Messiah-Mess 101: top 12 Obama scandals with explanations

Very funny Obama political cartoon called "Messiah Mess"

This is a political cartoon created by William Warren for NetRightDaily last month. It is obviously very clever and 100% accurate because it depicts Obama in sewage. However, if you have not been keeping up with all of the details of politics over the last 6 years, you might not recognize all of the scandals that are named on the right-side pane.

DO NOT FEAR! What follows is a quick cheat-sheet summary of each of these scandals, so you will understand exactly why you should be completely outraged at Obama.


1. Fast and Furious.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has a long history of programs designed to try to stop people from purchasing firearms from American gun dealers in order to pass them on to Mexican cartels. One such operation, known as “Wide Receiver”, was started in 2006. Another, called “Fast and Furious”, was started in 2009. According to some accusations, these programs intentionally allowed illegal firearm sales in order to track the firearms by their serial numbers and later identify members of Mexican drug cartels. However, these accusations were never fully confirmed and most independent research shows that the ATF never intentionally allowed any illegal firearms sales. Eventually these were both shut down. There is no evidence that Obama knew about or was involved in any of these incidents.

But, Obama gave a very suspicious speech in 2009 where he said better gun regulation might help slow the flow of guns from the U.S. to Mexico. Obviously this means Obama created “Fast and Furious” deliberately as a plot to take away Americans’ guns. (More info: CBS News)

2. Debt. When Obama was inaugurated, the total federal debt was about $10.6 trillion and was increasing at a rate of $1.4 trillion per year. Now, it is about $17.6 trillion and is increasing at a rate of $0.54 trillion per year. About two thirds of the increase in debt since Obama was inaugurated has been caused by interest and entitlements that were in place before Obama became president.

This proves that the entire debt is Obama’s fault.

Total Jobs3. Jobs. The total number of non-farm employee payroll jobs in January 2009 was about 134 million. The total number of non-farm employee payroll jobs in July 2014 was about 139 million. A total of 9.3 million jobs were created between the January 2010 low-point, when it finally reached the bottom of the decline that began in late 2007, and today.

This is all proof that Obama has failed… somehow.

4. Taliban Trade. Obama did everything he could to get American prisoner Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl delivered home safely. This included the release of five Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Obviously this is a disgusting horrible scandal, because America never negotiates with terrorists.

Except for that time Reagan did it, and that time Bush did it. (More info: Time.) Ironically, now that an American citizen was beheaded by an Islamic terrorist, there are conservatives who are complaining that Obama didn’t organize some kind of trade to get him back. I guess that can be listed as another scandal.

5. Benghazi. 4 people were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi while Obama was president. This compares to 98 people who were killed in terrorist attacks against American consulates when Bush was president.

However, Obama called it an “act of terror” instead of a “terrorist attack”, which proves Obama is not fit for office.

6. IRS. The IRS cracked down on politically active organizations trying to file as 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity groups. They investigated both liberal and conservative groups. They only refused 501(c)(3) status to a small number of progressive groups, and did not refuse it to any “tea party” groups. There is no evidence that Obama had anything to do with it, or had any knowledge of it.

This proves Obama was the sinister mastermind of this terrible aggression against the Tea Party. (More info: Think Progress)

7. Iraq. Obama withdrew soldiers from Iraq when things seemed relatively peaceful, and now ISIS has risen and is creating all kinds of problem. Since the magical Tea Party Crystal Ball tells us that if Obama hadn’t withdrawn troops from Iraq, then ISIS would not exist and there would be a Starbucks on every Iraqi corner, this proves that the mess in Iraq is completely Obama’s fault.

8. Obamacare. Millions of Americans now have preventative health insurance, young adults can stay on their parent’s plans for longer, nobody can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies are legally required to limit the amount they can increase their fees, lifetime limits on payouts are being lifted.

However, a while back the website was broken, and there once was a woman who got mad because she thought she might have to pay more for insurance even though she didn’t actually log onto the Obamacare website to see if she could get a better deal.

Therefore, Obamacare is clearly an outrage and a scandal.

9. Keystone. Obama has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, and perhaps might delay it indefinitely, which is completely within his power and rights to do as the President of the United States. This qualified as as scandal, presumably, simply because conservatives don’t like it very much.

Yeah, I’m not really clear on this one. maybe someone can help out and explain why this is a “scandal”?

Job Growth10. Economy. Unemployment is down to 6.1%.  58% of the new jobs added in 2014 pay above the average hourly wage. 1.4 million jobs were create in the first half of 2014. The stock market grew 142% in Obama’s first 2000 days in office. 53 months of uninterrupted job growth. The GDP went from shrinking at a rate of 2.8% when Obama took office to growing at a rate of 2.2% now.

Obviously, there is a scandal in there somewhere… somehow. Maybe if Obama hadn’t been born in Kenya, the GDP growth rate would be 2.4% instead of 2.2%? Someone also needs to explain the logic on this one.

 

11. The VA. Allegations of neglect and mismanagement in VA hospitals have been around for more than 40 years. Anyone who has paid close attention to the state of VA medical care has been aware that there have been problems going back since before the Reagan administration.

However, it became a topic in the news this year and Obama took FOUR WHOLE WEEKS before he fired Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and launched an investigation.  Can you believe it? FOUR WEEKS!

Obviously, Obama is just an evil, evil, inept person.

12. Illegal Immigration. Illegal immigration has also been a problem for decades in this country. Obama hasn’t granted anyone amnesty. Obama hasn’t slowed deportations. He also hasn’t done anything to weaken the borders compared to way border enforcement was when Bush was President.

However, because he hasn’t solved the problem of illegal immigration completely… this is clearly yet another scandal.


So there you have it: a list of all of the scandals weighing down Obama.

Can you believe he hasn’t been impeached yet?

 

SHOCKING: Weird climate change poll suggests that money matters to people.

Liberals have been trumpeting a recent poll result that suggests people are willing to pay more for their energy bills in order to fight global warming a.k.a. climate change.

“By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions,” says the Bloomberg National Poll website.

This goes against the headlines from 2012, where a Huffington Post poll said that 54% would be unwilling to pay more to fight climate change, compared to only 20% who said they would be willing.

Has the American population shifted its opinion THAT DRAMATICALLY in less than two years?

(the answer is below the image… can you guess it before you scroll down?)

Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.
Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.

No, it hasn’t. In fact, there is no evidence that the American people have changed their opinions on this issue at all. This is something that gets us really, really mad here at Liberal Bias because it involves biased reporting about NUMBERS AND STATISTICS, and unfortunately in this case it is not tied to one side of the partisan divide or the other. Both liberals and conservatives have mis-reported this result.

The difference is in the details of the questions on the surveys.

The 2012 survey asked: “If it meant we could stop climate change, would you personally be willing to pay 50 percent more on your gas and electricity bills?” (emphasis added).

The 2014 survey asked: “What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” (emphasis added).

CONCLUSION:

So the first survey did not find “people unwilling to pay more”; it found “people unwilling to pay 50% more.”

The second survey did not find “people willing to pay more”; it found “people willing to pay $20 more.”

These two survey results, together, do not show that people’s opinions about climate change are “evolving”.  They merely show that the amount of money that people are asked to pay to fight climate change matters.

Shocking result, right?

 


 

Now, let’s talk about liberal bias.  For dedicated Tea Partiers and Conservatives, who live in a world where “unbiased” means “not liberal” and “fair and balanced” actually describes what Fox News does, the 2012 poll result represents the real truth, because “OMG FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SO EXPENSIVE IT WILL CAUSE TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!!!!1”

Obviously, asking people to pay a mere $20 more for climate change is unrealistic, right? We have to make the number big enough to seem scary.  If we don’t make regulation seem scary, well then that is just LIBERAL BIAS.

Do you agree?

 

What does a -2.9% annual GDP growth rate for Q1 2014 really mean?

Fox News Explains GDP Shrinking

The above picture, from Fox News, shows the correct way to report on the recent finding that the national gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 2.9% (annualized) during the first quarter of 2014. Specifically, this picture is the correct way to report on this finding because it does not distract or confuse people with things like history, comparisons to prior examples, or too many data points.  Plus, you have a frowning unattractive man depicted next to the gigantic negative number: so you know that things must be bad!!!!!

Indeed, the frowning unattractive man also tells you what you should believe about the explanation of this number: “This is obviously a result of an administration, five years of policies… high taxation, high regulation, high spending and high debt.”

How could he possibly be wrong?

Now, some liberals out there will present this same information in a way that is clearly liberally biased. For example, they will show you this graph:

GDP changes by quarter over several years

The problem with this graph is that includes too much information, and it might confuse people. It could even lead to uncomfortable questions, like:

“If a -2.9% growth rate is obviously the fault of President Obama’s policies, then which of President Bush’s policies are to blame for the -8.1% growth rate in 2008?”

Or worse:

“If a -2.9% growth rate is a clear sign that all of liberal philosophy is a total failure, then does that mean that Bush was also completely incompetent and all of his economic philosophies are also total failures?”

Clearly, this kind of thinking simply will not do!

Liberals have also been disseminating this second graph, which shows that although GDP was unusually low in the first quarter of 2014, other economic measures were up. For example, in the following graph we see that the total aggregate hours worked by private-sector nonsupervisory workers 1.4 percent, which is usually associated with higher growth:

Real GDP vs Private Sector Jobs

Showing this graph clearly can cause a liberal bias, because it can lead people to believe that some aspects of the economy have been improving despite that fact that Obama is OMFG KENYAN MUSLIM SOCIALIST HITLER.

If you look carefully, you will see that the above graph includes three data points where the GDP value is just as bad or worse, but the jobs value is worse than the first quarter 2014: these are the points on the same level or below the red point on the vertical axis, but to the left of the red point.

These points all occurred under George Bush as well, once again leading to the question: were those points also “obviously a result of an administration” under George W. Bush of ridiculous economic, and domestic and foreign policy failures?

No, these types of graphs clearly are not what people should be seeing.

People need to be sheltered from the burden of getting too much information, and asking questions. Therefore we applaud Fox News for not falling into that trap. That, after all, is how numbers and statistics can lead to LIBERAL BIAS!!!!

 

Republicans finally admit economy is improving; say racism is to blame

Over the past week, several notable Republicans have finally admitted that the economy is improving.

“We’ve been denying it for five years now, and it’s been pretty exhausting,” admitted one chief aid to a prominent orange-hued Republican on the condition of anonymity. “But between unemployment being the best it has been since Bush, the stock market reaching record highs, and the deficit being the best it’s been since Bush… it’s gotten to the point where it’s just difficult to deny.”

Of course, since the media storyline for years has been that we are in a terrible, floundering recovery, there have been a lot of facts that the media was simply unable to talk about. One low-level script writer on the Fox News journalism team even confessed, “The list of things we weren’t allowed to talk about was getting so long, it was getting to be a challenge just to fill up the prime-time slots with anything even remotely political.”

LUCKILY, THAT HAS NOW ALL CHANGED!

Despite admitting that every single sign shows that the economy is improving, key Republicans were able to find a way to spin it to their benefit…

…they have decided to blame racism!

 

“It’s basically a form of affirmative action. It has to be. How else can you explain a recovery under a black president being better than a recovery under a white president?”

 

Jobs are improving faster under Obama because of RACISM.

“The insight really hit me when I saw this graph from the Department of Labor,” said an anonymous Congressman who looks suspiciously like Eddie Munster. “It shows that private-sector job gains after the 2009 recession have been faster than the private sector job gains after the 2002 recession. Now I thought to myself, how could that be? In 2002 the President was George Bush, and in 2009 the President was Barack Obama. See what I mean? I think you know what I’m getting at.

Back in October 2013, Rush Limbaugh observed that people are scared to oppose Obama because Obama is black. The reasoning is simple: if you in any way try to hinder Obama’s success, then you will be called “racist”, which of course is just mean. Oh and by the way it’s also racist because calling something “racist” is inherently racist, and not wanting to do things that seem racist IS ALSO RACIST.

Looking at the above graph, some people say it’s obvious that the private sector is ONLY HIRING NEW PEOPLE out of fear of doing something to make Obama look bad, and therefore being called “racist”, which of course is also racist.

I mean, why else would the recovery under the black guy be going better than the recovery under the white guy did?

There really can’t be any other explanation, right?

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.

Job recoveries have a liberal bias!

Private Sector Jobs under Bush and Obama

Private Sector Jobs under Bush and Obama

Everyone knows Obama’s job recovery is the most sluggish job recovery in the history of all of humanity, and probably the whole galaxy. So why does this graph show that Bush’s job recovery was even worse?

Some of you might remember that George W. Bush’s first term as president immediately followed a big stock market bust, just as Barack Obama’s first term immediately followed the housing bust.  Although both busts were different, both lead to dramatic job losses that then rebounded.

And according to the above graph, the recovery of private sector jobs during Obama’s presidency was much faster than the recovery under George W. Bush’s presidency!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID RECOVERY? HAVEN’T YOU HEARD OBAMA IS DESTROYING EVERYTHING?

We’ve heard repeatedly from our conservative leaders that this economic recovery is worst, most sluggish recovery ever since the beginning of time plus a million.  Why is it that we don’t remember the same comments being made during Bush’s term as president?

Some people might point out that the recovery seemed better under Bush because Republicans under Bush allowed private sector jobs to increase, while under Obama they have slashed government jobs as much as possible.

But do not listen to those people. Everyone knows that “government jobs” don’t count. That would just be liberal bias!!!

 

graph found via: Calculated Risk Blog

an update to: You should believe it’s a non-recovery because I say so
related post: Hannity’s rubber band has a liberal bias!

European austerity weirdly contradicts conservative values

Eurozone austerity

Eurozone austerity

“If we tighten our belts it will lead to growth,” Rand Paul has said. “Reducing the deficit always makes economies boom,” Paul Ryan has said. So why is this graph showing otherwise?

Of course we have not just heard this from our conservative hero, Rand Paul Ryan. We have also heard this from great intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  They all tell us the same thing: deep cuts in spending will balance the budget and instantly lead to an enormous explosion in hiring, productivity, GDP, puppies, rainbows, and oral sex.  In other words: it will solve all problems in the world.

Weirdly, the above graph shows that in European countries, there is a negative relationship between the degree of austerity they implemented, and their GDP growth.  More specifically: across Europe, the more dedicated a country was to cuts and austerity, the more their GDP dropped.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STUPID GRAPH? DIDN’T YOU GET THE MEMO?

When statistics like these dare to contradict the talking points of our great lord and leader, Rand Paul Ryan, there is only one conclusion we can come to:  the statistics must have a liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database
graph found via: Paul Krugman, New York Times

related article: European unemployment weirdly contradicts conservative values

The word “loophole” has a liberal bias

Loopholes

Loopholes

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

Obama takes more vacations than any modern president

Obama The Vacationer

Obama The Vacationer

Fox News claims that Obama has taken more vacations than any recent president. After a LOT of effort, we have finally found a way to prove them correct.

We have to admit, it was tough. After all, during Obama’s first term he was on vacation 131 days, while George W. Bush averaged 510 vacation days per term while in office.

Days Vacation per term (ref)
Ronald Reagan 242
George HW Bush 543
Bill Clinton 76
George W Bush 510
Obama (Term 1) 131

But as good conservatives, we have a strong interest in proving that Fox News is always right about everything.  So we started to dig.

ARGUMENT 1: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the economy is bad! He should be working!

It is true that the GDP growth under Obama has been much worse than it was under George W. Bush. When GDP growth is low, Presidents deserve less vacation time. That’s just common sense.

So we can create a weighting system that takes this into account.  Let’s look at the number of vacation days each president took per term per the annual percent GDP growth during that term.

Days Vacation
per term
% GDP Growth
(ref)
Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 242 3.3 73.33
George HW Bush 543 1.9 285.79
Bill Clinton 76 3.7 20.54
George W Bush 510 1.7 300.00
Obama (Term 1) 131 0.8 163.75

As you can see, this raises Obama’s “effective vacation days” (from 131 to 163), and lowers George W. Bush’s (from 510 to 300)

However, it isn’t enough.  George W. Bush still took more vacation days than Barack Obama.

ARGUMENT 2: Obama shouldn’t be vacationing when the debt is so big! That’s wasteful spending!

The Federal Debt is six trillion dollars more under Obama than it was under George W. Bush. That’s got to be taken into account somehow.When the debt is higher, presidents should take fewer vacation days. That’s just common sense.

So in addition to dividing the vacation days by the percent annual GDP growth, we can also multiply our “effective vacation days” calculation by the federal debt at the end of the president’s term.

Vacation Days
per % GDP Growth
End Of Term Debt
x 10 trill $ (ref)
Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
Ronald Reagan 73.33 $0.27 19.80
George HW Bush 285.79 $0.42 120.03
Bill Clinton 20.54 $0.57 11.71
George W Bush 300.00 $1.07 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 163.75 $1.64 268.55

This helps a little bit, but unfortunately it is not enough.  Using this new adjusted “effective vacation days”, Obama (268 days) is now getting closer to George Bush (321 days), but George Bush still has more vacation days than Obama.

ARGUMENT 3: I’m a constitutional originalist. Which is really code for…

Look, we’re not proud of this.  Really, we’re not.

But we’ve got to find some way of proving that Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.  Otherwise, we might have to admit that Fox News spews completely false B.S. on prime time television.

We tried all kinds of other factors, even beyond the two mentioned above.  Nothing seemed to work.

Even when we took into account the debt, the economy, unemployment, number of golf games, and even approval ratings, nothing was able to make Barack Obama seem to have taken more vacations than George W. Bush!

 

But luckily, there is the constitution.

Conservatives love the constitution: the original constitution.  And in the original constitution there is a very specific number associated with people like Barack Obama.  That number is three-fifths.

The number appears in Article I, section 2 of the constitution, and although it was superseded by the fourteen amendment, most conservatives know that that’s totally the least important amendment.

In the interest of delicacy we will simply call this number, three-fifths, the “Constitutional Coefficient”, or C-Factor.

We can include the C-Factor into our calculation of “effective vacation days”.  After all, if George Washington only wanted Barack Obama to be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census, we can only assume he would only want him to take 3/5 of a regular president’s vacation days, as well.

Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
Constitutional
Coefficient
(“C-Factor”)
10 x Days x Debt
per GDP Growth
per C-Factor
Ronald Reagan 19.80 1 19.80
George HW Bush 120.03 1 120.03
Bill Clinton 11.71 1 11.71
George W Bush 321.00 1 321.00
Obama (Term 1) 268.55 0.60 447.58

Eureka!  This solves the problem: using this calculation, Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than George W. Bush.

CONCLUSION

Fox News is correct: Barack Obama has taken more vacation days than any president of anything ever in the entire history of time. The above graph and table prove this point.

When liberals say that George Bush has taken more vacation days, that is because they are not using the special, adjusted “effective vacation days” measurement, which has been corrected to take into account important factors like GDP growth, Federal Debt, and–of course–the Constitution.

And if they aren’t willing to include important things like the economy and the constitution, well… that can only mean one thing: they are guilty of liberal bias!!!

 

 

Obama Recovery: fewest full moons since 1970

Obama: devastating for full moons

Obama: devastating for full moons

Under Obama, there have only been 42 full moons, while other post-recession periods typically saw 50 or more full moons. It is clear that the Obama administration has been devastating for full moons.

Your first reaction might be to think that this is a silly claim and a silly graph.  But rest assured, it is not!

Why not?

Because it follows the exact formula that is used by the following graph, which was produced by a good conservative website called CNS News.  CNS News has the stated goal of combating liberal bias in the media, and therefore would never ever produce a graph that was rooted in silliness.

GDP Recovery

In this graph from CNS news, they mark out the U.S. recessions with yellow bars.  Between these, they plot the total amount of GDP growth that occurred during those between-recession intervals of time.

That may be worth repeating. The blue bars do not represent that annual GDP growth during the between-recession periods.  They represent the total GDP growth during the between-recession periods.

That is why, you may notice, the bars that are wider have a general tendency to be taller: more time (width) means more time for the GDP to grow, which means more total economic growth.

They also strategically remove the blue bar from the brief recovery in from July 1980 to July 1981. Because that recovery was so short, the total growth would have been even lower than Obama’s blue bar. And we can’t have that.

We at LiberalBias.com are always interested in the newest techniques and strategies for removing liberal bias from graphs. Thus, we have used this analytical template and applied it to full moons…. and amazingly, the graphs look almost the same!

 

That’s what I call a solid analytical strategy: a way to produce a graph that makes Obama look bad no matter what you are graphing.

A hat-tip to you, CNS news.

Now make sure to tell all of your friends that Obama has, in fact, been devastating to full moons.

Look how few full moons there have been during this so-called “Obama recovery”!

It’s outrageous.

 

related story: Obama causes lightning, cats and suicide

 

QUIZ: are you qualified to create a conservative budget?

Serious Budget

Serious Budget

Take this two-question quiz. If you answer both questions correctly, then YOU are qualified to draft a conservative budget plan for the United States.

Question 1: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, it needs to be cut immediately. The meaning of this cut would be symbolic: when we are trying to tighten our belts, every little bit counts. This program is not needed, and some studies suggest that it impacts a very small minority of the population anyway. Because this program only helps a small number of people, but is paid for by everyone’s tax dollars, it represents socialism. It must be eliminated.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

Question 2: The cost for this element of the federal budget accounts for less than 1% of the annual federal deficit. However, to cut it would be a complete disaster. Because the amount of money is so small, it will not put a dent in our real economic problems and therefore should be ignored, as it is just a distraction from more important issues. It only benefits a small portion of the population, but the people it benefits are the ones who should be helped. Therefore, we need to keep this program in place.

This program is:

A)  PBS
B)  Tax breaks for corporate jet owners

 

 


 

If you answered (A) PBS to the first question, and (B) Tax breaks for corporate jet owners for the second question, then CONGRATULATIONS!   ….you are qualified to create a conservative federal budget plan!

 

Related Story: Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition

 

This graph DARES to suggest that “trickle-down” doesn’t work!

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Profits, Wages and the Stock Market

Ronald Reagan was an advocate of trickle-down economics. Ronald Reagan was perfect in every way. Therefore, this graph is wrong.  That’s just logic.

For those of you who don’t know, “trickle-down economics” is the very sensible conservative view that the most important thing in the economy is rich people.  When rich people do well, they buy stuff that you make and hire you to fix their boats and airplanes and take away their garbage.  In other words, everyone is happy, because you should thankful to even be employed at all, you lazy bum.

Ronald Reagen did not invent trickle-down economics. In fact, as a theory it has been around since at least the 1890’s, when it was called the “horse and sparrow theory” of economics. The idea is that if you feed a horse enough oats, it will eventually shit them out onto the road, and then the sparrows will be able to eat the oats from the road.

The Reagan administration wisely decided to use the term “supply-side economics”. It is basically the same concept.  However, they rarely, if ever, mentioned sparrows eating horse shit in their economic discussions.

At any rate, the point is that when rich people are better off, they make everyone better off. When the horse eats more oats, the sparrows get more oats. That’s a core bedrock principle of conservative economics.

Yet somehow, inexplicably, the above graph seems to indicate otherwise.  In this graph, you can see that the horses have been eating more and more oats over the last four years: corporate profits and stock value are going up and up and up.  Yet somehow, the sparrows are not getting more oats: the earnings of workers are staying about the same.

Where are your oats, Liberal Graph?

As conservatives, we take as axiomatic that trickle-down theory must be correct; therefore, the only possible conclusion is that this graph is just wrong.

Yet another case of numbers and statistics having liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
graph found via: The Huffington Post

Unemployment is at 52.4% (according to FU)

The Complete Unemployment Chart

The Complete Unemployment Chart

We have devised the most accurate measure of unemployment yet: the Fox Unemployment (FU) statistic. When calculated correctly, this statistic shows that unemployment is a staggering 52.4%!

It is important to remember that there many different ways to calculate unemployment. If unemployment seems to be decreasing while there is a black liberal guy in the White House, then obviously people are measuring unemployment the wrong way. In fact, we used the logical thought-processes of the great Mark Levin to prove that unemployment was 50% more than 6 months ago.

But with a new jobs report being released, it is important to re-visit this issue in an even more precise and logical way. We have chosen as our starting point a column from the fair-and-balanced FoxNews.com, entitled, “February’s jobs report only looks good because our expectations are so low“. That is obviously a great headline, but it buries a much more important point that is also made in the article.

According to this article, the unemployment statistic is meaningless specifically because it ignores 1) the people who have given up looking for work, 2) the people who are lazy and don’t want to work at all, and 3) the people who are working part time.  All of these things are obviously much, much more important than anything else, even though conservatives never talked about them before there was a black liberal guy in the white house.

Following this logic, we have decided to improve upon the existing set of unemployment measurement standards by adding a new measurement. Because it is inspired by the logic that is used over at Fox News, we are calling it the Fox Unemployment (FU) statistic.

According to the FU statistic, which includes people who have given up looking for work, lazy people who don’t want a job, and people who are only working part time, unemployment under President Obama is actually 52.4%!!!!

52.4%!!!!  Isn’t that INSANE???  Have you ever heard of such a thing before????

 

Please remember to distribute the above chart to all of your friends and family members.

And if anyone ever tries to tell you that unemployment is less than 52.4%, then all you need to say to them is:  “Oh yeah? What about FU!”

 

Graph Data Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Jobs Report
Graph Found Via: Quartz

Related Articles: Mark Levin proves that unemployment is really 50%

POLL RESULT: the public blames Obama for the sequester!

Obama takes the blame!Every day this week, talk show hosts and radio commentators have been saying that the public blames Obama for the sequester. They are obviously referring to the above poll results.

Consider these headlines:

Obama poll numbers take a post-sequester dive

Sequester Blowback: Obama Plummets to 43%

Poll: Obama’s Not Winning The Sequester Fight

Obama Suddenly Not Winning the Sequester Fight

Poll: Obama approval drops seven points on sequester worries

FIRST SEQUESTER VICTIM! OBAMA’S JOB APPROVAL DIVES

 

Holy Cow! Just look at those headlines! It’s almost as if the poll didn’t even ASK the corresponding question about the approval rating for Republicans in Congress.

…and naturally, we would have preferred it if they hadn’t.

This is why we have added some small highlighting arrows to the above graph, to make sure that you are looking at the correct part of the graph, and do not succumb to liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: ABC News/Washington Post poll
graph found via: Langer Research

America’s priorities: Homos or Health Care?

Homos versus Healthcare

Homos versus Healthcare

What do Americans really care about? Do they care about the economy and government spending? Or the fear that radical homosexual elites will take away their freedom? Google trends gives us an answer.

When there is an issue sticking in the American craw, they turn to the Google machine to find out more. Peaks in search volume on a particular topic or keyword usually correspond to news stories related to that topic. The more of a “spike” in search volume a news story gets, the more it shows that the American people as a whole are keyed in to that issue.

That is why the above graph is so fascinating. This graph compares search volume on two somewhat unusual terms that have appeared in big political news stories in the past year:  “chik fil a” and “sequester”.

If you will recall, there was an incident in mid-2012 where the head of the “Chik Fil A” restaurant chain put  a statement out saying that he hates the gay people, which of course all good conservatives know is perfectly reasonable and not prejudiced at all. This then caused radical homosexual activists to protest against Chik-Fil-A. This in turn lead to a counter-protest called “Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day”, where good conservatives all over the country showed the world important it is to allow people to hate gay people by gorging down on fried chicken.

That appreciation day took place on August 1, 2012, coinciding exactly with the large peak on the above graph.

Over the last several months, the big political topic that has been in the news has been this thing called the “sequester” that started a few days ago. The sequester is a fancy and somewhat awkward name for a set of government spending cuts that reduce or eliminate large portions of our government, including funding for the military, education, and health care. In particular, federal financial support for health care will be one of the items hit the hardest, with the government cutting back on immunization programs, payments for medical screenings, mental health programs and disease tracking program.  In anticipation of receiving less federal money, hospitals have already begun laying people off.

There were some news stories about it last December, because law-makers were doing complicated things in government to delay the sequester until March 1.  March 1 has now come and gone, and the sequester has been the topic of almost every news and talk radio show for the last week or so.

Yet for some reason, the current spike in web searches on “sequester” has less than one fifth the magnitude as the “Chik Fil A Appreciation Day” spike last August.

This is an important lesson for conservative law-makers everywhere.  The Washington D.C. Republicans are out of touch with the average American conservative. While politicians debate about things like “spending” and “health care” and “poor people”, it is obvious that the real American conservative responds to these issues with a big ol’ YAWN.

But when the Radical Homosexual Elites threaten to mess with his Fried Chicken, the average American Conservative sits up (the best he can) and pays attention.

Something to think about for 2014.

 

 

Graph Data Source: Google Trends
Graph Created By: LiberalBias.com

Related Posts: Eating at Chik-Fil-A causes homosexuality