George W Bush's Lie-Berry

"Lie-Berry" is how Bush pronounces "library", according to Liberals, for whom Bush bashing will never get old. They are, predictably, using the occasion of the ribbon cutting of his presidential library to mock and make fun of him.

But the fact remains that the Clinton administration failed to get bin Laden. They had the opportunity and made several lame attempts when it suited Clinton; he lobbed some missiles in the general vicinity of bin Laden to distract our citizens from their preoccupation with Bubba's BJ in the White House.

So the Clintonites left that problem behind for the incoming Bush administration to deal with. And vandalized the White House before turning it over. Removing all the Ws from the computer keyboards as a "prank", I heard. And now Bubba is one of the most beloved ex-presidents? It's ridiculous IMO.

George Bush struck back and expelled al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq, dealing them a serious blow that lead to our not being attacked for the remainder of Bush's first term and the entirety of his second. Bush did a good job keeping us safe, unlike Obama, under whose watch there have been numerous attacks, the bombing in Boston being the latest.

It is, in my opinion, indicative of the incompetence of the Obama Administration. On all fronts. The Hussein administration is doing abysmally when it comes to the economy, and equally abysmally when it comes to protecting us from the radical Muslims that wish us harm.

Instead of making fun of GWB, the Liberals should be thanking him. I think the mocking is just to cover up the fact that their community-organizing president has done such a bad job "presidenting". What they're saying is "don't pay attention to the incompetent in the White House".

And, while George Bush was president and the Liberals ridiculed him - what they were really saying was, "ignore the fact that Bubba failed to get bin Laden. Instead of doing his job he spent his time taking advantage of interns". Liberals should be too ashamed of both Bubba and Hussein to ridicule GWB, but Liberals clearly have no shame.

TLB #31

Happy Liberal Commie Propaganda Day

"Earth Day isn't just for tree huggers, it's a wake up call for mankind", was the tagline I heard for a TV airing of Hollywood Liberal Leo DeCraprio's fakumentary about how we're all doomed because we aren't using enough energy from "green" sources. Those of us who look at this issue critically and don't simply accept the "scientific consensus" line are the ones the Liberals think need this "wake up call".

Today is the 43rd annual "Earth Day", the holiday created to celebrate Liberal propaganda intended to scare consumers and shame them into supporting the green industry hypocrite hucksters like ex-president Al Gore profit from.

Wikipedia says the first earth day, February 22, 1970, was "coincidentally" the 100th anniversary of the birth of Russian Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. I have doubts regarding whether or not this was a coincidence, as it is much too fitting that Liberal commies would chose the 100th birthday of the founder of the ideology they greatly admire to push their propaganda.

Wikipedia further notes that, "the idea that the date was chosen to celebrate Lenin's centenary [is] borne out by the similarity with the subbotnik instituted by Lenin in 1920 as days on which people would have to do community service [such as] removing rubbish from public property and collecting recyclable material".

Does everyone else find it unsurprising that gullible Liberals who buy into this "holiday" created to enrich the green industry also chose a day that by "coincidence" honors the founder of Communism? This is one celebration I will NOT be participating in. Also, I will continue to refuse to recycle unless I am compensated for my efforts.

What kind of a scam is this that persuades (or forces) some to prepare their recyclables for the recycling industry? At least I get something for my aluminum cans (which I do recycle), so why is it that most other companies that profit from recycling think they should get my labor for free (rinsing out cans, removing staples, etc) as well as free raw materials? To this Liberal fascism I say, "no way comrade".

TLB #30

The Barack Hussein Obama Impeachment

My sources tell me that, should prez Hussein bomb Syria, a bill for impeachment will be introduced in the House. Apparently SecDef Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee "he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations". House Republicans say that if Panetta and Hussein carry through with those sentiments it would be a violation of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives the right to declare war to Congress alone.

I say WHY WAIT? Why hasn't Hussein been impeached already? He already broke with the Constitution when he bombed Lybia, as noted by ultra-Liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich. When the most Liberal congressman speaks against the actions of the most Liberal president ever -- one might think the Liberal media would pay attention instead of sweeping the issue under the rug. But no! The Liberal media swept and Kucinich was redistricted out of a job. Coincidence?

Hussein could also be impeached in regards to the Bengazhi cover up, for stealing the election last November, the Fast and Furious cover up, his American citizen hit list, the recess appointments made WHILE Congress was in session, the appointment of czars without Senate approval, violating the 10th amendment by suing Arizona for enforcing immigration laws, executive orders giving amnesty to the here-illegally "dreamers", for his refusal to enforce DOMA, and for his executive actions on gun control.

And, of course there is the fact (or high probability) that his Hawaiian birth certificate is fake. Covering up the fact that you aren't a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as POTUS, must be an impeachable offense. The Constitution clearly spells out the requirements one must meet to hold the office, and Hussein, due to his either having been born in Kenya or having a non-citizen father, has never even been eligible to be our commander in chief!

That's such a long list, how could anyone not agree that Hussein is one of the most lawless presidents in US history! Many of his offenses are far worse than Watergate, so what is the Republican-controlled House waiting for?? Hopefully the Republicans will retake the Senate in the 2014 midterms and then the impeachment of our illegitimate prez will commence.

The only problem is then we'd be left with dufus Biden as prez. I wonder if he's done anything he could be impeached for? Unfortunately being a bumbling idiot isn't an impeachable offense, although, being the VP, he probably was involved in some of Hussein's anti-Constitutional actions. Maybe we can get them both out and move John Boehner into the presidency?

TLB #29

Our Second Amendment Rights are Safe. For Now

The Senate has voted down the expanded background check with the help of several rational Democrats. Our second amendment rights are safe for the moment. The national registry of all gun owners that could be used to confiscate all guns won't begin to be compiled just yet.

Prez Hussein must be steamed. Even using the victims of the Newtown tragedy as props (and manipulating them into lobbying our Congressmen) was not enough to convince the Senate that our right to bear arms should be infringed upon. That is, for the Republicans, at least. Most of the Democrats voted for the legislation they hoped would be the first step toward nullifying the second amendment.

Although I am not myself a firearms owner, that does not mean I think the Constitution should be circumvented and the guns of the citizens confiscated! No! First they'll confiscate the guns and then it will be the pressure cookers. The bottom line is bad guys will always find a way to hurt innocent people. Reactionary legislation restricting our rights is not the answer.

TLB #28

Note to Libertarians

Stop pretending to be Republican! You may be able to fool a small segment of the population and get elected to a single congressional district or a single state (if you betray your Libertarian beliefs and say you oppose abortion), but one of your ilk has no chance at all of winning the Republican presidential nomination.

Also, you can stop pretending you have a chance of winning even a single electoral vote running on the Libertarian ticket. Some independents and moderates may throw their vote away and cast their ballot in your favor, but you will never accumulate enough of the vote to win even a single state.

All your efforts accomplish is to peel off a small segment of the Republican electorate (in addition to the aforementioned deluded independents and moderates), but the amount of votes you garner will never be enough to come within leagues of actually winning. The most you can hope to accomplish is to tip a tight election, with the most likely scenario being the election being flipped Republican to Democrat.

At least with a Republican you get a partial win, as we agree with you on fiscal issues. I must ask the citizens who would vote for such a candidate - is flushing the economy down the toilet worth it to stand on principal and vote for one of these candidates (either Libertarian or Libertarian running as a Republican)?

TLB #27

Popularity of Conservative Blog Plummets

Blah.

TLB #26

Prez Obama Disrespects Israeli Leader

In stark contrast to most of Hussein's diplomatic trips, wherein it is his practice to bow and apologize for America, prez Obama continued his disrespectful treatment of America's closest and strongest ally during his March visit to Israel. Reportedly our POTUS, proving the shame patriotic Americans feel in regards to his poor leadership is justified, told Benjamin Netanyahu that their meeting on the 21st was a waste of time, would accomplish nothing, and was pointless.

This was Hussein's very first visit is Israel; a trip our illegitimate prez apparently felt would make up for his continual dodging of the Jewish leader during his first term.

While visiting the Holy Land, the clueless ex-community organizer half-assed it and gave the standard speech calling for a two state solution to the centuries-old conflict built on generations of religious and cultural resentment. The news story I read remarked how some who attended the speech described it as laughably simple-minded. But I guess Hussein can check the box in that an attempt to broker peace, no matter how pitiful, is something that's required of US presidents if they are elected, or rely on voter fraud to steal a second term.

A blogger for The Economist notes that a former US ambassador to Israel suspects Obama was "only interested in making sure the other side gets blamed for lack of progress". Then the blogger asks, "So why bother?" Indeed, why did Hussein bother when his lack of any real concern is so apparent?

Could the reason be that our prez is actually a Muslim that isn't with American in its support for Israel? In the opinion of this Conservative the evidence strongly supports this hypothesis.

TLB #25

Saving America by Stamping Out Liberalism

Liberalism is a scourge on our great nation and needs to be stomped out if we are to survive. Unfortunately I am strongly convinced that things will get worse before they get better, however. Much, much worse. Four more years of Obamanomics may spell our doom. So, what's the solution? Stamp out Liberalism, of course. After Obama fails perhaps the people will come to their sense and realize there is no such thing as a free lunch?

We shall have to wait and see. In any case, following are the Liberal laws, court rulings, programs, institutions and ideas I feel we need to get rid of to make America work again. Of course getting rid of them all entirely will be a monumental task, and may or may not be possible. Liberalism is like a weed: just when you think you've eradicated it, it grows back. The allure of free stuff you didn't have to work for is strong, and a certain unproductive sector of the public will always demand it as if it were their right.

Abortion: Roe V Wade should be overturned. Why is murder covered under a woman's right to privacy? If you don't want a baby use birth control. If you don't want to use birth control get your tubes tied. I'd support exceptions if a woman's life is in danger, but it would have to be proven that the likelihood of death was high (otherwise the exception would likely be abused).

Affirmative Action: rewards should be based on merit only. Slavery ended a long time ago. Are there any former slaves living today? Are there any children of former slaves alive today? No.

Citizens United, Opposition to: Liberals oppose it because the money isn't on their side, but free speech is protected by our Constitution and this ruling by the Supreme Court affirms that right.

Food Stamps: If you want to eat you have to work. It's that simple. Should there be some aid for people who are disabled through no fault of their own and cannot work? Yes, but it should be handled mainly by the churches and private charities. Government's involvement should be minimal.

Foreign Aid: How does this benefit the United States? With the exception of Israel, most of it should be done away with.

Global Climate Change: A disproved theory that should be the basis of no governmental legislation. The Liberal wet dream of taxing carbon via "cap and trade" or any other method should never be considered again.

Green Energy: "Green" is just a marketing term to sell less efficient and more expensive forms of energy. If these forms of energy can actually compete, then let them do so without the deceptive marketing spin (and government subsidies).

Inequality, Demonization of: In life there are winners and losers. Demonizing the winners does not help the losers; in fact it hurts them. The winners are innovators and job creators, and their existence is a huge net positive for the economy.

Medicare: Should be gradually phased out. People have paid into it and should get that money back (and no more).

Medicaid: Should be eliminated for the same reason the food stamp program should be done away with.

The Minimum Wage: The free market is the best way to determine how much any particular worker should be paid. Government mandating a "minimum" is distortive meddling.

Nuclear Energy, Opposition to: Nuclear energy is a relatively safe and cost effective way to meet our growing energy needs.

Progressive taxation: I'm not opposed to the wealthy paying slightly more, but progressives use that as an excuse to gouge higher wage earners. Punishing hard work via confiscatory taxation is morally wrong and counterproductive.

Tariffs: Goods should be able to flow freely and not be taxed simply because they were manufactured in other countries. Tariffs increase the cost of goods for American consumers and are bad for our economy.

Unions, Private Sector: Institute a national Right-to-Work law and private sector unions will crumble. Why do workers have a say in the way a business is run? Only the owners should have a say. If the workers don't like the way the owners decide they want to run THEIR OWN BUSINESS they can quit. Or form their own business.

Unions, Public Sector: Should be outlawed. They cost taxpayers too much. In fact, I'm in favor of doing away with most public sector jobs, period. Many, if not most of them could be privatized (the private sector being much more efficient).

TLB #24

Liberal Druggies

The war on drugs; we're losing it right? Liberals argue that we should legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana. I say NO. It is my strong opinion that liberal drug users should be locked up, because if they are using drugs, they are probably committing other crimes for drug money.

I am also strongly in favor of drug testing people on welfare. Why should those of us who work hard enable the lay-abouts who just want to smoke weed all day long? I'd prefer we get rid of, or at least greatly reduce welfare, but we should at least make sure we are only helping people who actually need help, and not encouraging Liberal losers who think the government should provide for all their needs.

As for the "Conservative drug users" that some reading this post may ask about, I say they do not exist (or are a very small percentage of all drug users). Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Using drugs is not something a person who believes in personal responsibility does.

In any case, I'm not saying that all drug users are Liberals, just the majority of them. All the poor losers who think the world owes them a living, along with the rich Hollywood Liberal druggies who get paid huge sums of money to entertain the rabble with their dreck.

TLB #23

Atheists Intellectually Superior, But Going To Hell

Atheists like to make fun of Christians, referring to the Almighty as an invisible or imaginary friend. I'm not a Christian who takes the Bible 100 percent literal, but I wouldn't dream of referring to a Christian who did as a Bible-thumping moron.

These atheists who look down their noses at Christians - on one hand their snobbery can make my blood boil. On the other hand, I feel sympathy for them, seeing as this life is short and they'll be spending eternity in unbelievable agony burning in the lake of fire.

This sympathy is not so great that it should allow them to discriminate against believers, however. In this life I'd prefer to not have to put up with their condescension and mocking, thank you. On the Left we have religious intolerants like Bill Maher (a vile know-it-all who made a Christian-bashing film that makes fun of how stupid believers are for having faith). This does not exist so much on the Right, except for Libertarians.

Libertarians are, it is my understanding, traditionally atheist. Ayn Rand was an atheist, but Rand Paul is not. I don't understand that. Pen Jillette is a Libertarian, and very strongly atheist. I've seen him on TV bashing Christians for their beliefs, so I know he's lying when he says he's "very respectful of Christians in [his] book". The book is titled, "God No!" and is all about how he's better than the gullible fools who believe in a power greater than them (Or, that is what I strongly suspect the book is about, as I have not read it).

Some Liberals claim to be Christian, but it is impossible for anyone who is OK with murdering babies to be Christian. Murder is prohibited in the 10 commandments. Liberals also believe in stealing from those who work hard and giving it to the lay-abouts who think government should provide for all their needs. They may as well reject God and go atheist because their God does not exist.

I think Liberals who claim to be believers are fake Christians using Christianity to justify their selfishness... which is something they have in common with the atheists - snobbery and selfishness, although they add an admiration for sloth, something the atheists don't subscribe to.

In any case, I believe the judgment for atheists and Liberals will be the same in the end - eternal damnation. Not that they are worried, as being wrong is a possibility that is incomprehensible to them.

TLB #22

Dufus VP Joe Biden (who is Catholic) Excommunicated by Pope?

I just came across this story on the interwebs... apparently Joe Biden met with the new pope, and REFUSED to kiss his ring, which is proper etiquette. Biden says his mom told him not to, because no one is better than him, and that his bad manners are "all about dignity". I'm not a Catholic, and therefore wouldn't kiss the pope's ring, but Biden is. This is just more disrespect for religion from the Hussein/Biden administration, IMO.

Not that I care, as I'm not Catholic and kissing a ring isn't a big deal, but why wouldn't an individual who is a member of the Catholic religion (so he's supposed to acknowledge the Pope as the head of his religion) follow proper etiquette? Kind of ironic that Biden won't do something non-controversial in the name of dignity when the guy above him is running all over the globe embarrassing the United States by bowing to every foreign leader he encounters and apologizing on our behalf.

Prez Hussein may think the US has something to apologize for, but I do not. I'd rather Hussein stop bowing and have Biden kiss a Pope's ring than the other way around. Why didn't Biden have a talking to with Hussein and suggest he "demand respect"? I think both Hussein and Biden are an embarrassment to our country.

Also, I'm sure that Romney, even though he is a Mormon, would have been respectful of tradition and kissed the Pope's ring - BUT he wouldn't have bowed to foreign leaders or went around apologizing for America.

TLB #21

New Pope

This post concerns my opinions regarding the selection of the new pope, an individual who dubbed himself Francis. These are the opinions of someone who is a Christian, but not a Catholic.

The good news is that he opposes abortion, describing the pro-choice movement as a "culture of death". And, in regards to homosexual marriage, Francis says it is "a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God".

So, it is good that he is a strong supporter of traditional marriage, although this is a hardly shocking position, given what it says in the Bible about this kind of perversion being an abomination.

The bad news is his views regarding wealth inequality. Francis believes that "unjust economic structures... give rise to great inequalities", and that "poor people are persecuted for demanding work, [while] rich people are applauded for fleeing from justice".

Blaming wealthy people for the plight of the poor is the Liberal shtick, and actually the opposite of the truth. Wealthy people are often innovators and job creators. Wealth flows FROM such individuals. They are creators of wealth, and the middle class and poor are better off because of their efforts.

It would be more accurate for him to speak against Socialism and Crony capitalism, because these corrupt forms of government are what we can really blame for poverty. Individuals who attain wealth due to either of these forms of thievery (government stealing from it's citizens) do deserve to be demonized, but certainly not all wealthy people fall into this category.

Also, Francis opposed the distribution of contraceptives in Argentina, which is probably not a good idea, simply because of STDs like AIDS. This is a position that likely costs lives. Yeah, we're talking about sinners having extramarital sex, but is this a sin deserving of the death penalty?

In any case, I think many Catholics do not adhere to this edict anyway. On the other hand, I do believe that promoting contraception for teens is wrong. Adults shouldn't be encouraging kids to have sex.

Finally, I've heard some of those discussing this new pope say that he needs to adopt a zero tolerance for clergy involved in covering up child abuse and moving clergy instead of defrocking them and cooperating with the police... which is a position I am in complete agreement with.

And the helping the poor thing is fine; however, the church holds great wealth, and does anyone think they are going to liquidate any large portion of their assets to further that goal (like in the film "The Shoes of the Fisherman")? That would be an exceedingly shocking turn of events.

TLB #20

Blah Blah Blah 2

Blah, why blah? No! Blah is the blah. Blah better than you.

Please feel free to share your thoughts.

TLB #19

Global Warming Scammer Al Gore Exposed

Whatever you want to call it - "global warming" or "global climate change" - the evidence shows it isn't happening. Or at least humans have nothing to do with it. Now, I know you've heard that there is a "consensus" within the scientific community that ex-president Al Gore's "documentary" is indisputably 100 percent factual, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Even Al Gore does not believe his own BS. This, we know, because of Al Gore's own hypocritical actions. If he really believed in global warming would he own two energy guzzling McMansions built on land that may soon be underwater (if one is to believe his propaganda film)?

Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, Gore recently sold his TV network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by Arabs who make their money from oil. Do you think that America-hating propaganda is the only thing they will promote? Is it likely, do you think, that the channel owned by oil-rich Arabs will encourage their viewers to "go green" and try and reduce their oil consumption?

Of course not. And, is this not extremely strong evidence that Al Gore is nothing but a scammer who is knowingly lies to the gullible Liberal sheep in an attempt to separate these progressive fools from their money? Just like when he lied about inventing the internet (although I do not know that he made money from this fib; perhaps the purpose was only self-aggrandizement?)

Mark Hendrickson of Forbes asks, "Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda [of addressing "global warming"]?"

You'd most likely be shocked to learn that those who stand to profit enormously from this agenda are "the political and politically connected elite -- the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies..."

Shocked if you're an average American that is. The global warming hoaxsters have done a bang up job of convincing the public at large that there is actually reason to be concerned.

Luckily it appears as though the so-called cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the water, although Prez Hussein is still blowing billions of taxpayer dollars on "green energy" "investments" that are actually payoffs to cronies who donated to the Hussein regime. When is the electorate going to wise up and stop voting for these corrupt Democrats?

TLB #18

Changing the Definition of Marriage is NOT a Civil Rights Issue!

Let me be clear about one thing, and that is that I'm not homophobic. If two women or two men want to engage in sick perversions within the privacy of their own home, well, that's their business. So long as they're not grossing me out by holding hands or smooching in public (or worse), why should I care? (Aside from the fact that this type of depravity makes Jesus cry).

That said, I agree with those who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and that we should not be changing the definition of marriage to appease the homosexuals. Civil unions, I suppose, are an acceptable compromise, but I strongly oppose Obama's desire to force churches to perform homo weddings.

Of course this kind of thing is what you'd expect from the atheist Christian-hating Left. Their dear leader also decided to force Catholic institutions to pay for birth control under the health insurance policies they provide for their employees, in a clear violation of church doctrine.

While I'm not Catholic and have no problem with married couples using birth control if they want to be intimate and not worry about unplanned pregnancies, I am strongly opposed to Catholic institutions being forced to violate their beliefs. The Liberal fascism of the Hussein administration is truly mind blowing.

What doesn't make sense to me is why such a large percentage of the Hispanics, who are largely Catholic, voted for Democrats that spit on their religious beliefs. I can see why the Mexicans who are here illegally voted for Hussein, but what about the Hispanics who have lived here for generations? I don't think this passes the smell test.

In any case, I was talking about the gays getting "married", and why I'm opposed. Soon the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue. The Hussein administration argues that dudes marrying other dudes and chicks marrying other chicks is a "civil right", but how can this be?

Arguing that sodomy is somehow a "civil right" is beyond ridiculous. Hopefully the Conservatives on the court (plus Kennedy) will stand up for what's right and decide to keep the definition of marriage intact and as-is.

TLB #17