Opinion poll results have become increasingly weird in the last year. Luckily, we are here  to explain what these results mean, and give you instructions on how YOU should answer political opinion polls.

The weirdness is this: if we take poll results at face value, it looks suspiciously as though Republicans believe some…. <ahem> questionable things. For example, a great deal of fun has been made about the fact that 20% of Republicans believe that Obama is the antichrist, and 58% of Republicans think that Global Warming is not only “false” but is a conspiracy.

But even with beliefs that are not as wacky, it seems that being a Republican is almost completely predictive of what facts you are willing to accept as “true”.

Republicans, by a large margin, think that Obama’s explanations of the current IRS “scandal” do not make sense, in sharp contrast to… well, everyone else, who think that Obama’s arguments do make sense.

Similarly, the population of people who believe that the “Benghazi scandal” is the “worst scandal ever” is made up almost entirely of Republicans, and nobody else.

Is it really true that Democrats and Republicans have such drastically different ideas about what is “believable” and what is not? Or what is “the worse scandal” and what is not?

The simple answer is this: No.  Republicans are simply answering polls in their own unique and patriotic way.

See the sample image above.

If you are a Republican, you know that these are desperate times. As a result, if you have the opportunity to answer a political opinion poll, you know that you have one and only one goal: TO MAKE SURE THE WORLD KNOWS THAT OBAMA SUCKS.

It doesn’t actually matter what the opinion poll is asking about. Your task is simply to choose whatever answer will convey the fact THAT OBAMA SUCKS.

Therefore, a question about Global Warming will have two possible answers: A) Global warming exists, or B) Obama Sucks

And a question about Benghazi will have two possible answers: A) Benghazi is not the worst thing ever, or B) Obama Sucks

And a question about whether the White House lied about… anything… will have two possible answer: A) The White House didn’t lie, or B) Obama Sucks.

You get the idea.

So please make sure you use this technique if ever YOU are called upon to answer a political opinion poll.  Remember, it doesn’t actually matter if you’ve even heard of the topic they are asking about.

Just make sure you choose the answer that corresponds to: Obama Sucks.

Doing anything else, well… that might just lead to Liberal Bias!!!!

Wisconsin is a shining conservative city on a hill, and has been implementing severely conservative policies for several years now. So why isn’t job growth as high as conservatives say it should be?

Take a quick look at the recent history of Wisconsin.  When Scott Walker was inaugurated as governor, it meant that the Republican Party finally had complete control of the state: Republican governor, Republican Assembly, and Republican State Senate.  Yippee!

Immediately, he got to work. Walker refused money from the federal government for building high-speed rail. He cut education funding. He destroyed unions. He signed a Voter ID law that would make it more difficult for people to vote. He turned away federal money for health care reform.

Now, sure, some people did some grousing, and Walker barely survived a recall election.  But all of that is ok! Why?

Because of what was in his heart. The only reason he did all of these unpopular things was to create jobs! 

You see, sometimes tough decisions have to be made. Scott Walker knew that some of his decisions would be unpopular, but he also knew: all of these things will boost job growth.

Refusing money for highspeed rail and health care reform… well, that will obviously create jobs.  Duh.

Destroying unions…. well, that might not help union jobs, but nobody cares about those anyway.

And making it harder for people to vote…. well, we’re pretty dang certain that that is supposed to create jobs, too!!

So what is wrong with the above graph?

Why has Wisconsin consistently plummeted in job growth to be last in the national rankings?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STUPID JOB GROWTH? HAVEN’T YOU HEARD OF CONSERVATIVE IDEALS??

Clearly, if all of Wisconsin’s conservative job-creating efforts have actually lead to a decrease in job growth, it can’t be because conservative economic beliefs are wrong.

Oh no. Anything but that.

You know what it’s got to be: …. liberal bias!!!

graph data source: QCEW data from the BLS
graph found via: The Daily Kos

Sean Hannity is such a hard worker. For weeks, he has been yelling about how Benghazi is the worst scandal since the beginning of Time and is evidence of the complete downfall of liberal philosophy. I hope recent poll results don’t upset him too much.

The guilty party is a recent PPP poll which shows that the American people overwhelmingly trust Hillary Clinton, and do not trust House Republicans, on the topic of Benghazi, and generally don’t think that Benghazi is that important… at least not when compared to other things, like gun control or immigration reform, or even other scandals, like Watergate.

This must be confusing for poor Sean.  (I feel comfortable calling him “Sean”, because he seems so cuddly.)  Didn’t he spend 60 solid minutes on his radio show this week explaining that the Benghazi scandal was actually evidence of the complete failure of all liberal philosophy?  Hasn’t he had guest after guest on his show declaring that the only logical conclusion that anyone could possibly come to is that Obama staged Benghazi in order to promote his radical world-Muslim agenda? Has all of Sean’s hard work gone completely to waste?

The worst part of it all, however, isn’t in the overall results of the survey, but in the breakdown (or “cross-tabs” to use fancy statistics terminology) of the results by party, shown in the two graphs that we have included in this article.

After all, we can expect that Democrats are all socialist takers who want to destroy America because they see Obama as a friendly black sodomite Santa Claus (which they love).

But what about Republicans?

The graph above clearly shows that although most Democrats trust Hillary and most Republicans trust Congress, there are more Republicans who defected betrayed blasphemed said that they trust Hillary than there are Democrats who said they trust Congress.

Similarly, the majority of Republicans do not believe that Benghazi is OMG THE WORST THING EVER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.

What is wrong with you, stupid Republicans? Aren’t you paying attention to Sean Hannity????

Clearly, these so-called Republicans are not in completely lock-step with Sean Hannity’s agenda.  Even after all of his hard, hard work.

Poor Sean.

Obviously, this can only be explained by invoking the sinister forces of liberal bias!!!!

PPP Poll Results with crosstab data: Americans trust Clinton over GOP on Benghazi (PDF)

Cross-Tab graphs created using: SomeDisagree.com CrossTab Grapher

Related Posts: Republican voters have a Liberal Bias,          Benghazi: the official list of charges

So here’s the story.  Apparently, the IRS has admitted to focusing on Tea Party groups when looking for tax evaders. This has a lot of conservatives really mad, because they say it is “unfairly profiling” Tea Party groups.

It is important to point out that Tea Partiers are no stranger to profiling.  Tea Party politician Jan Brewer loves profiling. The Republican Party of Wisconsin loves profiling. Generally speaking, all well-known conservative spokes-people love profiling.

But profiling has to be logical. It has to make sense. Like this:  ”I hear people talk about Muslim terrorists a lot. Therefore, anybody who is Muslim is probably a terrorist.”

If you are a good conservative, you recognize that this is the kind of profiling that just makes sense.

Tea Partiers, however, should never be profiled.

I mean, sure: they tend to say that taxes are too high.

Many of them also say that they are morally opposed to taxation.

Some of them even say that all taxation is unconstitutional and tantamount to theft by the government.

But that doesn’t mean anything! That’s all just anecdotal! And heresay! And other words! If you say “Tea Partiers therefore might be more likely to avoid paying taxes” …. well, that just goes too dang far.

But there is a problem.

Unfortunately, as usual, scientific studies create a problem for this argument.

Some studies show that having a positive view of taxes as a “civic duty” tends to reduce the propensity for tax evasion, while not believing that taxes are a “civic duty” is positively related to tax evasion (Orvisha & Hudson, 2003).

Other studies show that trust in government, trust in the legal system, and trust in the courts are all be positively related to tax compliance, while having a lack of trust in the government is related to tax evasion (Torgler, 2007).

…..but as we all know, things like “science” and “data” traditionally have a liberal bias.  And therefore can be ignored.

Conclusion?

Please make sure  you spend this week yelling and screaming about the IRS unfairly profiling Tea Partiers for possible tax evasion.

Then, next week, you can go back to yelling and screaming about how all taxes are theft, and all Muslims should be deported.

If anyone accuses you of hypocrisy, then … well, they must just have a liberal bias!!!!

REFERENCES

Orvisha, M. and J. Hudson. (2003). Tax evasion, civic duty and the law abiding citizen. European Journal of Political Economy, 19:1. pp 83-102.

Torgler, B. (2007). Tax Compliance and Tax Morale: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.

For a good summary, read: Tax Morale and Fiscal Policy  (PDF)

Related Articles on Profiling: Domestic Terrorism, Right-Wing Extremism, and Liberal Bias

Dennis Prager warns about the social, psychological, and moral dangers of this breakfast. We agree with him, but we also think he does not go far enough with his condemnations….

This appeared as a column on some unknown website a couple of days ago: a person named Dennis Prager explains the true visionary conservative position on schools providing breakfasts for poor children. To sum up, in his own words:

1. “A nutritious breakfast can be had for less than a dollar….” and therefore “it is inconceivable that there are homes in Los Angeles that cannot afford breakfast for their child. ”

2. Giving poor children nutritious breakfasts at schools “both enables and encourages irresponsible, uninterested, and incompetent parenting.”

3. Giving poor children nutritious breakfasts at schools “weaken the parent-child bond.”

4. “The free breakfast profoundly weakens young people’s character.”

To sum up, again in his own words: “These are the ways in which the Left has damaged children and families through free school breakfasts.”

These are amazing arguments, but we here at LiberalBias.com have to ask this:

…WHY are you limiting this argument only to school-provided breakfasts?

Consider this:

Textbooks!

Why are our socialist schools providing textbooks for free? A $20 textbook works out to less than 5 cents per day, so it’s inconceivable that anyone would not be able to afford it. If the school provides the textbook, then it just enables bad parents to not buy the books themselves. It also weakens the parent-child bond, because what is more bonding than a parent and child struggling together when they can’t afford textbooks for school?  Finally, giving textbooks to students weakens their character because it makes them assume that they will get free stuff from other people.

Therefore, allowing students to use textbooks without making them pay is destroying the character of our children.

Desks!

Why do our socialist schools allow students to sit at desks for free? Why are they not paying a rental fee for the year?  Isn’t this sending the wrong message? Doesn’t this just encourage dependency?  Doesn’t this just enable bad parenting, by letting the parents get away with not paying for the child to rent the desk?

It’s a moral disaster, ladies and gentlemen.

…and so on. You get the idea.  You can use this argument to basically demonize anything that schools provide.

So why don’t you, Dennis Prager?  You know you want to.  Go explain to the world that it’s destroying the character of our children that we let them use school desks without paying rent!  Go one: show off your glorious tea-party self!

ACCUSATION #1: HE DIDN’T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!!!

Some people thought that the attacks in Benghazi might have been organized terrorist activity right away, while others were not sure. So why is it that Obama somehow refused to immediately yell “DIE FOREIGN SCUM”, put on a Captain America outfit, and denounce all brown people the way that conservatives wanted him to?  Instead, he was cautious and attempted to not yell out accusations of a gigantic organized plot until he had more information. What kind of crap is that? This is what we conservatives call “a shaky edifice of lies“.

ACCUSATION #2:  STUFF COULD HAVE GONE BETTER!!!!!

Some guys says that he thinks that it’s possible that hypothetically if more air power had been around it could have scared off the attackers! According to a blog on ABC News, this person says:  “A fast‑mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.” This is concrete proof that Obama is incompetent in every way.  (The “you know” is really the most powerful part of the quote, don’t you think?)

ACCUSATION #3:  THE WRONG WORDS WERE USED!!!!!

WTF is the difference between “terrorism” and “an act of terror” anyway??  Nobody at Fox News knows, but they are all pretty sure that it is a sign of some kind of sneaky liberal mind-game neurolinguistic programming trickery designed to destroy the American way of life.

ACCUSATION #4: WE HAVE TO STRIKE NOW! KILL! KILL! KILL!

Obama is a wuss.  According to an editorial in the Washington Times, the entire reason that Benghazi is important is to simply highlight the fact that Obama is “weak on foreign policy” and is “leading from behind” and is “appeasing our enemies” and all kinds of other phrases that mean he hasn’t invaded enough countries yet.

THIS COMPLETES THE LIST OF CHARGES^* AGAINST THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

CLEARLY THESE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

^* NOTE: when we say “charges”, we mean the charges that LiberalBias.com has brought against the Obama administration by posting them here on this internet page.  It may not have any legal bearing, but it matters a lot because it’s on the internet.

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1BM0xrJsg

Subscribe to Liberal Bias Video: https://www.youtube.com/LiberalBiasVideo

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!

“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

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!!!

sources:  Institute for Policy Studies, Liberty Issues

This has created some confusion among good, honest, every-day conservatives who just aren’t entirely clear how they are supposed to identify terrorists and criminals who aren’t brown-skinned people. Do you blame it on their religion? Do you blame it on their country of original? You obviously can’t blame it on their race. What’s a person to do?

Thus, we here at LiberalBias.com have decided to provide you with this handy flow-chart to help put your mind at ease.  Using this chart, you will always be able to know how to talk about any person who commits a terrible crime.

If you would like to print out thousands of copies and hand them out as leaflets at your local elementary school, you can download the PDF version to print by clicking HERE.

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 LiberalBias.com 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

America has voted: THE DEFICIT IS GETTING BIGGER!

…..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

Rick Perry says, “Come to Texas where your business won’t be burdened with regulations!” Unfortunately, this graph isn’t cooperating very well with his slogan.

There isn’t too much else to say about this graph, except maybe to point out this:

When Rand Paul says, “We don’t need regulations, just let market forces decide who wins and loses….”

The “market forces” that he is talking about include things like this.

That’s what “let market forces decide” means: the “force” that prevents sloppy businesses from succeeding sometimes include violent explosions.

So there you have it: This is capitalism at work. And we all love capitalism. Therefore, you can’t be mad about this explosion that killed 14 people.  Because that would mean you hate America. Q.E.D.

NOTE: Exact values are not shown in the above graph, but the magnitudes of the bars are estimated based on estimated damages and insurance claims made during comparable tragedies.

David Pakman interviews Sir Darryl about his bold, fresh vision for the GOP.

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AabyzSu93Ss

Subscribe to Liberal Bias Video: https://www.youtube.com/LiberalBiasVideo

If you were forced to go to college, you probably remember that “logic” has all kinds of rules. The recent Boston Bombing event provides a good case study to prove that these so-called “logic rules” have a liberal bias.

By now, we all know that the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing incident were Islamic and were originally from Chechnya. Based on these facts, there are a number of conservatives on websites and on the news who have made very keen observations, and who have come to a variety of very reasonable, very sound conclusions. For example:

“Ha, ha! Stupid liberals were trying to blame ‘right-wing extremist’!  Well, the fact that these people are foreign Islamists just proves that there is NO SUCH THING as right-wing terrorism!”

“This is more proof that all Muslims are murderous and hateful!”

“These people are obviously members of Al Qaeda!”

“Obama got re-elected, and now this? See what happens when you vote for a liberal president!!!”

“Clearly Obama is incompetent, because one of the things that happens when you have an incompetent president is attacks on our own soil.”

All of these are clearly excellent arguments and are perfectly valid.

Unfortunately, the Tyrannical Left is trying to insist that these conclusions are not warranted, saying that they involve “logical fallacies”. Let’s take a look:

Conclusion: Some liberals claimed the bombers were probably American right-wing extremists. They were wrong. Therefore, there is no such thing as American right-wing extremism.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning “cherry picking” or the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. They call this a form of over-generalization that is based on taking one particular case where the claim of “right-wing extremism” was false, and concluding from it that all claims of “right-wing extremism are false.”

Conclusion: Al Qaeda are terrorists. These two people are terrorists. Therefore, these two are obviously associated with Al Qaeda.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This basically means that just because two things share a property, doesn’t mean they are related or the same. This kind of fancy terminology is why most good conservatives fall asleep in college classes.

Conclusion: First, Obama got re-elected. Then, this terrorist attack happens. Therefore, this terrorist attack was caused by people voting for Obama.

Liberal elitist snobs will whip out some of that fancy Latin stuff on you and call this the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Basically this means that just because A happened before B doesn’t mean that A caused B.

Conclusion: If a president is incompetent, then you can expect things like terrorism and crime to increase. Terrorism has increased.  Therefore, this president is incompetent.

No-good left-wing academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Basically this means that if you have a sentence that says “If A then B”, you can’t conclude that just because B is true then also A will be true.

In the days that follow, there will no doubt be more good conservatives coming to reasonable conclusions like these, and yet there will also no doubt be buzz-kill liberals throwing around fancy University words like “fallacy” to try to rain on their parades.

So keep your eyes peeled for the comments sections on the internet! If you ever see a liberal saying something like, “That’s a logical fallacy!” then just make sure you call them out, by yelling: “LOGIC HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!”

Editor’s Note:  For your convenience, below, we will share with you a more complete list of so-called “logical fallacies”.  If you are a true conservative, and want to help the conservative movement, make sure you use as many of these as possible whenever you are arguing with liberals.  It will really piss them off:

You probably hear liberals talk a lot about Right-Wing Extremism. It is important that you know how to combat this kind of liberally biased talk when you hear it.

In fact, just yesterday on his radio show, Sean Hannity said: “Leftists are saying that the Boston Marathon bombing is probably right-wing extremists! Where does this idea come from?”

Well, Mister Hannity, allow us to explain: it comes from liberally biased “statistics”.

West Point has released a study, called “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right”, identifying so-called “right wing extremist groups” as a major source of domestic terrorism in the United States.

The New America Foundation has also produced the graph, above, showing that from 2002 to 2007 only nine right-wing extremists were indicted for their roles in politically motivated murders and violent assaults, but between 2008 and 2012 that number mushroomed to 53.

That same group has also pointed out that since 9/11, at least 29 people living in the United States have been killed by right-wing extremists, while only 17 have been killed by jihadist extremists.

It is data like this that snooty liberals are talking about when they talk about “Right-Wing Terrorism”.

The key question, then, is this:

How can conservatives combat this message about “right-wing terrorism”?

After scouring the Internets, we have concluded that the following approach represents the best tactic that is most commonly used by professionals:

1) Point out that just because groups like anti-Abortion groups and the KKK call themselves Christian, doesn’t mean they are really Christian. They are clearly not “mainstream” Christian.

(Warning: There will be some liberals who try to claim that Islamic terrorists are also not real Muslims. But do not let them try to get away with this kind of tricky word-play. You are a good Christian, after all, so who would know better than you what a “real Muslim” is?)

2) Point out that although some pro-life people are violent, the vast majority of them are not, and condemn violence completely.

(Warning: There will be some liberals who try to claim that although some Muslims are violent, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent and do not hate America. But do not let them fool you! Obviously these “non-violent Muslims” don’t exist, or else why wouldn’t you have heard about them on Fox News?)

Most importantly, just keep repeating the key word “mainstream” over and over again whenever possible. 53 violent right-wing murders and assaults in four years is clearly just a random collection of unrelated crazy people. It obviously isn’t a pattern of any kind.

To suggest that would be just to give in to liberal bias!!!

graph data source: New America Foundation
graph found via: Hermit’s Holler

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

As a special Tax Day Treat, today we will feature a bit of history. By now, everyone has heard of the infamous 47% statistic. Today, we will show you the specific document where that came from.

It first appeared on June 29, 2009, in a special report from the Tax Policy Center.The specific sentence in the report is this: “TPC (Tax Policy Center) estimates that under the new law (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), 47 percent of tax units (individuals or jointly-filing couples) will owe no income tax in 2009.”

More than two years later, this report has been summarized very wisely by our friends in the GOP as “47% of Americans are lazy moocher who suck money out of the system without giving anything back.”

You might be surprised to find that the source of this Great Wisdom was the Tax Policy Center, since everyone knows that they are known to be a left-leaning, highly ideological, liberal think-tank. We know this is true because there was this one time when they criticized Romney’s tax plan. Clearly, they are traitor to the American Dream.

So how is it possible that they decided to tell the truth about 47% of the population being lazy, shiftless, greedy, unemployed people who live off of government handouts?

Well, it all becomes more clear when you read the rest of the actual report.

Instead of just yelling “47 percent! Lazy! Moochers!!!” and laughing demonically, like Mitt Romney did that one time, this report goes on to say that most of the people who pay no income tax actually do work, but they make so little money and their expenses are so high that they receive credits back, such as the Earned Income Credit, that bring their net taxable income to zero.  The report also mentions that huge portions of the 47% statistics are accounted for by groups that liberals think deserve to get a little assistance, such as the elderly.

Clearly, all of that is just liberal gobbledy-gook and nonsense.  Nobody cares that these people are poor, employed, and elderly or disabled!  What matters is that they are MOOCHERS!

Luckily, nobody actually reads reports, anymore. Or else the Republican party might not have this wonderful gold mine of a winning strategy that they have today.

Last September, the editor of LiberalBias.com contacted me about this assignment. My task was to pretend to be a liberal college student, so that I could pursue a dangerous information-gathering mission: understanding what really goes on in the mind of today’s young progressive.

It was a frightening assignment, but not insurmountable. I admit that at the beginning, I did not understand the mindset of the liberals, who seem to think a normal person would want to do sex things with a butt, which is almost as baffling as the idea that “economics” is some kind of “science” like the “theory” of  “evolution” or “outer space”.

That said, I had faith in my ability to blend in; after all, God cursed me and my family by giving me the ability to tan, a trait not shared by His white middle-eastern son.

My first step was to infiltrate the Young Democrats, a corrupt syndicate of students known for rabble-rousing in the local community, spreading the lies they learn at the state-funded re-education camp they call a school. When I went to their first meeting on the first Friday of October, there were mere weeks left in the 2012 campaign.

The school, which will not be named lest Dictator Obama use it as an excuse to strike me down like Janet Reno did to God’s heroes in Waco, is located in Arizona’s most competitive legislative district on both a local and national level. Even the state and county-wide races were close.  Jeff Flake vs. Richard Carmona for Senate and Joe Arpaio (♥) vs. Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff, were especially tight, although the state came to its senses and shut down Obama’s army of pinko-commie fascists.

But anyway, I digress.

A typical meeting of the Young Democrats student club (artist's representation)

Every Friday the meetings would start the same way. These hoodlums would gather in a science building on the south side of campus. Names of famous liberals, such as Charles Darwin, Galileo Galilei, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, were carved into the building, making it the perfect place for enemies of freedom to congregate.

The President of the club, who from now on I will refer to as Dora the Explorer (she’s one of those Mexicans), would stand in front of the room and conduct the meeting like an informal hippie courtroom. Every member of the club would introduce themselves, stating their name and major, as well as an answer to a silly question, typically stolen straight from the pit of Hell, commonly referred to as Reddit.

After everybody shared laughs about which Fox News host they’d want most to see do a belly-flop, members of the club would make outside announcements about various political action/terrorist organizations they were shilling for. Planned Parenthood, GLSEN, Human Rights Campaign, Urban Outfitters, some really nasty work.

Dora would then make announcements of her own, either about activities that sounded like they were pulled from a church bulletin (by that, I mean they were AWESOME!!!!!!) or about canvassing and phone banking events that all members would be guilt-tripped into participating in at least twice that month.

For those who are not aware, canvassing and phone banking are methods of getting the word out to voters about candidates and where to vote. Canvassing is the act of knocking door to door with flyers, talking to registered voters whose names and addresses are provided on lists. Phone banking is the same concept, but applied to landline telephones. I had no idea what most of the liberals around me were talking about when they said that “people don’t use landlines anymore.” That’s ridiculous. What else would they use? Walkie talkies?

I went to every volunteer event, making sure I was as annoying as I could be to these lousy liberal voters. This was not easy; the more insincere and off-putting I was, the more they were willing to engage with me. I didn’t understand.

Other than President Dora and myself, there was only one other person who participated in every canvass and phone banking session. His nickname, and I’m not kidding, was Boots. I was hanging out with Dora and Boots.

Despite my absolute loathing of these two, I couldn’t help but feel like I was living somebody else’s dream. Of course, in my teen years I preferred the far less ethnic Playhouse Disney to Nick Jr., but I understood the appeal of Dora the Explorer, and I never quite understood why. Now, I finally figured it out. Boots was a conservative! He was secretly the President of the school’s Libertarian club, gathering information to use against the Democrats. I became his Karl Rove and he became my Lee Atwater. It was magical. I’ll never forget my first ti…

Whoops, I went off track again. Probably has something to do with those “juice boxes” that some freshman served me during a game of ping pong ball.

Anyway, the main event at Young Democrats meetings would be when members would air out their grievances with Republicans, naming conservatives that did “bad” things this week.

Common mentions included Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other defenders of freedom who have never done anything wrong and are beloved by everybody who uses the brain in their heart. After being catty, they would point their thumbs at the projector in the room and scream “Boo!”

Despite all that, I found that these college students were, dare I say, not too different from myself. I was even surprised to find that most of them were God-fearing Christians like myself, and were actively involved in their Church.

Some of them were even pro-life, which did not make sense to me. If they were liberals who didn’t want to kill baby Jesus, then what made them liberals at all?

I began to be very confused. When I began this journey, I didn’t understand why liberals thought the way they do. After two months of role-playing as a Young Democrat, I realized that I don’t even know what liberals think!

Are they liberal because they are ethnic? Are they liberal because they care about poor people? Are they liberal because they love sodomy? There seemed to be no one right answer. It’s almost as if liberals are not a homogenized group!

This, I must say, was the most frightening discovery of all–and it also could have been the seed of my undoing. I began to believe that liberals are all complex, unique individuals with a wide variety of beliefs and desires.

Well, luckily I was elected President of the club in December, and was able to dismantle it entirely by January. We can’t have dangerous stuff like that floating around.

Liberalism is dead. I win. America wins.

Freedom.

Ray McBerry is a perfect example of how creeping liberalism has created a deliberate distortion of the true nature and philosophy of the Confederacy.

Ray McBerry, a vocal advocate of Confederate History Month, said in an interview with The Daily Beast that the Civil War was not really about slavery:

“It was about a federal government that was out of control and imposing its will on the states—a federal government that was acting beyond the scope of the Constitution. Ironically, some of the very issues we are debating today.”

This is something that we hear all the time: the Civil War was about States’ Rights. The Confederacy loved the Constitution and it was the north that was violating it.

THIS IS A LIBERAL DECEPTION AND A LIE!

It’s pretty clear what is going on here: conservatives have been bullied into being afraid of being called “racist” by liberals. Conservatives are therefore trying to distort and lie and whitewash the truth about the Confederacy in order to make it more “acceptable” to liberals.

What is the truth about the Confederacy?

We will let the words of the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, in his 1861 Cornerstone Speech, speak for themselves:

That is the true philosophy of the Confederacy.

Do not let these modern apologists try to lie to you and say anything different, just because the liberals have scared them with the “R” word (“racist”).

Why you scared of your conservative Southern heritage, Ray?

Stand up and own it.

Running from the real meaning of the Confederacy, after all, could be seen as just another form of liberal bias!!!

This car represents a success of government financial assistance, which is ridiculous because all conservatives know that government can never help anything. Therefore, this car doesn’t exist. Or something.

Let’s consider some background. During the 2012 Presidential Debates, Mitt Romney said this to President Obama about government subsidies for green energy: “You put $90 billion — like 50 years’ worth of breaks — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said, you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”

It was very easy for Romney to identify Tesla as a “loser” in October 2012. At that time, it was obvious that Tesla’s entire game-plan of building “electric cars” was ridiculous and a waste of time. Moreover, green energy is a waste of time. To give money to companies that are already successful, like Shell Oil, makes sense; but to give money to companies that might fail, like Tesla, is throwing money away on losers. And socialism. It never works. Period.

But then, some weird stuff happened.

In November of 2012, Tesla’s Model S won Motor Trend’s Car of the Year.

In March of 2013, Tesla announced that they were making enough money to pay back their Department of Energy loan 5 years earlier than expected.

And in the April of 2013, Tesla announces that it expects its first profitable quarter.

It’s almost as if…. (now brace yourself)…. the financial assistance from the government actually helped an American industry to develop to the point where it could succeed on its own!

HEY TESLA!

HOW DARE YOU CONTRADICT MITT ROMNEY, AND GOOD CONSERVATIVE COMMON SENSE?

Government financial assistance NEVER helps anything! Green energy NEVER succeeds!  What is going on here?

It’s pretty clear that this must all be the result of some kind of deep conspiracy, and liberal bias.  There is only one unavoidable conclusion:

The Tesla Model-S…. is a liberal!

We have added the appropriate speech bubble to the above photo to illustrate this fact.