How to win an argument everytime with a liberal in a Debate

The next time you hear a liberal bash conservatives – just ask them 10 simple questions. In fact- print this out and give it to them. Have them write down their answers. The more “No” answers means the more they agree with the Republican Party. Add up the answers and then ask – are you sure you are a Democrat?

1. The Democratic Party is against drilling for oil in Alaska, because they are afraid of upsetting caribou and other wildlife. Are you against drilling for oil in Alaska?

2. The Democratic Party is for allowing illegal aliens drivers licenses, health care, access to public schools and some even want to give them the right to vote. Do you believe illegal aliens should be granted these rights?

3. The Democratic Party has been against implementing time limits for receiving welfare. Do you believe that able bodied people of sound mind should receive welfare indefinitely?

4. The Democratic Party is for redistribution of income. Do you believe that the money you earn should be distributed to able bodied people of sound mind that earn less than you personally?

5. The Democratic Party is for laws that punish discrimination, but also support affirmative action based on race. Republicans are for laws that punish discrimination in all forms, but are against affirmative action. Republicans believe that people should be judged on their merits and if you want to give an advantage to someone it should be based on their level of poverty and not race. Do you agree with affirmative action based on race?

6. The Democratic Party is for gay marriage, because they believe that people that love each other should be allowed to marry. Do you support gay marriage and if so, do you support polygamy and marriage between family members if they love each other?

7. The Democratic Party would like to remove the word God from the Pledge of Allegiance and the Cross from government county seals. Are you in favor of this?

8. The Democratic Party is overwhelmingly against punishing murders with the death penalty, but support the taking of life of innocent unborn children via abortion. Do you agree with these positions?

9. The Democrats Party believes that partial birth abortion(which is ending the life of a baby as it is being born) should be allowed when a mothers health and not their life is in danger. Can you name any other circumstance or a law that allows you take a life when your health and not your life is in danger?

10. The Democratic Party is against the war in Iraq because over 1,000 military personnel have died in an attempt to spread freedom. However, close to 40,000 people die in automobile accidents each year in America. Democrats are not against banning driving. Do you believe that driving your car to the grocery store is a greater cause than dying for the cause of freedom?

Written by Thomas George
Editor@boycottliberalism.com

© 2004 http://www.boycottliberalism.com

Advertisements

Poll: Americans Narrowly Trust Democrats on the Budget…But Widely Prefer GOP Proposals

March 20, 2013

By Guy Benson

3/19/2013

Such is the state of the Republican Party’s wheezing brand: Even when voters support their ideas by large margins, they still think they side with Democrats.  Via The Hill:

More voters trust the Democratic Party than the Republican Party on budgetary issues, according to the results of a new poll for The Hill — even though a strong majority actually prefer Republican fiscal policies. Respondents in The Hill Poll were asked to choose which of two approaches they would prefer on the budget, but the question’s phrasing included no cues as to which party advocated for which option. Presented in that way, 55 percent of likely voters opted for a plan that would slash $5 trillion in government spending, provide for no additional tax revenue and balance the budget within 10 years — in essence, the path recommended by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) last week. This was almost twice as many voters as opted for a proposal that would include $1 trillion in added tax revenue as well as $100 billion in infrastructure spending, and which would reduce the deficit without eradicating it. Only 28 percent of voters preferred this option, which reflects the proposal put forth by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) last week. An even stronger majority of respondents, 65 percent, said U.S. budget deficits should be reduced mostly by cutting spending rather than by raising taxes. Just 24 percent said the budget should be balanced mostly by increasing revenue.

That’s a two-to-one advantage for the Ryan Budget over the Reid/Murray plan; garnering 55 and 28 percent support, respectively.  An even smaller percentage back Democrats’ tax-heavy emphasis.  The Senate proposal — which never balances — hikes taxes by $1.5 trillion, yet only achieves $700-$800 billion in deficit reduction over ten years, while accelerating spending beyond the unsustainable current baseline.  And yet…

As soon as respondents heard the words “Republican” and “Democrat,” the picture changed drastically. A plurality of voters, 35 percent, said they trust the Democrats more on budgetary issues, while 30 percent said they trust the Republicans more. A full 34 percent said they trust neither party.

Simply adding party identifiers results in major shift from strong backing for the conservative plan to a virtual three-way tie among the two parties and none of the above.  The good news for Republicans is that the public is ready to embrace a budget that dramatically reduces spending, doesn’t raise taxes, and achieves balance within a decade.  Better still, now that Democrats have finally been forced to abandon their cynical budget abdication strategy, the American people finally have the change to weigh two competing ideas.  It’s no longer just the endlessly-demagogued Republican plan versus nothing.  And surprise, surprise: A super majority of Americans rejects Democrats’ unbalanced, tax-and-spend binge.  When it comes to responsible, restrained, pro-growth economic policies, Republicans are the only game in town.  On a policy level, this is encouraging.  The bad news is entirely political.  The GOP’s tattered image remains a huge impediment to policy success, as many voters edge away from Republican policies they support in principle as soon as they hear it’s branded with a scarlet R.  Even if one is inclined to dissent from some of the remedies prescribed in the RNC’s post election self-assessment, it’s achingly clear that a messaging and perception face-lift is in order.  The House Republican budget is scheduled for debate and a floor vote tomorrow.  The Senate is tangled up in a CR and budget amendment vote-a-rama that may last all week.  I caught up with House Budget Committee Vice Chair Tom Price at CPAC for a discussion about the two parties’ clashing budgets.  The Georgia Congressman and medical doctor mounted a defense of Republican’s fiscal vision, and contrasted it with the Senate’s proposal:

House Democrats, incidentally, put forward their own budget yesterday.  It would raise taxes by $1.2 trillion, hikes revenues more than it would cut (rightly excluding the Budget Control Act savings passed in 2011), and doubles the Senate version’s new “stimulus” tab to $200 billion.  Though it increases spending even more than Senate’s version, both Democratic plans largely ignore entitlement reform, speeding the collapse of the safety net in the relatively near future.  The ranking House Budget Committee Democrat says using certain actuarial assumptions (which are dismissed by Republicans as unrealistic), his caucus’ budget would balance by…2045.

Guy Benson

Guy Benson is Townhall.com’s Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

Consequences of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Cost

Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965.

The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.1

FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population – between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million.2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year!

As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country).10 Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost.

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.1 A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws.

Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC’s “children only” cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million.

By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Rule of Law

By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

One Man, One Vote

Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.

United States Sovereignty

The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”8

The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico’s political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation – in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America.

Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.

In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.

Population and environmental consequences

United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today.4 Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration – that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents.5

The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today’s consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people.6 A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen at DesertInvasion.US.

Other countries

The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.

It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

Millions of Americans

Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted – freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.

Notes and more information:

1.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

2.   Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005)

3.   Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers (DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005)

4.   US Census Bureau.

5.   NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship

6.   SUSPS

7.   James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin – The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006)

8.   Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996)

9.   US Citizenship and Immigration Services

10.   The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001)

Election Fraud

Below, I received the partial list of voter fraud examples from the November 2012 Presidential Election that most of us have seen over the past few months.  This time I received the list in an e-mail from an elected official with an earnest question of what to do about it.  I’m certainly no expert, but here are the thoughts I sent in reply:

There are many reasons that we lost the election, and voter fraud was part of it — but not all of it.I saw an article go by this week that said there are groups pursuing the examples you sent.So, hopefully, some of that will be flushed out soon

I don’t see it happening, but I’m praying that top-level Republicans (working with other conservative parties like the Constitution Party / Libertarian Party / etc) will see the need for an organized project to watch every vote at every voting precinct in the nation and ensure that voter fraud is wiped out as a potential for swaying the election.It needs to be a proactive effort — not a post-election litigation effort.

We need to:

  • Organize and train poll watchers in every state / township / precinct.
  • Organize and train Republican election judges in every state / township / precinct.
  • Video cameras in each voting location to record the entire day or events of concern by the poll-watchers (even if it’s just smart phone cameras).
  • Know how many ballots are taken to each voting location
  • Know how many ballots are completed / voided / spoiled / returned from every voting location
  • Know the vote counts recorded on each electronic voter machine at each voting location (where used)
  • Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any effort to commit voter fraud
  • Get rid of all electronic voting machines

The only thing that will wipe out voter fraud is having well-trained eyes on every voting booth the day of the election.

Plus, Brian Bollmann, a lowly chair of a county Tea Party, 3 days before an election, shouldn’t be running around begging for Republican Election Judges for the city of St. Louis.

But that all takes money, and who sees it as important enough to foot the bill?!?  It wasn’t in 2012; will it be in 2014 or 2016? I hope it will.

We will certainly continue to work to prevent voter fraud in our little corner of the world as best we can!

FWIW, I kept saying that Romney’s downfall would be that…

“Romney wouldn’t be willing to go to the mat.Obama would go to the mat.Romney wouldn’t.”

Romney had Obama down on the mat and let him back up.Too bad.

Below is the partial list of voter fraud examples that instigated the e-mail exchange:

From Bill O’Reilly’s message board:Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government and media refuse to do anything about it.As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

  • In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
  • In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney.  (Another statistical impossibility).
  • In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.
  • In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
  • The National SEAL Museum , a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.
  • Palm Beach County , FL had a 141% voter turnout.
  • In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

The Day The Democrats Took Over

I’ve been arguing what is written below (received via e-mail and edited) since President Obama took office, but my thoughts are well-crystallized here:

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 (the inauguration of President Obama), it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s fault”, think about these facts.  On, January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

  • The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77 (Incredibly as of this writing it is now on the verge of 13,000)
  • The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%.
  • The unemployment rate was 4.6%.
  • George Bush’s economic policies had set a record of 52 straight months of job creation!

Remember that day…

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?  BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney Frank) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment … to this crisis by (among many other things) dumping $5-6 TRILLION of toxic loans on the economy from your Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cronies!

By the way, Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.  Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” – and then the sky did fall!  He wanted to roll the dice.

And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  OBAMA did!

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?  OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney!

So when someone tries to blame Bush … …remember January 3rd, 2007… …THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel and they were driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets are not passed by the White House. They are passed by Congress and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 and 2009 as well as 2010 and 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.

At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time?

He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

  • If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.
  • After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself..

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

34 Facts On The Debt

h/t http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com

Today is the 1000th day since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget.  Obama’s last budget was voted down 97-0.  Democrats have absolutely failed in leadership as the debt goes up:

The U.S. government’s debt is bad. How bad? It’s so bad that liberals don’t even pretend to have an answer any more. They used to shrug it off. “We’ll grow our way our of it.” In a recovery this weak? With 8.5% unemployment? They know better.

But Congress does nothing about this. It has no intention of doing anything.

#1 During fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent 3.7 trillion dollars but it only brought in 2.4 trillion dollars.

#2 When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars.  Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars.

#3 During 2011, U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP for the first time ever.

#4 According to Wikipedia, the monetary base “consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks’ reserves with the central bank.”  Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars.  So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt.  But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.

Read more

The Donkey Whisperer

Classic!

Your OWS / Tea Party Checklist

The only thing missing at the bottom is that Obama, the DNC, and elected Democrats from sea to shining sea SUPPORT the Occupy Wall Street thugs and criminals…

 

h/t Michelle Moore / desmond.yfrog.com

 

…and called the Tea Partiers all of the following:

  • Hostage-Takers
  • Stupid
  • Uneducated
  • Extremist
  • War-Mongers
  • Sycophants
  • Neophytes
  • Islamophobic
  • Old
  • White
  • Angry White Dudes
  • Angry Mobs
  • Astroturf
  • Right Wing
  • Nut Jobs
  • Fringe
  • Koch Suckers
  • Hobbits (okay that was McCain, but he is a liberal so there’s that)
  • Foolish
  • Bizarre
  • UN-American
  • KKK (Luther Campbell – http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-13/news/the-tea-party-is-the-kkk/) /

… and of course… ….Racist and Terrorists