Liberal Myths Debunked

Obamacare has done one good thing: it has created a situation where conservatives and libertarians are no longer opposed to individual government policy initiatives, rather it has created solidarity against government expansion in general.  Virtually everything the Obama White House has done, or is threatening to do, is making this solidarity stronger.  With each passing day, those standing in opposition are becoming more saturated with independents – the death nail of the left.

Still, liberals make the same tired arguments – even when they fly in the face of reality.  This should be no surprise, since most of liberalism is based on a Utopian dream; one that has never been produced in reality.  Let’s deconstruct some of the more ridiculous liberal arguments about how great the Obama White House is, and about liberalism in general…

Liberal claim #1: “Obama has been great for race relations in America.”

This may have been poignant during the campaign, but to assert this today is absurd.  Jimmy Carter is out there saying that opposition to Obamacare is mostly based on racist white people.  Here’s what he said:

That doesn’t Sound like all of our race problems are solved, does it?  Race is ALL the discussion is about today.  What’s more, it is apparent from both sides of the aisle.  As Fox Nation reports:

“What Democrats are trying to do is shame white independents, who voted for President Obama in 2008 but are now uneasy about his policies, into supporting these policies to prove they are not racist,” said Republican pollster and strategist David E. Johnson, who worked on Bob Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign.”

The liberals in Congress and in the main stream media outlets are waging a war against anyone who dares oppose Obama by claiming that they are racist – turn on the news to see.

Liberal claim #2: Foreign nations will like us more and be more willing to “talk” to us.

I especially like this one.  Since Obama has taken office, the North Koreans have been launching missiles toward Japan.  Iran is flagrantly enriching uranium and giving us the great Mullah Finger.  The Russians and Chinese have completely walked away from climate change proposals.  Venezuela is actively undermining the US by supplying Iran refined gas, rendering any future sanctions useless.  We have unilaterally disarmed the European missile defense shield.  And Quadafi and Libya told Obama to f&%k off and gave the Lockerbie terrorist a hero’s welcome when Scotland (against our wishes) released him.

Yes, I’d say that everyone loves us now.  Who gives a damn if other countries are willing to talk with us if in doing so they tell us how weak we are, and then do whatever they want anyway?

Liberal claim #3: Nationalized health care will be good for the chronically ill.

It worked.  The Marxists have convinced people to argue for policies that will actually hurt them.  The chronically ill are the people who are going to get rationed into their death bed.  Let’s take Obama’s own words for this one.  According to an interview posted in the New York Times, Obama talks about cutting costs, by cutting services to the old and chronically ill:

“So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”

And he followed that…

“I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels.”

Translation?  You people who are chronically ill and you old folks – get ready to die because the first cuts made to save costs are going to be cuts made to YOUR care.  I’ll be fine – I am healthy.  The problem is, what if someday I, or God forbid one of my children, becomes chronically ill?  I don’t want them to be cost eliminated out of a chance to live.

Liberal claim #4: Health care is a God given right.

Let’s assume for a moment that health care is a God given right – a natural right.  If this is so, how does that right – the right to health care – get administered?  If health care is a God given right, is it not also God given that someone will provide that right?  Who will provide that right?  Doctors?  Says who?  God?  So God must also make doctors to provide for people to receive what He created as a natural right?

The only problem is that God doesn’t make doctors.  If God doesn’t make doctors, yet doctors are needed for a person to receive a right from God, how can the right be divined from God?

A God given right, or a Natural right, is one that is inherent in a person from conception.  From the time you are a human life God gives you certain rights.  As Jefferson put it, “…among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Liberty is something you are born with.  God makes us free.  It is not a decision by one man to decide if another man should be free.  Freedom, or liberty is inherent in the human condition – it is a God given right.  Health care is not something you are born with.  It is not inherent in the human condition.  If a person is guaranteed by God to have health care, God must also provide the means to receive health care – doctors.  God does not provide doctors.  People may or may not decide to become doctors.

To say that health care is a God given right is fallacious at best and absurd at worst.  Either way, it is not a right.  Rather, health care is a service.  You can choose to get it, or not.  Just like a person can choose to become a doctor, or not.

Let’s take this silly argument to it’s next level.  Let’s again assume that God gave man health care.  Since God cannot (or hasn’t yet) produced doctors from the womb, it will be up to man to compel certain people to become doctors.  Substituting for God in fulfilling his duty to provide that which is a God given right.  So man steps in to take up the slack for God.  An Obama-type dictator identifies certain children as being suitable to become doctors.  He will use things like genetic mapping and environmental criteria to decide which babies are destined (according to him) to become doctors.  These babies will become wards of the State.  They will be marked as having to serve the rest of the population as doctors.  This is the only way that health care can become a “right.”  And even so, it will not be a right produced from God, rather from a coercive tyrant.

Liberal claim #5: The Iraq war was all Bush’s fault.

This claim is especially rich, because it demands that one selectively forgets what happened to bring us to war.  Here, I am not talking about the terror threat, but the political support for going to war.  How about some quotes to paint this picture:

“No, I don’t regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.” – Hillary Clinton, April 24, 2004

“Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts. That he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons.” – Sen. John Edwards, Sept. 12, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” -Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002

“Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There’s no question about that.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2003

“If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.” – Sen. Joseph Biden, Sept. 4, 2002

So much for the Iraq war being something that liberals fought against. Funny how liberals are constantly seeking to change history to make it suit their needs.  Regardless, Obama has taken what was a real success story in Iraq and completely destabilized it. With his lack of attention and focus, all of the blood, sweat and tears that produced a stable Iraq is disintegrating before our eyes.

Liberal claim #6: The deficits are George Bush’s fault.

I love this one!  How about some facts (hard as they may be to read) for my liberal friends…

– Through 2008, Bush expanded the deficit to $700 Billion.  This is just awful.  Most conservative commentators (these pages included) railed against the massive deficit spending.

– In Obama’s first 6 months is office, he ADDED another TRILLION.  (That’s One Thousand Billion for you liberals.)

– Obama has proposed ANOTHER $700 Billion for his health care fund.

– President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016. (Hat tip to Heritage on the last point.)

– The Congressional Budget Office says that the Obamacare bill HR 3200 will cost ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLARS.

Liberal claim #7: At least Obama is spending the money wisely.

The stimulus bill was a massive waste of money.  Check out all of the garbage that our tax dollars (my money!) is going to buy. First, only about $60 Billion of the $800 Billion has been spent.  If we HAD to get that bill through right at that time – why has only a fraction of the money been spent?  Second,   the Stimulus Bill was supposedly to “stimulate” the economy.  What it really did, was stimulate the government.  The bill contained some $7 Billion in spending on government buildings.  How does that help the economy?  How about $4.5 Billion to the Army Corps of Engineers.  I am all for supporting the military. but the Corps of Engineers ALREADY has $3.2 Billion in un-obligated funds – that is, funds they have, but don’t know what to spend it on.  How about $15o Million to develop fisheries?  Or how about $87 Million for a polar ice breaking ship?  Or how about the Big 3 – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have some $53 Trillion in unfunded debt – that means we’re obligated to pay, but don’t have the money to do it.  The list goes on and on.

To say that the $4 Trillion budget is being responsibly spent is one of the more ludicrous claims out there.

Will a liberal who reads this be swayed? Probably not – most refuse to see the truth. But in summary, the Obama White House has, or is, destroying everything it touches.  It is taking over car companies, banks, insurance companies, increasing taxes, moving to take over health care, nationalizing student loans, the mortgage industry.  And in doing so has racked up more debt, faster than any other President in the history of the United States – actually, more than all of them through history, combined!

To deny these things is blind following and will surely lead to subjugation.  This is not without precedent – the people of Venezuela willingly voted themselves into subjugation.  Now it is too late for them; Chavez has shut down all the private media companies and broadcasts and nationalized the energy and banking industries.  He is a tyrant and the people are his subjects.  The liberals who make the claims herein are traveling the same path.


  1. Are you not aware what “stimulating the economy” requires? Perhaps a recap to the last depression this country has faced would help. What pulled us out was investing money in the people, that is, giving them jobs. That’s why all the schools in the new york city area look the same. The government GAVE all those people who were losing their jobs due to the economy being in the shitter, NEW JOBS, even if temporary, in order to provide them with EARNED money they could then invest in the economy. That’s what helped then, and that is what is helping now. The fact it is used toward government buildings is just killing two birds with one stone, which is one of many descriptions for wise spending.

    All your other spending arguments are subject to opinion as well. For instance Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are in desperate need of reform. While taking it down entirely until a solution is figured out may not be the greatest idea, I hardly think allocating them money for what is going to be changed anyway is not very productive either.

    When it comes to political support for President Bush, nobody at the time had any idea that president Bush was lying through his teeth the entire time. And in the fog of war, the country was so angry at the attack on 9/11, that they became almost blinded by their hate and necessity for revenge, that presenting false evidence to take that rage out, was extremely easy. I love how it was called “the war on terrorism.” Have we actually destroyed any terrorism since starting the war? NO. In fact the terrorists aren’t even in Iraq, it was well known they were hiding out in Saudi Arabia. It was only called a war on terror in order to play on people’s emotions and generate mass appeal. We all know that old man Bush has been wanting to take Iraq done even when he was president, and its not really surprising to see little Bush junior following in his fathers political footsteps. Except he got there through lies.
    And honestly, what right do we have to take down another country’s leadership simply because we don’t like them very much. I’m sure if the correct facts were presented to the people they would have been just as against it as they were years ago. I understand the concept of the United States maintaining some policing power over the world, and though I don’t fully agree with that mentality, I support it, however this was not a policing act. The Iraq war was simply deceit, provocation, and invasion, of a government that posed no real threat to us, leaving the entire country in worse shape than it was before we got there – there was no “success story,”
    Even when a potential president loses an election, they will say kind things about the change of power despite disagreeing with them, because that is what the nation expects. We don’t expect sore losers; we don’t want all the democrats that supported the loser to suddenly storm the white house in a fit of rage. The main task of all politicians is to respect the winner, and despite disagreeing with some factors, they do their best in order to promote unification, and avoid division and conflict. In order to promote unification and avoid conflict, people tend to support whatever actions the government had taken, to the best of their abilities. Also, it’s wrong to assume posting the remarks of a few politicians that don’t want to appear rebellious and lose public appeal, as something that would characterize the mentality of the entire party, especially when there’s others who say otherwise.

    Analyzing “healthcare is a god given right,” on the basis of religion is an unwise and contradictory as an argument, as there’s many more religious arguments brought up by conservatives that are absolutely ridiculous, than liberals can even place a finger on. Indeed healthcare is a service, however I believe it is deserved by all individuals in a well-developed country such as our own. Would we rather invest more money in war and taking down governments that pose no threat to us, killing off countless American soldiers in the process, or investing that money into making our citizens healthy? So much for your “wise spending” argument.
    Indeed, doctors are not born, they are made, just like police officers are made, just like soldiers are made, and don’t we have a right to protection? Hasn’t protection been the first and primary cause for societies to form since the dawn of time? At some point in our history, whether through evolution or intelligent design (I won’t even get into that argument), people realized that living in groups was safer than going at it alone. And the first kings asked for taxes in exchange for protection. Yes, taxes. So yes, our taxes go toward protection, which is a RIGHT afforded to us. Just like TAXES would go toward HEALTHCARE, which would also be a right.

    You want to know why other countries won’t “talk” to us?
    Because we tell them what to do, because we try to control them, because we enter countries without ample evidence and destroy their governments. Unless you define “talking” as obeying our every demand obediently. Just because you changed the president, doesn’t mean you’ve changed the history that country has had. Getting the respect of other nations to “talk” will take more than another pretty face, immediately after a bullshit war that the entire world is still talking about. Travel a little more, you’ll hear exactly what is being said about Mr. Bush, who you are trying to protect so much.
    And nobody thinks we are weak. A large part of the world is disgruntled by our actions and the main reason they wouldn’t dare start a conflict with us is because at the end of the day, we’re bigger than they are and we have the most operational nukes. Isn’t that enough? Or are they really supposed to live at our whim as well?

    And finally, the race issue….
    firstly, Rome was not built in a day…
    Slavery was not abolished overnight….
    President Obama is the first black president. This isn’t a coincidence. Obviously there were factors that contributed to the lack of African American politicians. Since politicians are voted in, last I checked, the contributing factor would be majority vote. This implies that the majority of the country was against this occurrence at one time. The fact he got elected means the majority ruled in his favor. That does not mean that race is no longer an issue in this country. Instead it means that voters with non-racist ideology now officially outnumber the more racist counterparts.
    This, ofcourse, does not imply that there will be black presidents from now on, but it does mean that the possibility exists and is much more reachable than it was before, which I would say is a big step in racial relations.

    “Will a liberal who reads this be swayed? Probably not – most refuse to see the truth. But in summary, the Obama White House has, or is, destroying everything it touches. It is taking over car companies, banks, insurance companies, increasing taxes, moving to take over health care, nationalizing student loans, the mortgage industry. And in doing so has racked up more debt, faster than any other President in the history of the United States – actually, more than all of them through history, combined!”

    First of all, I would really like to know your animosity toward liberals. I’m not actually a full liberal and even i see the immense bias in your words. It is wrong to say you are 100% right and liberals are just wrong. This matter isn’t so black and white, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many liberals in the first place. You are basically using the superiority complex to characterize a disposition. Every human being is capable of thought, just like any other human being, you cannot eliminate a large percentage as somehow underdeveloped politically simply because they have strong opinions that oppose yours. The fact they have strong opinions on the subject in the first place means they’ve put considerate thought into it, and arrived at that conclusion, what right do you have to shut them up?
    Secondly, Obama isn’t a demon pillaging the land, as I have already mentioned earlier. Taking over banks? Yes, that’s actually a good thing. If you review your history a little better, we did that during the last depression as well, in order to save the banks, and thereby people’s money. Increasing taxes? Obama is only increasing taxes for those that earn over $250,000, and only for the amount that surpasses $250,000. Those people don’t need the extra money to survive, whereas less wealthy sometimes need the money just to pay the bills. Now think logically…. if we’re already in debt, where the hell do you think the money is going to be coming from? Tax cuts when we’re already losing money is a silly idea, and obviously taxes have to go up somewhat; I’d say raising taxes only after a certain salary is a great idea because it produces the most revenue, with the least amount of despair. As i had already said above, taking over healthcare isn’t a bad thing. I don’t see how this is such a problem. If you’re concerned about lines, quality, priorities, wait times, and you’re one of the people who has money to pay for health care, rest assured, there will still be private healthcare institutions in place, just like we have public and private schools. I’ve had to borrow a large amount of money from the government to finish school, and while doing my homework thoroughly, I can very safely say I am 100% in support of nationalizing student loans. Car companies, and the mortgage industry NEEDS HELP. If you learned economics at all, those companies are the first to suffer when the country falls into economic distress, and if they fall, so does the rest of the economy. And when it comes to the amount of debt he’s racked up…. any large positive result first requires an investment – you cant win the lottery if you never even bought the ticket. Other than simply stating these things as somehow “bad,” why not explain exactly why you are against all these changes, which I personally see as very productive.
    And with all due respect, president Bush has been voted in twice despite his illegitimacy and terrible “reforms” that suit only select individuals, while plummeting the rest of us into economic depression, loss of privacy, and reduced funding in essentials in order to fund his bloody war, including one that affected me personally, reduced funding in research. If anyone is traveling down the path toward being subjects to a tyrant, its the people who chose to vote Bush, not once but twice. (Assuming his first election was even fair, which we may never conclusively know due to the decision of the supreme court that year.)

    Also note:
    If you are going to post a bunch of “facts” without proper citations or giving due credit toward where you found the information, there is no reason for anybody reading to take the information you provided seriously. As much as I appreciate your passion in this, it appears to me to be primarily opinion, void of consistent substance or argumentative nature. (that is, arguing both sides in order to reach a correct conclusion. You cannot give only one side and then use that evidence in favor of the other, or vice versa)

  2. This ranting reply (some 4,000 words!) has been thoroughly debunked and humiliated on the follow up post: Happy reading!

Speak Your Mind