Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies

by Gregg Jackson

THE CONSERVATIVE S POLITICAL BIBLE. Let s say you re listening to a loony liberal, debating some dopey Democrat, or arguing with a gaggle of goofy lefties. Wouldn t it be great to have the facts to combat all those liberals lies? Well, here it is: finally, the book that sets the record straight! Radio host and author Gregg Jackson has written THE authoritative answer book for conservatives concerning our nations key concerns: Abortions, terrorism, the Patriot Act, separation of church and state, immigration, the environment, homosexual marriage, taxes, deficits, school vouchers, gun control, health care, social security, education, media bias, and President Bush s real record of achievements. What makes Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies so important is that it gives conservatives, right-leaning independents, and even disaffected Democrats the truth they need to counter common liberal claims. Issue by issue, the book offers clear and concise conservative responses and comebacks. Here is a brilliant, A-to-Z reference book that gives readers clear-cut answers on today s most pressing political and social issues. Conservative Comeback to Liberal Lies should be in the hands of every red-blooded conservative in America!

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

414 pages, Paperback

First published July 18, 2006

Reviews

[Glen · Rating 3 out of 5]

A dated work, fighting the battles of 2005. Now everybody is talking about different stuff, and the political landscape has changed radically. Might come in handy for some sort of school project about that time.

That trail of dead bodies following the Clintons is even longer now. An update would probably have to include an entirely new page just for the new corpses.

[Marky · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a political refrence created for conservatives and Republicans alike. It covers issues from gun control to Operation Iraqi Freedom. It gives truthful and brilliant responses to the most common liberal claims. All these responses are supported by tough and indisputable evidence. With this book, i drilled my way through the touchest political debates i had ever encountered. These responses aupported by clear evidence left liberals wordless and pissed off. The entire looney left winged world will come down in defeat as I wander across the political world with this lethal book.

[wally · Rating 5 out of 5]

though the technology may be redundant, out-of-date the day you walk out of the store with it....the arguments presented here seem to hold true...what is it...4-5-6 years after published?

does that tell us something about us?

cain killed abel...so what has changed? methodology?

i saw this listed in "recommended reading" on thomas sowell's website....thomas, the former marxist for you gang-banging liberals...

onward and upward

as noted elsewhere...jackson's format, neato...using the alphabet to set up an "a" to "z" schematic.

"liberal lies" made the greatest impression on me...me, a "registered democrat" who is pizzed off at the way the party has devolved, a party of deceit.

take anything they say, and pretty much ignore it, a party of hypocrisy, lies, deceit. i am truly saddened that so many put their faith in a group whose goal is anyone's guess, though i'd have to say they are working for the father of lies, satan.

why not?

makes sense.

for the same reason, i've turned off the mainstream media...hey, if dan rather can appear on national television during the time of a presidential election and feel comfortable deceiving the nation...meh!

lies, deceit...

bout the only thing i found troubling was reliance, at times, on figures from the c.b.o.....congressional budget office....as we have learned with obamacare--the representative from wisconsin pointed this out to all--that you cannot take ten years of taxes, couple that w/six years of spending, and claim to be balancing the budget....no matter what the congressional budget office claims...as they are only giving voice to the figures provided to them....like the dummy on the man's lap....walter is his name?

you can take pretty much everything that has happened since...well, at least reagan...jackson goes back further than that--fdr, truman, etc...but say you take everything the talking heads harp upon from the time of reagan on, whoever/whatever they have said to cast doubt, aspersion, shame on the other....realize that w/the pointing finger there are the other digits and they all point back at the one speaking....the one lying...the one deceitful....


toss them all out...one term and out.

[Mark Konrad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why liberals should read this- It is a fool who can not articulate the rhetoric of their opponents.



To conservatives: this book, much like a michael moore film, plays fast and loose with the truth.

[Nicole Keadle · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was completely riduculous.

[Katty · Rating 1 out of 5]

Meh. I liked the concept and style of the book. Being able to read small sections on select issues was convenient and some of the information was informative and accurate.

Unfortunately, a good deal of the content didn't impress me. It seemed like the author sought and selected every statistic (no matter how obscure or questionable) that was in line with conservative ideology and pasted it in to support his talking points. Even though I agree with some conservative views discussed in the book, the lack of well-known, trusted sources made it less credible.

[moe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Just to clarify, I read this in a bookstore, I did not buy it. What a waste of time.

[Toe · Rating 3 out of 5]

The provocative title lets you know before even delving into the material where Jackson stands. His goal here is a simple one: provide concrete facts and information to combat the liberal propaganda promulgated by the mainstream media. He takes 26 topics, lists the typical liberal claim put forth, and then the conservative rebuttal. For example, the letter “O” stands for “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” the liberal claim is “War never solved anything,” the conservative rebuttal is that war eradicated Communism, Nazism, and fascism [I would add slavery:]. Jackson’s book is a useful yet flawed effort.

The positives first. Conservative Comebacks is a handy reference material for conservative talking points. He supplies much needed research and data on topics often reduced to generalities, banalities, or, worse yet, emotion. For example, libs often claim that “trillion dollar Ronny” massively increased the deficit because of his tax cuts. Reagan did indeed simplify the tax code and reduce the tax rates. The top rate was 70% before Reagan reduced it to 28%. For those completely ignorant of tax policy and devoid of the ability to critically reason, the claim that it was the tax cuts that lead to larger deficits sounds not only plausible but convincing. However, stopping to look at the facts for 30 seconds and thinking reveals that this claim is a complete lie. Tax revenues increased dramatically over the course of Reagan’s presidency, doubling from $519 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1989. Therefore, the moniker “trillion dollar Ronny” is appropriate in the sense that it applies to increasing the tax revenues to $1 trillion. It does not mean that the tax cuts increased the deficit by $1 trillion. No, the deficit went up because spending outpaced even the increased gains in tax revenue. In fact, for every increased $1 of revenue, the libs in the Democratic Congress spent $1.29. Democrats required that each dollar spent on defense was matched by a dollar spent on social programs—because of course everyone knows that having the “Piss Christ” is as vital to our national interest as having the M16. This is a simple example to grasp, but it is vital to understand because libs so frequently lie about Reagan’s accomplishments. Pointing out these numbers, which are publicly available on government websites and in good research books, is where Jackson excels. This is a much needed service that he provides.

The negatives next. Jackson’s Sue Graftonesque strategy of listing a topic for each letter of the alphabet is unoriginal, unhelpful, and damages the overall effectiveness of the book. I spent an inordinate amount of time searching for the Reagan example used above and still never found the chart I remember reading that showed the year by year analysis of spending and tax revenues. The book also lacks an index. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to navigate the topics and quickly find the information you seek. At the same time, discrete topics mean that reading the book from beginning to end lacks an overall coherence. The end result is a weird compromise between a book that can be read strait through and an actual reference book. You can use the book for both, but it excels at neither.

Additionally, the alphabetical arrangement necessarily requires some stretching of where the topic would logically appear. For example, he uses “L” to describe the “liberal media.” Why not “M” for media, you ask? Because “M” is used to describe “mega-watt energy.” But wait a second. Why not use “E” for energy, wouldn’t that make more sense? Yes, but “E” is used for “economics,” a critically important topic. Not only does the lettering require some imaginative stretching and changing of names, it also leads to much overlap in the subject matter. For example, several of the claims and responses in the topic of “economics” are identical to those in the topic of “taxation,” and some of these claims appear yet again in the topic of “Bill Clinton” and “healthcare.” The claims and responses in the topic of “church and state” are repeated in the topic of “yankee doodle founding fathers” (see “F” was reserved for females). The format creates unnecessary repetition and is simply a poor organizational decision. It probably would have been better to have 4 or 5 major topics such as economics and taxation, military policy and radical Islam, government programs that have failed such as Social Security and Medicare, and the liberal media. That way, Jackson can consolidate all the related claims and responses into some broader areas and reduce the repetition.

The major complaint is the format. Some more minor complaints arise from the fact that the author is a partisan conservative instead of a Libertarian. This places Jackson into the difficult position of having to defend everything a Republican politician does instead of being able to objectively and freely evaluate positions or pieces of legislation. He is partisan to the point of inconsistency. A notable contradiction is when Jackson rightly rails against libs’ government spending and the immoral transfer of wealth Social Security and Medicare represent, but then praises Bush for Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefits package. He claims that Democrats are the party of huge government handouts but then shows Bush increased anti-poverty spending by 39%, S-CHIP increased 39%, housing programs increased 26%, food stamps increased 71%, school breakfasts and lunches increased 24%, the Earned Income Tax Credit increased from $26 billion to $35 billion from 2001 to 2007, and the Child Tax Credit increased from $1 billion in 2001 to $14.6 billion in 2005. So, is government spending good or bad? Jackson seems to think it’s good when Republicans do it but bad when Democrats do it. Where is the guiding philosophy in that?

Libertarians will find some of Jackson’s positions weak and half-assed (of course, they are still much better than the lib alternative). For example, his attempts to privatize some of Social Security by setting up individual accounts and tax incentives are a step in the right direction but not nearly enough. Also, his case against same-sex marriage is somewhat weak. In this section in particular, Jackson seems to cherry-pick some of his data to suit his preconceived notions that gays shouldn’t be allowed to wed and adopt. He takes data on single-parent homes and tries to extrapolate the negative consequences to gay homes. Not sure if that is plausible or if Jackson hasn’t made egregious statistical inference errors. Either way this is a topic I don’t give a damn about.

Jackson’s book is definitely flawed. Nonetheless it is handy to get the picture of the modern Conservative stance on a wide range of issues. The fundamental themes and patterns of small government, strong defense, and personal responsibility are much more in line with my ideals than the lib alternative of big government theft, compromise with our enemies, and officious meddling into the affairs of others. Is it worth reading? Probably. There are much worse books out there.

Memorable quotes:

“In his 1994 book “Death by Government,” Rudolph J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, found that in the 20th century, governments murdered 170 million of their own people while combat claimed 38.5 million lives.”

“Professors and legal scholars John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard of the University of Chicago conducted one of the most comprehensive studies of firearm laws ever, analyzing gun ownership and FBI crime data for each of the nation’s 3,045 counties during and eighteen-year period—1977 to 1994…As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in the violent crime rates. Each year a concealed handgun law stays in effect, the murder rate declines by three percent, rape declines by two percent and robberies by more than two percent.”

“Blacks make up only twelve percent of the population, yet they account for more than forty-six percent of all violent crime and more than ninety percent of murders of blacks…Massive illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, drug use, unemployment and illiteracy are the primary causes of the continued plight of blacks in our inner cities. A strong and more plausible argument can be made that the Democrats’ Great Society and resulting welfare programs of the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s greatly contributed to the rampant violence in the black community—not gun manufacturers.”

“Stricter enforcement of capital punishment does, in fact, deter crime…Of 432 executions during a twenty-year period, each execution prevented about 5.5 murders, according to a 2001 University of Colorado study which examined the deterrence effect of the death penalty. That’s 2,376 murders which didn’t happen! The study, conducted by Dr. H. Naci Mocan and graudate student R. Kaj Gittings, analyzed the U.S. Justice Department records of 6,143 death sentences imposed between 1977 and 1997.”

“The majority of those executed since 1976 have been white, even though black criminals commit a majority of murders. If the death penalty is “racist,” it is racist against whites, not blacks, since blacks commit the largest number of murders. Blacks committed 51.5 percent of the murders between 1976 and 1999, while whites committed 46.5 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau of Justice Stastics.”

“If Islam is really a religion of peace as many claim, why are Muslim countries embroiled in the vast majority of wars on planet Earth? In Indonesia, the Philippines, Chechnya and India radical Muslims are trying to kill non-Muslims or convert them.”

“Democrat Woodrow Wilson…asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany after concluding America could not remain neutral. In World War I, 116,608 U.S. soldiers were killed; 204,002 wounded.
Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt ran on the promise he would keep the U.S. out of war by seeking neutrality legislation. In World War II, 407,316 Americans were killed; 786,301 wounded. Worldwide, 55,000,000 people died in war.
Democrat Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities populated primarily by elderly men, women and children. After that, he led the U.S. into Korea. The total number killed in the Korean War—more than one million, of which more than 55,000 were Americans.
Democrat John F. Kennedy was the first U.S. president to commit U.S. ground troops in Vietnam in 1962. In that war, 55,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives.
There was only one major Republican to lead the country into a major conflict in the 20th century. George H.W. Bush (41) destroyed Saddam Hussein’s million-man army in less than a week (100 hours), resulting in a relatively minute loss of U.S. lives—148 U.S. casualties.
Now who are the doves and just who are the hawks?”

“Of all the essential elements which lead to a child’s proper development—access to health care, nutrition, good schools, safe neighborhoods and love—the most important factor is the marital status of the parents.”

“At the University of Michigan, four points were awarded for being the child of an alumnus, 12 points for a perfect SAT score and 20 points for having black skin.”

“Since black males only live an average of 70.2 years versus 75.9 years for white males, and black females live an average of 76.4 years compared to white females who live an average of 80.8 years, the current Social Security system transfers money from blacks to whites.”

“Tax revenues during the Reagan years increased 28 percent, but spending increased 36 percent. Liberal Democrats often imply Reagan’s tax cuts were irresponsible because they caused the massive deficits of the 1980s. They fail to acknowledge the fact that tax revenues doubled as a result of the cuts. The primary reason for the budget deficits was inflation-adjusted federal spending which increased by a greater percentage than the increase in tax revenues to the federal treasury.”

“An example of why raising taxes can backfire is the luxury tax Congress imposed on cars, boats, jewelry, planes and furs beginning in 1991. It was a way for Democrats such as Senator Ted Kennedy and then-Majority Leader George Mitchell to impose a tax on the rich. They claimed the tax on the wealthy would force them to pay their fair share of the taxes.
The tax took in $97 million less than was expected in the first year as people decreased their purchases of these items.
Yacht retailers and boat builders were hardest hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year and boat builders laid off an estimated 25,000 workers.
Subsequently, the tax was phased out by a Republican-led congressional effort in 1993 and 1996.”

“For example, in 1997, the capital gains tax rate was reduced from 28 percent to 20 percent. Critics claimed this would “cost” the government $100 billion over five years. Instead, capital gains receipts doubled.”

“Based on data taken from the Census Bureau, the study concluded, ‘Illegal alien households on average are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.’”

[Atchisson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty similar to "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". In case you have TWO liberals driving you nuts, get this too. Then follow the same prescription: Simply hand him the book and walk away smugly. Of course they won't read it -- if they REALLY wanted the truth they'd have to consider becoming conservatives.

[goddess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun book. Sometimes over the top, but overall some great talking points. Jackson puts things into perspective and explains things quite well.

[Katie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am as liberal as it gets. I read this as a satire, its a very good way of reinforcing ones own views and showing both the hypocrisy and unending idiocy of far right believers.

[Amanda Rawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very carefully researched. Very interesting to read.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll admit I kinda skimmed through the majority of this book. I picked it up at a Barnes&Noble last year and didn't realize it was written in the early 2000's. So, needless to say, it's a little dated. Many of the "comebacks" still apply today. But, when your book claims "George W Bush is the most controversial President", it's obviously been written before 2016.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well researched, I certainly didn't agree with all his points but it provides perspective. Many of the of the arguments still hold up today but the world has changed so much in the last decade, a lot due to social media, that you have to keep reminding yourself this was published before Twitter/facebook/iPhone

[Robert Bob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not worth reading. 2007 rhetorical
No Obama/ Hillary

[Andrew Toy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book for everyone to read - Republicans, to brush up on why they stand for what they do, and for Democrats to at least understand why Republicans believe what they believe, and that Republicans aren't just out to start wars and hog money. Jackson makes a definite argument that the real difference between the right and the left (besides moral choices) is that Republicans are looking out for what's in the nation's best interest twenty years from now, and Democrats are looking at what's "best" now, overlooking the long term consequences. Read more of my reviews at http://www.adoptingjames.wordpress.com

[Jake Danishevsky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very easy ready and must have book. It is a quick summary of everything or at least most items that you need to know to have a conversation with a liberal. It is a A to Z on how to have facts and information that will get you through an argument, if you will. Nice to have item for those who tend to discuss politics or merely enjoy having facts at hand.

[Naftoli · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great reference book. I have been reading parts of it from time to time. There are some parts I could have written better than the author but I gave it a 5 because the important issues change by the week. The author would need to update every 3 months in order to remain absolutely current.

[Eveline · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good to read the other perspective. Is it just because I'm getting older that I'm swaying? Sometimes just as defensive as the other side, sometimes using 'facts' that make no sense. Definitely lots of rhetoric…. alas it's politics.

[Steen Knigge · Rating 4 out of 5]

70% of the book is pretty good. Interesting takes on social issues

[Renz Homer Cerillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

highly informative! some basic debatable topics, contextualized within the liberals and republicans.

[Lana Glover · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Wish he would update it now that Obama is Pres.

[Kain Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book can be a tad boring at times but is very helpful for those who wanna learn more about political science. Very factual and all sources are stated

[D Teegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is some scary information in here. Informative read.