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!!!

 

 

SNAP statistics contradict Paul Ryan

SNAP Program Statistics

SNAP Program Statistics

Once again there is a conflict between conservative ideology and statistics. This time, the topic is: Do food stamps make poor people lazy?

This graph shows the return-to-work rates for families that went on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as “Food Stamps”) due to unemployment. It turns out that a majority of the families with work-eligible adults that went on the SNAP program regained employment within the same month, and almost 90% of them had regained employment within the following year.

BUT WAIT A MOMENT!!  THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!

Everyone knows that when people go on food stamps, they think: “OMG, life is so easy, Ima never work again!”

Paul Ryan stated very clearly in his proposed budget that “government policies affecting lower-income individuals can often create a powerful disincentive to get ahead.”

The meaning of this statement could not possibly be more clear. Giving poor people financial assistance makes them lazy. (It is interesting and important to note that Paul Ryan does not think that giving rich people free money makes them lazy… but that’s a topic for another time.)

So on the one hand, we have Paul Ryan’s sentence in his budget.

On the other hand, we have actual statistics about the return-to-work rates of people on food stamps.

Which one is correct?

Well, we all know the answer to that: statistics clearly have a liberal bias!!!!

 

graph source: CBPP.org

UNSKEWED GRAPH: Scientists split on climate change

Scientists split on climate change

Scientists split on climate change

As a public service, we have created this graph to illustrate the virtual dead heat between scientists who accept climate change as a theory, and those who do not accept it.

There have been a number of articles recently that have presented this same data, but with very biased graphs that seem to suggest that scientists almost all believe in climate change.

In order to counter this propaganda, we advise you to begin disseminating the above graph immediately.  As you can see, it accurately represents the conservative view that both sides are pretty much the same.

If anyone suggests anything else, well that must just be liberal bias!!

 

graph data source: TheContributor.com

related articles:
Federal Spending Graph: UNSKEWED!,
There are two sides to every story, and one of them is socialist.

Mark Levin proves the debt is really 1 Quadrillion Dollars!!

The Real Federal Debt

The Real Federal Debt

Since people aren’t as terrified as they should be, Mark Levin has been spending a lot of time proving the debt is much bigger than our lying government is telling us. He does a good job, but we think he could go even farther.

It all began last November, when Chris Crox and Bill Archer published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining why the federal debt is much bigger than everyone thinks.

Their logic was simple and direct. The federal government tells you that our debt is $15.96 trillion. But that is misleading because that is only what we owe now.  Sure, it most people think the word “debt” actually means “what you owe now”, but we should change that.  What if we were to say that the “debt” should also include stuff you are going to owe in the future!!!

Financial people call this type of thing unfunded liability. An unfunded liability is something you know you are going to owe in the future, even though you don’t technically owe it yet. Cox and Archer say that we should include this stuff in what we call our “debt”.

Just to make this personal and concrete for you: imagine you are a young person with a spouse and you have a 1 year old child. This would be like adding that child’s college tuition when figuring out what your “debt” is, because after all you are going to owe that money eventually. That makes perfect sense, right?  Your child is one year old, so you might as well think of that child’s college tuition as your current debt.

Using this reasoning, Cox and Archie say that our debt is not only the $15.97 trillion that we owe now, but also the $20.5 trillion that we will eventually owe on Social Security for all of the people alive today who will some day collect social security (in the future), and also the $23.5 trillion that we will eventually owe on retirement benefits for current federal employees who are not yet retired but eventually will be (in the future), and also the $42.8 trillion that we will eventually owe on Medicare for all people who are currently alive and will eventually be paid Medicare (in the future)!

That adds up to $86.8 trillion!  This is a brilliant accounting trick!  Because if your goal is to really really freak people the fuck out, then what better way is there than to say that their “debt” includes stuff that hasn’t happened yet?

So Mark Levin heard about this article, and has recently been citing it whenever he gets a chance. As a result, these numbers have been cropping up everywhere. So if you see the number $86.8 trillion anywhere, this is where it comes from. That number is now being proudly announced as the “real debt” in blog comments and by talk radio callers everywhere.

However, although Mark Levin is doing a great job (as usual), we here at Liberal Bias believe he does not go far enough.

I mean, let’s use some common sense.  If we are going to include future retirement money on the people currently in federal office, why not also include retirement money for people that we haven’t yet elected but we are sure we will elect some day?  If we are going to include Medicare for all people alive but who are not yet receiving Medicare payments, then why not also include the money for all Medicare for all future humans that will be born for the next 40 years? Why not also include all of the costs that we are sure to incur just from having dumb liberal presidents in the future?

The point is, why wait? Why not just add in all of that future money NOW, and call it part of our current debt? There is no need to stop at a measly $86.8 trillion!

 

To illustrate this point, we have created the above graph. Using the infallible reasoning of Mark Levin, and merely extending it a little bit to its logical conclusion, we can conclusively prove that  our current national debt is 1 quadrillion dollars!

You heard it hear first.

 

Graph Data Source: this graph has been created for illustrative purposes only. Liberal “actual” data was not used.

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

Breaking News: gun death statistics are for pussies

Gun ownership and deaths by state

Gun ownership and deaths by state

SPECIAL REPORT: In the light of all of the breaking news about shootings and killings by guns lately, we feel it is our patriotic duty to present our own breaking news. Statistics about shooting deaths do not matter. What matters is this: GUNS FREAKING ROCK, MAN! Anyone who says otherwise is just filled with liberal bias.

Sure, some people might look at the above graph and notice that there is a direct relationship between the percentage of the population in a state that owns a gun, and the number of per capita gun deaths that a state experiences. They might think that this means that reducing the number of people who own guns would reduce the number of per capita gun deaths.

BUT THAT KIND OF LOGIC IS FOR PUSSIES.

Deaths don’t matter.  What matters is that if all of those elementary students had been armed and shooting at each other, obviously everyone would have been much safer.  What matters is that it isn’t the guns’ fault, because crazy people still could have killed all of those people if they had been really, really, really fast and good at using a knife. What matters is that your friends will like you more when you show them how big and powerful your gun is.

And you want your friends to like you, right?

 

 

This concludes our special report.

graph data source: LCAV data
graph found via: “Important data trends the NRA doesn’t want you to know” on New Trajectory.

related post: My rights as a gun owner! (VIDEO PSA)

The Tea Party Cat explains the 2012 election aftermath

Tea Party Cat

Tea Party Cat

In this exclusive interview for LiberalBias.com, Greg Stevens gets the Tea Party Cat to cut through political gaffes, backpedaling and misstatements to find out what our great conservative leaders will really be thinking after the 2012 election.


Greg Stevens [GS]:  One of your great talents as a powerful voice on the Right is your ability to state, in simple terms that everyone can understand, what our leaders are really thinking. We all know that people misspeak, and sometimes get quoted out of context. But even when politicians don’t quite say what they should, you have a talent for being able to decipher what they really mean.

Paul Ryan.Donald Duck

So if I can get your wisdom and insight on the record, exclusively for us here at Liberalbias.com, I would like us to take a look into the future at what our political leaders will really be thinking the day after the election. What do you say?

Tea Party Cat [TPC]: Well, as you know, for conservatives there are only two futures: apocalyptic futures where America is destroyed by 39% marginal tax rates on the rich, and bright futures where heroic (male) leaders restore America to its rightful place as absolute ruler of the world and impose fundamentalist Christianity and democracy on the world at the end of a tank barrel.

GS: That sounds right… so let’s start by imagining the worst case scenario: Obama has been re-elected.

TPC: That would be a real tragedy. The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have invested a billion dollars in this election, and to have it stolen by voters would be horrible. If this happens, then it might deter billionaires from trying to buy future elections, which would mean even more control over our government by the moochers.

GS: If we could get him to admit it bluntly, what is Mitt Romney really thinking?

TPC: “Oh, well. Good thing we did this on the Koch and Adelson money instead of mine. And besides we skimmed plenty off the top from the SuperPACs for ‘management fees’, so it’s really no different than KB Toys.”

GS: And what is Paul Ryan really thinking?

TPC: “Good thing I stayed on the ballot for my congressional seat. Plus now I can write a book like Palin did and finally cash in on this.”

GS: And Barack Obama?

TPC: Well, that’s going to be more of a conversation like this:

Obama: “Bill, thanks for all your help in this campaign. What can I do to repay you?”
Bill Clinton: “Barack, you know what I want.”
Obama: “OK, I’ll hire back the Secret Service team that got caught with prostitutes in Colombia and assign them to your detail.”
Bill Clinton: “And?”
Obama: “And I’ll keep Hillary out of the country as much as possible.”

GS: And Sarah Palin?

TPC: “Don’t blame me. I backed Newt.”

GS: Newt Gingrich?

TPC: “Hello, Sheldon [Adelson]? So, 2016? I won’t be too old. We both know you can’t trust that Christie guy to toe the line, and Ryan is damaged goods now.”

GS: And what are the Koch brothers thinking?

TPC: “Well, we still own Paul and Scott and Reince in Wisconsin, all of Kansas, Arkansas, and have plenty of others in our pocket. We can still buy 2014 and 2016.”

GS: Reince Priebus?

TPC: “Oh, well, we’ll just have to suppress more votes next time!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “I told you Romney couldn’t beat Obama.”

GS: Karl Rove?

TPC: “Oh, thank God! I oversold the election, so it’s a good thing Mitt lost because too many billionaires would expect something.”

GS: Scalia?

TPC: “Mitt lost? Are you sure, Florida? I even got my ‘Bush v Gore pen’ back from the Smithsonian.”

GS: Rick Perry?

TPC: “I knew I should’ve run for president this year. I could’ve won this thing.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Hey, Mitt! Sorry you lost. No, not really. I never really liked you or your whole no swearing act, and now it’s wide open for me in 2016. Don’t worry, I won’t be inviting you to the convention—you can sit home with W.”

GS: And finally…. Fox & Friends?

TPC: “Let’s call Trump and see if he thinks the election was stolen too!”

GS: Very impressive! Now, let’s imagine again, but this time it is the day after the election, and the angels have smiled upon our nation and blessed us with a Mitt Romney victory.

NOW, what is the quote from Mitt Romney?

TPC: “I hope all this crazy shit we’ve been saying works, because Paul and Grover are making me go through with this.”

Though at some point you know Romney is going to notice what the job pays, and I can’t see him sticking around for a measly $400,000 a year.

GS: From Paul Ryan?

TPC: “Oh, thank God I don’t have to go on Dancing With The Stars now.”

GS: From Barack Obama?

TPC: “You were right, Hillary, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Good luck in 2016.”

GS: From Sarah Palin?

TPC: “My Facebook statuses did it!”

Though I actually expect Palin will go quiet for a while after election night. She’ll be disappointed that Romney won. Criticizing the president is so much easier than trying to justify his mistakes, and as her financial adviser told her last fall, with Romney running for reelection, she can’t pretend to run again to get an all-expense paid family vacation from her SuperPAC. It’s a bad day for Palin, and she knows it.

GS: Mitch McConnell:

TPC: “Holy shit! Sabotaging the economy worked! They fell for it. Suckers!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “Could’ve been me. I could’ve beaten Obama. Well, if it weren’t for Google. And the fact that I’m an sufferable prick.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Crap! Now I gotta wait until 2020. I was sure 2012 was a loser and it would be mine in 2016.”

GS: Fantastic!  Now, no matter what we hear on our television sets or read in the newspapers on the day after the election, we can all rest assured that we already know what they are really thinking.

Finally, one last question: are you really a cat?

TPC: Well, my identity is a closely guarded secret, but I would like to lay to rest the rumor that I am Stephen Colbert’s cat. I am not. I am no one’s cat. I own people, they don’t own me.

GS: Thank you very much for your time!

 

The Tea Party Cat can be found on Tumblr, on Twitter and on Facebook.

The GOP’s secret gay sex party

Gay Sex Party.

Gay Sex Party.

This year, the Republican platform has been filled with uplifting conservative social messages about banning abortions, preventing the wrong people from getting married, and making sure that schools don’t force our children to ask to many questions. This theme was beautifully articulated at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, where the speakers were virtuous, inspiring, uplifting, and passionate. At least, that’s what the the people on Fox News keep telling us.

But I have some bad news for them.

If the Republican National Convention represents the future of the Republican party, then the future of the Republican Party is going to be filled with lots and lots of HOT GAY SEX.

That’s right! Apparently, there are some members of the GOP who are ready to pull up the anti-gay planks in the GOP platform and use them as paddles in their S&M sex games.

Grindr is a tool that gay people use to meet other gay people so that they can do dirty, filthy, homosexualist things to each other. No good, Christian, family-values conservative would ever be familiar with such a thing, right? Yet somehow, this graph shows that Grindr usage DOUBLED during the GOP convention.

What’s wrong with you stupid graph? Why are you making Republicans look like godless sluts???

 

Naturally, many theories are possible.

Some people might say that God is sending homosexuals to the convention to punish the GOP for not fully embracing the free market ideals of Ron Paul. Obviously, this argument has some merit.

Other people might say that the GOP’s anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-gay positions are just the kind of thing that closeted, self-hating gay people would gravitate to, while simultaneously acting out their repressed urges using Grindr. This seems slightly less plausible.

Still others might say, “Isn’t it possible that gay people come in all kinds of varieties, including both Republican and Democrat, and we shouldn’t read in to the fact that there are gay people at a GOP convention?” This, clearly, is total nonsense.

The most likely explanation is that a top-secret underground super-powerful group of homosexual activists has infiltrated the Republican National Convention and have decided to use Grindr to have lots and lots and lots of hot filthy sweaty man-sex just to make conservatives look ridiculous.

It’s the obvious explanation.

Or, it could be that they were just turned gay by Chick-Fil-A.

Either way, it’s important that the world know that the Republican National Convention, behind closed doors and with the lights turned off, is engaging in lots of dirty, hard, nasty, sinful liberal bias!!!!!

data source: Grindr

 

Science’s increasing liberal bias!

History of Scientific Bias

History of Scientific Bias

Liberals like to talk about how conservatives have become more and more hostile toward science over time.  The fact is: it is science that has become more and more hostile toward conservatives over time!

The above graph demonstrates conclusively that ever since the birth of Jesus, science has had an increasing liberal bias!  Indeed, if you exclude the anomalous freak occurrence of the radical liberal Aristotle in 384 B.C., science has basically had an increasing liberal bias throughout all of history!

An explanation and analysis of the graph is provided below. The “liberal bias score” was determined using an 11-point balanced Likert scale evaluation of each scientific theory by a convenient sample of survey participants (N=1). But none of that is important because let’s face it, nobody ever pays attention to the methodology of scientific studies: they just look at the pretty graphs.

625 B.C Thales of Miletus says that the earth floats on water.Analysis: This statement is consistent with the Bible, which states that originally there were the “waters of the deep” and that the earth, i.e. land, was created in that water. Thus, we give this theory an overall rating of “conservative.” Score:

-3

(conservative)

460 B.C Democritus claims that all matter is made up of atoms.Analysis: Atoms are never mentioned in the Bible, so this claim is slightly suspect. Plus, the person’s name is “Democritus” which automatically suggests liberal bias. However, the theory itself is not especially liberal or conservative. Thus we give this theory an overall rating of only “slightly liberal”. Score:

1

(slightly liberal)

384 B.C. Aristotle claims that all events have a natural cause, and although there must have been an original “un-moved mover” (God) it (sic) no longer participates or willfully influences the world.Analysis: This is clearly heretical and filled with godless liberal nonsense. It denies the possibility of a personal God granting miracles or punishing gays or doing any of the other things that God obviously does. Moreover, Aristotle wrote political essays about how the government should help citizens to have happy lives, which means he was also a socialist who was against personal responsibility. Obviously a radical liberal lunatic. Score:

5

(extremely liberal)

287 B.C. Archimedes discovers mathematical laws that govern the volumes of shapes and the properties of simple tools like levers.Analysis: There is nothing especially conservative or liberal about these mathematical relationships. On the one hand, it is important to observe and understand the laws that God has commanded the universe to work by. On the other hand, it might have been better if Archimedes had made the point that God can over-ride these rules at any time. As a result, we give these discoveries an overall rating of neutral. Score:

0

(neutral)

161 A.D. Galen analyzes animal bodies in order to develop theories about human anatomy.Analysis: Galen was a strong proponent of using observation in order to develop medical theories, but also understood the importance of using logic, intuition, instinct, and beliefs in the development of scientific theories. Plus, he refused to violate the dignity of corpses and instead experimented on animal corpses. He is therefore one of the earliest examples of an anti-Animal Rights activist, and so we give him an overall rating of conservative. Score:

-3

(conservative)

354 A.D. Saint Augustine explains that although beings have constantly changed since creation, one species cannot change into another.Analysis: This brilliant insight cannot be stressed enough, even in current scientific debate. Evolutionists like to claim that because things change, one species automatically must change into another. Augustine argued against that over a thousand years before Darwin was even born! He therefore deserves credit for being extremely conservative. Score:

-5

(extremely conservative)

525 A.D. Dionysius Exiguus discovers that all years should be counted starting with the year of Jesus’s birth and should be identified as “the year of our Lord” (Anno Domini, or A.D.).Analysis: Obviously this is one of the great scientific discoveries of all of history, and is completely consistent with conservative values. Liberals who are trying to destroy our culture want to replace this label with “C.E.” Score:

-5

(extremely conservative)

1473 A.D. Copernicus claims that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe.Analysis: This is an attempt to minimize the importance of man, God’s highest creation, and reduce us to “just some part” of a larger universe. Although not totally liberal on its own, this theory is setting the stage to erode conservative values. Therefore, this theory gets a score of “slightly liberal”. Score:

1

(slightly liberal)

1564 A.D. Galileo claims that scientific theories must be validated by experiments.Analysis: This was clearly the beginning of the end, when it comes to science. Prior to this, scientists turned to scripture, morality, and intuition to help them to decide what theories were correct. Galileo thought that experiments mattered more than scripture or faith. Obviously a liberal theory. Score:

3

(liberal)

1642 A.D. Newton describes three laws of motion.Analysis: These laws are neither liberal nor conservative. Although they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, the Bible does talk about God’s Laws and it’s reasonable to suppose that these laws of motion might be exactly what God intended. The overall score of these laws is therefore neutral. Score:

0

(neutral)

1791 A.D. Faraday introduces the notion of magnetic “force fields”.Analysis: The very idea that there are unseen forces that are not made up of matter, but are not the direct will of God, is downright pagan sorcery and magic. Introducing the idea of a “field” into physics is basically the same as saying “Devil powers” but using a less intimidating name. Obviously a liberal theory. Score:

3

(liberal)

1809 A.D. Darwin comes up with the idea of evolution.Analysis: This one really requires no discussion, right? Score:

5

(extremely liberal)

1916 A.D. Einstein’s theory of relativity.Analysis: There are a number of problems with relativity, not the least of which being that it involves “relativism” which states that things depend on your point of view. This is a dangerous idea that can lead to moral decay. Score:

3

(liberal)

1925 A.D. Heisenberg claims that positions and velocities are uncertain and are not even concretely defined unless they are observed by people.Analysis: The whole idea that the state of the universe depends on what people observe? What about what God observes? God knows the position AND velocity of every single atom! To deny the omniscience of God is the utmost of liberal atheist arrogance! Score:

4

(very liberal)

1936 A.D. Alan Turing comes up with the conceptual basis for the programmable computer.Analysis: Turing was a homosexual. Obviously anything he creates is very liberal. Score:

5

(extremely liberal)

1945 A.D. Schroedinger publishes “What is life?” putting forth theories about chemistry, structure and replication.Analysis: This discussion of life does not allow any role for the soul and attempts to completely reduce all life to just chemicals like the stuff you find in a bucket at a factory. ARE YOU JUST CHEMICALS? Of course not. Liberal nonsense. Score:

4

(very liberal)

1965 A.D. Discoveries by Penzias and Wilson lead to the broad acceptance of the “Big Bang” theory.Analysis: The “Big Bang Theory” is not described in tbe bible, and is very clearly an attempt to remove God from any discussion of the origins of the universe. But can the “big bang” explain life? No. And where did the “big bang” come from? Obviously a flawed atheist theory meant to undermine conservative values. Score:

4

(very liberal)

1997 A.D. Wilmut and Campbell clone a sheep.Analysis: Once again arrogant scientist are trying to infringe upon the domain of life and creation, which by all rights should only be the proper activity of God. This is immoral and contrary to good conservative values. Score:

5

(extremely liberal)

Welfare statistics have liberal bias!

Families Receiving Welfare

Families Receiving Welfare

New Gingrich, the cuddly prophet of conservatism, has called Obama the “food stamp president” and the “welfare president.” Bill O’Reilly, who is never wrong, has said that under Obama we have become a “welfare nation.”  Dick Morris, on Fox News, said, “Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare.”

So how is it possible that this above graph shows the number of families receiving welfare assistance is dramatically lower than it was at any time in the 1990’s? Indeed, according to this graph, there are almost 2 million fewer families receiving welfare assistance now than there were in 1996.  According to this graph, the number of families receiving welfare looks like it is going down even though the number of families with children in poverty has been going up!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, WELFARE FAMILIES? WHY ARE YOU CONTRADICTING FOX NEWS?

There is clearly a very sinister plot going on here. Since welfare recipients are notoriously liberal, they must be refusing to accept the free handouts that Obama is trying to give them just to make Fox News look bad.

But we know better! This statistic clearly is just the product of a massive conspiracy and  liberal bias!!!!

graph source:  Graph: Washington Post, Data: CBPP
found via: Washington Post

Liberals reach a new low with depraved graphs!

Disgusting Graphs

Disgusting Graphs

Everyone knows that liberals are obsessed with sex, pornography, deviancy, nakedness, heathen rituals, movies that involve gladiators, and other disgusting non-Christian things.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are righteous and rational.

Never has this been more obvious than in the latest set of so-called “graphs” of so-called “data” from the Treasury Department. In a desperate attempt to make people think that the economy is getting better, when obviously it is not, liberals have resorted to playing on the most base of human drives: LUST.

Look at those graphs! LOOK AT THEM!

Look HARDER!

Do you see it? Do you see how the liberals are trying to make you subliminally feel better about the economy? Do you see how they are playing on disgusting, anti-Christian, anti-social perversion in a desperate ploy to make you feel happy about the way things are going?

OK, if you can’t see it, maybe this will help:

Disgusting GraphsDisgusting Graphs

It is obvious that since the economy is not actually improving, the liberals will resort to any means at all to lull people into a false sense of positive feelings.

Disgusting graphs.

source: Department of the Treasury
via
: SomeDisagree.com

Obama made inflation worse! Graphs without bias.

Inflations Rates

This is a very confusing subject, and in radical ultra-liberal left wing media outlets like the American Institute for Economic Research and Forbes.com you will see people saying that inflation is not worse under Obama than it was under Bush. But they are looking at these numbers in a Liberally Biased way. The correct way to look at these numbers is as follows:

Inflations Rates

For a very long time, fancy economists used this thing called the “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” (black line) to measure inflation. As a result, the highest level that inflation ever rose to during Bush’s presidency was around 5%.

Recently, economists have realized that the correct way to measure inflation during a liberal presidency is to use the “Everyday Price Index” or “”EPI” (golden line). As a result, the highest rate of inflation during Obama’s presidency has been around 10%.

It is as simple as that. Numbers do not lie.  We have highlighted the two points that you should pay attention to on the above graph (red) that clearly illustrate that the maximum inflation rate has increased under Obama compared to under Bush.

Look only at the red highlighted points.

Do not look at any of the other points on the graph.

Those other points are the ones that lead to liberal bias…..

 

graph source: American Institute for Economic Research
thanks for the tip
: Zachary Pleat

Unemployment graphs: bias vs truth

Unemployment: bias vs truth

Unemployment: bias vs truth

There has been a lot of confusion lately about unemployment. Many liberally biased graphs are out there, seeming to show that unemployment is “getting better” and that the economy is “improving” and so on. But these statistics are being presented in a liberally biased way.

How are these graphs liberally biased?

Because these graphs of the so-called “actual” unemployment trend are showing only what happened under a liberal president!  That shows obvious bias, because they are not considering what the graph would have looked like under the conservative alternative!

Above, you can see the correct and proper unbiased graph.  As you can see, although there is a slight decrease in unemployment under the liberal “actual” scenario, it is much worse than the unemployment under the conservative scenario.

This is what Mitt Romney and other unbiased conservatives mean when they say that the president has made the economy worse: the economy is worse than it would be if the United States were operating under true, loyal, patriotic conservative ideals.

Any graph that does not compare so-called “actual” (liberal) data with the conservative alternative is guilty of liberal bias!!!!!

source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
via:
The Maddow Blog (only for the liberal “actual” data)

Human Development: liberal data vs. conservative truth!

Human Development: unbiased truth

Human Development: biased data

Conservatives realize the truth that taxes destroy liberty and erode the basic structure of society.  Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that countries having a higher top marginal tax rate would have a lower score on the Human Development Index.

However, as you can see in the graph above, the Human Development Index does not reflect this fundamental fact. Obviously this demonstrates that the Human Development Index has a liberal bias!

In the following graph, below, I show the corrected data, with the liberal bias removed. (Please notice American Exceptionalism!)

Human Development: unbiased truth

Source: Top Marginal Tax Rates from the OECD, HDI statistics from photius.com (top graph only), graph created by Greg Stevens

Are STD’s a liberal germ warfare plot?

Liberal Germ Warfare

Liberal Germ Warfare

Conservatives are very responsible about teaching abstinence while liberals teach underage children to have sex whenever they want.

Yet somehow, incidents of sexually transmitted diseases are greater in conservative areas of the U.S. (south and midwest) than in the liberal areas.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? HOW CAN THESE STD’S BE ATTACKING GOOD FAITHFUL CONSERVATIVE CHILDREN WHO NEVER, EVER, EVER HAVE SEX?

Could it be that the liberals have trained the germs to attack conservatives???

This is quite a disturbing development. Why is this not being covered more in the media?

source: graph by Graphing Youth Sex Habits using data from CDC.gov