013, his total spending increase skyrockets to……  5.7%!

I mean, it’s still a tiny bit weird that it is still lower than Bush’s or Reagan’s…..

But pay no attention to that! 

The point is: it’s very, very different from the first graph, which was clearly infected with liberal bias!!!


Graph Data Source:  OMB, CBO and Havar Analytics
Graph Found Via: Market Watch

Mitt Romney vs. Lying Liberal Statistics!

Liberal Statistics and Lies

There is a disturbing trend lately: more and more statistics and graphs are ganging up to unfairly contradict Mitt Romney! How dare they! Don’t they know their place?

The place of statistics is to support good, virtuous, conservative ideals. Yet somehow, almost everything that Mitt Romney says seems to be contradicted by far-left radical “numbers”.  For example, consider the above graph:

  1. Mitt Romney says that Obama has gone on a wild spending spree… yet “Annual Federal Spending” is lower today than when Obama took office
  2. Mitt Romney says that Obama has raised your taxes… yet “Annual Federal Revenue” (which comes from taxes) is lower than it was when Obama took office
  3. Mitt Romney says that since Obama was elected the deficit has exploded and spiraled out of control… yet “Annual Budget Deficit” is lower now than when Obama took office.

How is it possible that all of these numbers are ganging up and conspiring to go against Mitt Romney? There is only one explanation: liberal bias!!!


graph source: Think Progress
data source: Congressional Budget Office
graph found via:

graph reveals liberal anti-American agenda

Obama Flag Icon

Subliminal Messages

Some of you have seen the above graph that has been circulated by liberals to try to confuse us into thinking that conservatives are not fiscally responsible.

All of their arguments have already been debunked, so I will not waste time doing it again here. Instead, I would like to point out the subliminal propaganda that demonstrates–no, actually proves beyond a shadow of a doubt–that liberals hate America.

Our crack team of specialists, investigative journalists, and political analysis have examined the icons used in the above graph in minute detail, and they have discovered a very interesting pattern: the liberal presidents are showing less of the American Flag in their icons than the conservative presidents!

Just look at these two icons in detail as examples:

Bush Flag IconObama Flag Icon

WHY are the liberal presidents afraid to be associated with the American flag? Are they ashamed to be seen with it? Is it because the want to send a secret message to their foreign friends about whose side they are really on?

Liberals might want to distract you from this issue, by telling you to focus on the “real” substance of the above graph or the “data” that it presents about the national debt.

But every time a liberal shows you this graph, make sure you ask them this: WHAT ABOUT THE FLAGS?

If they don’t want to discuss it, if they pretend to be confused or baffled by the question, there is only one explanation: Liberal bias!!

graph source: Office of the Democratic Leader
data source:  The Treasury Department
graph found

Government spending has a liberal bias!

Liberal Government Spending

Everybody knows that liberals are constantly increasing the size of government, spending money that they don’t have, racking up insane levels of debt, and generally being irresponsible.  Conservatives, on the other hand, always spend less and are fiscally responsible.

So how is it possible that the above graph seems to give the impression that Reagan, Bush, and Bush all increased government spending more in their first terms in office than either Clinton or Obama?  In fact, somehow the line for Obama decreases below zero, suggesting that he has actually decreased government spending, which is obviously impossible because everyone knows that the entire deficit has been caused by him and his anti-American speeches.


There can be only one answer.  Once again, this is quite simply a case where the numbers themselves are lying about the truth. The truth is that conservatives spend less and liberals spend more. Any so-called “numbers” that contradict this have obviously been infected by LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

source: Bureau of Economic Analysis