The Tea Party Cat explains the 2012 election aftermath

Tea Party Cat

Tea Party Cat

In this exclusive interview for LiberalBias.com, Greg Stevens gets the Tea Party Cat to cut through political gaffes, backpedaling and misstatements to find out what our great conservative leaders will really be thinking after the 2012 election.


Greg Stevens [GS]:  One of your great talents as a powerful voice on the Right is your ability to state, in simple terms that everyone can understand, what our leaders are really thinking. We all know that people misspeak, and sometimes get quoted out of context. But even when politicians don’t quite say what they should, you have a talent for being able to decipher what they really mean.

Paul Ryan.Donald Duck

So if I can get your wisdom and insight on the record, exclusively for us here at Liberalbias.com, I would like us to take a look into the future at what our political leaders will really be thinking the day after the election. What do you say?

Tea Party Cat [TPC]: Well, as you know, for conservatives there are only two futures: apocalyptic futures where America is destroyed by 39% marginal tax rates on the rich, and bright futures where heroic (male) leaders restore America to its rightful place as absolute ruler of the world and impose fundamentalist Christianity and democracy on the world at the end of a tank barrel.

GS: That sounds right… so let’s start by imagining the worst case scenario: Obama has been re-elected.

TPC: That would be a real tragedy. The Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have invested a billion dollars in this election, and to have it stolen by voters would be horrible. If this happens, then it might deter billionaires from trying to buy future elections, which would mean even more control over our government by the moochers.

GS: If we could get him to admit it bluntly, what is Mitt Romney really thinking?

TPC: “Oh, well. Good thing we did this on the Koch and Adelson money instead of mine. And besides we skimmed plenty off the top from the SuperPACs for ‘management fees’, so it’s really no different than KB Toys.”

GS: And what is Paul Ryan really thinking?

TPC: “Good thing I stayed on the ballot for my congressional seat. Plus now I can write a book like Palin did and finally cash in on this.”

GS: And Barack Obama?

TPC: Well, that’s going to be more of a conversation like this:

Obama: “Bill, thanks for all your help in this campaign. What can I do to repay you?”
Bill Clinton: “Barack, you know what I want.”
Obama: “OK, I’ll hire back the Secret Service team that got caught with prostitutes in Colombia and assign them to your detail.”
Bill Clinton: “And?”
Obama: “And I’ll keep Hillary out of the country as much as possible.”

GS: And Sarah Palin?

TPC: “Don’t blame me. I backed Newt.”

GS: Newt Gingrich?

TPC: “Hello, Sheldon [Adelson]? So, 2016? I won’t be too old. We both know you can’t trust that Christie guy to toe the line, and Ryan is damaged goods now.”

GS: And what are the Koch brothers thinking?

TPC: “Well, we still own Paul and Scott and Reince in Wisconsin, all of Kansas, Arkansas, and have plenty of others in our pocket. We can still buy 2014 and 2016.”

GS: Reince Priebus?

TPC: “Oh, well, we’ll just have to suppress more votes next time!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “I told you Romney couldn’t beat Obama.”

GS: Karl Rove?

TPC: “Oh, thank God! I oversold the election, so it’s a good thing Mitt lost because too many billionaires would expect something.”

GS: Scalia?

TPC: “Mitt lost? Are you sure, Florida? I even got my ‘Bush v Gore pen’ back from the Smithsonian.”

GS: Rick Perry?

TPC: “I knew I should’ve run for president this year. I could’ve won this thing.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Hey, Mitt! Sorry you lost. No, not really. I never really liked you or your whole no swearing act, and now it’s wide open for me in 2016. Don’t worry, I won’t be inviting you to the convention—you can sit home with W.”

GS: And finally…. Fox & Friends?

TPC: “Let’s call Trump and see if he thinks the election was stolen too!”

GS: Very impressive! Now, let’s imagine again, but this time it is the day after the election, and the angels have smiled upon our nation and blessed us with a Mitt Romney victory.

NOW, what is the quote from Mitt Romney?

TPC: “I hope all this crazy shit we’ve been saying works, because Paul and Grover are making me go through with this.”

Though at some point you know Romney is going to notice what the job pays, and I can’t see him sticking around for a measly $400,000 a year.

GS: From Paul Ryan?

TPC: “Oh, thank God I don’t have to go on Dancing With The Stars now.”

GS: From Barack Obama?

TPC: “You were right, Hillary, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Good luck in 2016.”

GS: From Sarah Palin?

TPC: “My Facebook statuses did it!”

Though I actually expect Palin will go quiet for a while after election night. She’ll be disappointed that Romney won. Criticizing the president is so much easier than trying to justify his mistakes, and as her financial adviser told her last fall, with Romney running for reelection, she can’t pretend to run again to get an all-expense paid family vacation from her SuperPAC. It’s a bad day for Palin, and she knows it.

GS: Mitch McConnell:

TPC: “Holy shit! Sabotaging the economy worked! They fell for it. Suckers!”

GS: Rick Santorum?

TPC: “Could’ve been me. I could’ve beaten Obama. Well, if it weren’t for Google. And the fact that I’m an sufferable prick.”

GS: Chris Christie?

TPC: “Crap! Now I gotta wait until 2020. I was sure 2012 was a loser and it would be mine in 2016.”

GS: Fantastic!  Now, no matter what we hear on our television sets or read in the newspapers on the day after the election, we can all rest assured that we already know what they are really thinking.

Finally, one last question: are you really a cat?

TPC: Well, my identity is a closely guarded secret, but I would like to lay to rest the rumor that I am Stephen Colbert’s cat. I am not. I am no one’s cat. I own people, they don’t own me.

GS: Thank you very much for your time!

 

The Tea Party Cat can be found on Tumblr, on Twitter and on Facebook.

Mitt Romney HAS to win, because: Escalades, martial law, sex toys, Lena Dunham.

This is what an Obama Second Term looks like.

This is what an Obama Second Term looks like.

If you have been looking at the polls, and correcting for their liberal bias, you know that Mitt Romney is going to win the election in a landslide not seen since the late George McGovern had his clock cleaned by the honorable Richard Nixon in 1972. Moreover, Mitt Romney better win, because the world will be an unimaginable horror if he does not.

Some of you may be skeptical because statisticians like Milhouse Van Houten of The New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog, who miraculously predicted the 2008 election to a tee, are boldly stating that Obama is the favorite. The lamestream media is being more realistic, shockingly, by telling its sheepish followers that the race is a dead heat. But consider this: why would God send Hurricane Sandy exclusively to blue states, if not as a symbol of the storm that is coming to tear apart the leftist agenda?

Barack Hussein Obama can only win this election one way: if straight white men and their allies become too confident and decide not to show up to the polls on Tuesday, knowing that Romney’s huge advantages in Michigan, Minnesota, California, and Vermont will be enough to win. It is paramount that we vote as many times as we can on November 6th, or the consequences will be dire. Barack Hussein claims that his second term agenda includes goals such as cutting the deficit and energy reform… but we know better. He will irreparably destroy the American way of life. How do I know? The same way everybody knows that Jesus was white and sodomy is yucky: it’s just common sense.

Imagine a second term of an Obama presidency. On day one, he will tank the economy, knowing full well that he can continue to blame President Bush for all the things that are his own fault. How will he do it? By raising taxes on “the wealthiest Americans,” otherwise known as straight white men, from 36% to 39%! Obama says that by doing this he can cut taxes for everybody else, which is flagrantly dishonest since all the people who are voting for him don’t pay taxes already. So where do you think that extra money is going to go? While those of us who earned our estates will have no choice but to starve, the leftists will be given as many Escalades as their hearts desire! Which, by the way, Obama can do because he bought the factory for himself with your taxpayer money.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. President Hussein will indulge the pornographers who support him while punishing those who subscribe to a higher set of morals. Viewing pornography is a sin, but pornography viewership per capita is highest in conservative states, mainly due to lesbian porn not being gay, and therefore acceptable in the eyes of the Lord.

As a result, the number of illegitimate rapes will skyrocket, and since Obama will appoint fellow socialists to the Supreme Court, all these harlots can savagely murder our kids. Martial law will also be declared, in order to ensure that all men charged of illegitimate rape are punished just for trying to obtain what belongs to them.

We will also learn that Barack Hussein Obama is a devout homosexual, which should not surprise anybody, because let’s face it…have you SEEN Michelle Obama’s arms?

The NRA is well aware of this, which is why they too are endorsing Mitt Romney for President, despite Obama’s empty gesture of weakening gun control laws during his first term. We are at risk of all our guns being stripped down and made into sex toys, because our God-given appendages are simply not big enough for these insatiable scoundrels.

The leftists have another motive for doing this as well: without weapons, we cannot fight back as they impose their Muslim agenda upon us. Muslims do not believe in God and they are atheists, meaning they worship the devil. This is what we are up against. Devil worshippers.

You may be wondering, “Hey Zach, Obama may be an awful leader, but the world is largely the same as it was before he took office. Why would he do all these things now?” First, you’re wrong. Second, Lena Dunham.

You know who Lena Dunham is, but you’re probably not sure why. She made an okay movie a few years ago. Nothing really happens in it, except she has sexual intercourse in a tunnel. That’s it. That’s seriously the only reason you know who she is. But in the grand scheme of Obama’s master plan, she plays a pivotal role. She is not unlike Damian Lewis’ character in the hit Showtime series Homeland, charming the pants off America while being a sleeper cell for the enemy. If there is anything you get from this article, it should be that Barack Obama is an enemy of white culture, and Dunham is betraying us by masquerading as the epitome of white culture. She is adorable, sexually promiscuous, and ferociously quirky; essentially, she is Honey Boo Boo with the false guise of being high-brow. White America unquestionably trusts her, even if she threatens everything we stand for.

We can have Girls, or we can have more Arrested Development. We cannot have both.

Dunham’s rise to being the arbiter of popular culture is just as convoluted as Obama’s rise to the presidency. Obama, born in Kenya, had the details of his false American birth immediately falsified by his alleged mother, Ann Dunham, who was grooming her son from the beginning to infiltrate the United States government in a vast conspiracy.

Ann Dunham… Lena Dunham. Coincidence? I think not!

Also consider that the younger Dunham went to college in Ohio, and is now using her Draconian influence in the state with an ad supporting Obama, which he desperately needs to be re-elected. I think it’s obvious what’s going on here.

In conclusion: Mitt Romney has to win. Escalades, martial law, sex toys, Lena Dunham. Think of all the weird boobs we will have to look at if he doesn’t.

Numerology proves that Obama is too liberal

Numerology says Romney is "meh"

Numerology says Romney is "meh"

“Be it remembred that, although most of the Scientific Arts, such as evolusion or embriologie, must be dismised as Demonnes from the Mouthe of Helle, a true Conseruativ minde may still holde in high regarde the keene and subtle Science of Numerologie.”

If my great ancestor Edward Kelley were alive today, I am sure he would say something like this. Science has been so overtaken by the liberal agenda that certain respectable fields, such as numerology and the occult, appear to have been left in the dust simply because they do not conform to the bigoted hegemony of the left liberal elites. But the truth is that numerology is a strict and exact science that can be used for great purpose, including a precise analysis of the political ideologies of past presidents and our current presidential candidates.

From a numerological perspective, the first step in the task of such an evaluation is clearly, and in sympatico with the theme of this site, to determine the level of liberal bias of individual letters in the alphabet. This determination can be done in a quite straightforward manner by taking the names of all past and present Presidents of the United States, and counting the number of times each letter occurs in their names, and then grouping those Presidents by their political party.  This will produce the following table of letter-occurrences:

Letter Bias Table

As you can see, there is only one president who was a member of “no party” (George Washington), and he had 16 letters in his name. You can see in this table the total number of letters counted for all of the names of Presidents in a particular party, with the average letter count per name in the right column. Republican names tended to be longer on average, but only by one letter: 13.9 letters per Republican President name, on average, compared to 12.9 letters per name for Democrats.

The yellow row calculates the amount of liberal bias for each letter by taking the number of times a letter appears in Democratic President names and subtracting the number of times a letter appears in Republican President names.  Clearly, a letter that appears much more often in Democratic President names has a strong liberal bias, and will therefore have a very high number.  On the other hand, if a letter prefers to appear in Republican President names, it will have a negative number.

It is interesting to note that the most Liberal letter in the alphabet is N, whereas the most conservative letter in the alphabet is tied between H and R.  This makes intuitive sense, with John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton as obvious examples of liberally-biased N-words, and Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower as obvious R- and H-words.

Once we have calculated the total liberal bias of each letter, we can then go back and calculate the overall liberal bias of each President’s name. The calculation is simple: Add the liberal bias score of each letter in the President’s name together to get the total liberal bias score of the name. Thus, for example, the liberal bias of the name “Herbert Hoover” would be -102 (extremely conservative), whereas the liberal bias of the name “John F. Kennedy” would be 2 (on the liberal side).

Kennedy and Hoover

This computation for every President has produced the graph at the top of this article. The Presidents are ordered from the most liberal (Lyndon B. Johnson) to the most conservative (Dwight Eisenhower), and are colored according to their party: red for Republicans; blue for Democrats; orange for Whigs; green for Federalists; and purple for Democratic-Republicans.  On the far right, I have also included Obama and Mitt Romney side-by-side for comparison.

This graph also shows that the median score for  all presidents is -45, which is fairly conservative. This only proves the well-known point that we live in a “center-right” country.  As expected, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton are on the extreme liberal side, while George Bush and Founding Father George Washington are on the conservative side.

It is a little surprising that Ronald Reagan is close to the median and right next to Jimmy Carter. However, upon further reflection this makes sense for a number of reasons: 1) the country as a whole is very conservative, so although Reagan is near the “middle” his score is still -49 which is very conservative, 2) Perhaps the reason Reagan was so popular was exactly because he agreed with most of the country, and 3) the fact that Jimmy Carter is in the middle doesn’t reflect anything about his values, but rather the fact that he was totally spineless and therefore was “neutral” and ineffective on most issues. In the case of Jimmy Carter, the correct numerological interpretation of him being in the “median” is that he was completely ineffective in every way.

Finally, we can see that Obama is much more liberal than the median, and of course is much more liberal than Mitt Romney, who is only slightly on the conservative side of the median. This reflects the well-known fact that although the liberal media want to paint Romney as some kind of extremist, he is obviously a slightly conservative, but primarily moderate, candidate who is totally in touch with the people.

It’s all there in the numbers.