Ep 9: Conservative quotes proving that racism is totally over in America

With illegal immigration in the news, a lot of liberals are accusing conservatives of being racist. But as you probably know, racism is over in America. Nobody is really racist any more. We have collected a montage of quotes from prominent conservatives that prove that nobody is racist, racism against blacks is over, and the fact that we really hate those dirty, scummy lazy illegal Mexican people has absolutely nothing to do with racism.

The Montage starts 41 seconds in, and includes quotes from all of your favorite conservative spokespeople: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney, Michael Savage, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter, Cliven Bundy, Eric Bolling, and the whole gang over at Fox Five!

Make sure you subscribe to our Youtube Channel to get notified about the latest episodes of Heltzel’s View.

Video direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hDZLfArM_c

TAX DAY TRIVIA: Where did the 47% number come from?

47 percent

47 percent

As a special Tax Day Treat, today we will feature a bit of history. By now, everyone has heard of the infamous 47% statistic. Today, we will show you the specific document where that came from.

It first appeared on June 29, 2009, in a special report from the Tax Policy Center.The specific sentence in the report is this: “TPC (Tax Policy Center) estimates that under the new law (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), 47 percent of tax units (individuals or jointly-filing couples) will owe no income tax in 2009.”

More than two years later, this report has been summarized very wisely by our friends in the GOP as “47% of Americans are lazy moocher who suck money out of the system without giving anything back.”

You might be surprised to find that the source of this Great Wisdom was the Tax Policy Center, since everyone knows that they are known to be a left-leaning, highly ideological, liberal think-tank. We know this is true because there was this one time when they criticized Romney’s tax plan. Clearly, they are traitor to the American Dream.

So how is it possible that they decided to tell the truth about 47% of the population being lazy, shiftless, greedy, unemployed people who live off of government handouts?

Well, it all becomes more clear when you read the rest of the actual report.

Instead of just yelling “47 percent! Lazy! Moochers!!!” and laughing demonically, like Mitt Romney did that one time, this report goes on to say that most of the people who pay no income tax actually do work, but they make so little money and their expenses are so high that they receive credits back, such as the Earned Income Credit, that bring their net taxable income to zero.  The report also mentions that huge portions of the 47% statistics are accounted for by groups that liberals think deserve to get a little assistance, such as the elderly.

Clearly, all of that is just liberal gobbledy-gook and nonsense.  Nobody cares that these people are poor, employed, and elderly or disabled!  What matters is that they are MOOCHERS!

Luckily, nobody actually reads reports, anymore. Or else the Republican party might not have this wonderful gold mine of a winning strategy that they have today.



America, stop it: you’re ruining conservatism for the rest of us



Something dreadful is happening to American politics. It isn’t the absurd boo-hurrah dynamic in the public square. It isn’t the idiotic posturing and “gotcha” dynamics of the modern media machine. Nor is it even the slimy vicissitudes of comics who pretend they aren’t commentators. You know who I’m talking about.

All these things have been around for some time, and are, in their own way, rather charming to those of us choked by the cloying goo of bien-pensant European socialism which has infected parties of all stripes and deadened public discourse.

Instead, what disturbs us about American politics today is how utterly fucking mad the Right has become in recent years. We Europeans who previously looked admiringly across the Atlantic, dreaming idly of green cards, or at least of importing some of the rugged, tooth-and-claw style capitalism that we imagined had made the US the greatest country on earth, now look on in mild terror at the unmitigated car crash that is the Republican Party.

The rot probably, perhaps predictably, set in with an unknown governor of a distant state, whose selection as John McCain’s running mate in 2008 catapulted what might previously have been written off as peculiar and parochial politics onto the national stage. Angry, demotic intellectual lightweights were legitimised overnight.

Of course, Sarah Palin is a delightful figure to celebrate, because, like the President whose successor she hoped to serve, she had an almost preternatural ability to wind up the humourless, fact-obsessed bores of the Left. Our own Margaret Thatcher still, even in her twilight years, has much the same power, which is, I am convinced, the primary reason the British Right still adores her.

But Palin was not an injection of youthful energy into a tired establishment. She was the opposite: an admission of desperation by the GOP, an abnegation of responsibility. Sarah Palin was a Republican cry for help. And the loony political landscape she helped to construct during that campaign has dealt a serious blow to conservatives everywhere.

All we want, here in Europe, is to be able to point to the US and say: “Look! These people want to crush the poor and eradicate public spending on healthcare and privatise schools and sell guns to third-world dictators and take a scythe to welfare programs (excuse me while I change my trousers and mop my brow) … but they built America! And eradicated slavery! And created the best gosh-darn nation in the goddamn world!”

But we can’t, any more. And it’s the fault of hair-raising harpies like Michele Bachmann and tub-thumping lunatics and bores and oddballs like everyone who ran for the Republican nomination this year. “Must it really be – holds nose – Mitt Romney?” wrote James Delingpole, the soundest commentator in the UK. He said what we were all thinking.

It’s as much how you say it, as what you say. Thus, Romney appears to have been chosen for no better reason than he was the least weird of the GOP candidates. That’s right: the perma-tanned, Barbie-wifed, mega-rich Mormon was the least weird person the Republicans could come up with. To those Lefties who bleat on about a vast, Koch-sponsored conspiracy across government and industry, you have to say: “OK, but… the Republicans couldn’t field a single credible candidate.”

The reason I’m so furious about all of this is that we used to look to America as a symbol of how politics ought to be done, and how debate on the Right ought to proceed in particular. But instead of flying the flag for military intervention (yay!), tax cuts for the rich (yay!) and privatised healthcare (double yay!) the American Right has become a liability to the rest of us.

No longer can the Tories in England point to the GOP and say: “Check those bitches out. Look at them. Don’t you want to be like America, with all the wealth and consumption and brilliant warmongering and global policing and moral superiority and cultural hegemony and all the other wonderful things and Oh! My! God! have you heard The Star Spangled Banner?”

Instead, we find ourselves making excuses for Republicans. We distance ourselves from them, and hope that the liberal media – the genuinely liberal media, which enjoys almost complete power in Europe, unlike the attractive polarity of the American TV and talk radio landscape and, ye Gods, Rachel Maddow – don’t lay the guilt by association stuff on too thickly.

It was all fine and dandy when American conservatives were simply fiercely conservative. But since they leapt off the deep end, and the Tea Party began to look more and more like the authentic voice of the Republican Party, we desperate, outnumbered, endangered European Right-wingers are stepping back and laughing along with the rest.

The Right in the US, in its anger and desperation (traditionally liberal qualities), is now making the same mistakes as its enemies: alienating the majority of moderate voters with shrill battle cries. The global warming lobby screwed up by making too many outrageous claims in too hysterical a tone. Now Right-wingers are doing the same with their (otherwise absolutely brilliant) economic arguments.

Come on, America. You used to be good at this stuff.



Milo Yiannopoulos is founder and editor-in-chief of The Kernel, a European tech, media and politics magazine.

Top 10 Awkward Moments of 2012 campaign

Awkward Romney

In the wake of President Obama’s electoral college blowout over Mitt Romney, conservatives have done a lot of soul searching to figure out what went wrong. Was it the fault of conservative ideology, policies, or rhetoric? Was it their unwillingness to compromise?

Awkward Romney
(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)


Or was Mitt just an awful candidate?

It’s my opinion that conservatives aren’t the problem: Mitt Romney was. To make my case, I’ve compiled a list of the top 10 awkward moments of the 2012 campaign. As you will plainly see, Mitt and his team are behind most of them.

10. That awkward moment when Mitt Romney is explaining outsourcing versus off-shoring and it’s all just layoffs to voters.

In order to defend himself from the charge of “Outsourcer-In-Chief”, the Romney campaign defended him by saying:

“This is a fundamentally flawed story that does not differentiate between domestic outsourcing versus off-shoring nor versus work done overseas to support U.S. exports,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. [WaPo, 6/22]

Has he met the undecided voters?

Hell, if you went to a Tea Party rally, you couldn’t find two people who could explain this, besides of course the guys NOT RUNNING IT who were on the Heritage Foundation payroll..

ROMNEY'S  FAULTRomney knew his business history, so not having a better answer is definitely:


9. That awkward moment when Mitt Romney is saying that the election is all about the economy and jobs and Todd Akin starts talking about rape.

Romney called Akin’s comments “inexcusable” in an attempt to distance himself from the latest in what Democrats called the “War On Women”.

Was that enough? Probably not. A month later he refused to condemn Richard Mourdock for the same thing, and kept running ads endorsing Mourdock.

Of course, to his credit, he did condemn Rush Limbaugh’s multi-day meltdown about Sandra Fluke being such a slut. It was a strong condemnation: he said “those aren’t the words I’d use.”

Romney can’t control what other Republicans says. He does, however, control how he responds.

HALF ROMNEY'S FAULTSo when it comes to losing with women by double digits, this situation is:


8. That awkward moment when people notice @MittRomney has been buying followers.

In the hours following the Aurora shooting, @MittRomney started getting followers. Lots and lots and lots of them, all at once. So people asked questions. It looked bad.

As a staunch conservative, of course, I don’t really mind him buying anything, unless he gets a bad ROI. However, I was disappointed that the Romney campaign didn’t use the defense I suggested:

TeapartyCat Tweet

ROMNEY'S FAULTSo just because of the bad PR it got him, unless some rogue 3rd party was buying him followers, this one is also :


7. That awkward moment when Mitt Romney cites a book or study as proof of his claims and then the author tells him “you know nothing of my work!”

Repeatedly during the campaign, Mitt would cite someone to prove his point. Then, that person would take to the New York Times to say he got it wrong. Jared Diamond, Chrysler, and so on, and so on…

Romney would later try to correct this by assembling collections of sources that did agree with him. Unfortunately, the credentials he found were a bit weak.

TeapartyCat Tweet

Let’s face it: there are plenty of conservative think-tanks ready to produce any study you want to reinforce our ideology. Reading bestsellers from liberals was always a losing strategy.

ROMNEY'S FAULTSo that makes this one all:


6. That awkward moment when Mitt Romney asks GOP governors in Ohio and Florida to stop saying the economy is improving.

The economy was improving in Florida, and Governor Scott wanted to take all the credit. Of course, Governor Scott certainly deserved credit: how could jobs not be created after he started asking welfare recipients for clean pee?!

But that didn’t fit with Mitt’s message that Obama had failed, so couldn’t Scott just shut the hell up?


This is on Gov. Scott: if he feels the need to brag when it contradicts the party’s candidate, then he needs to learn to do it like Rick Perry: make sure it sounds like it’s happening despite Obama.


5. That awkward moment when the Romney-Ryan campaign is asked to stop using a song at rallies by the band that recorded it.

The producers of Friday Night Lights told Mitt to stop using their slogan. And Thin Lizzy’s mom telling him to stop using “The Boys Are Back In Town”. But for pure embarrassment, nothing beat Paul Ryan saying Rage Against The Machine is his favorite band, and then the band called him “a jackass” and “stupid” and said “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the machine our music rages against”.

ROMNEY'S FAULTThis is all on Romney and Ryan. By now conservatives should know to stick to Kid Rock, Dave Mustaine, and of course the always reliable Ted Nugent.



4. That awkward moment when Mitt is campaigning on the idea that government shouldn’t do anything and a hurricane reminds people they need FEMA.

Poor Mitt! Such bad luck that America couldn’t go a whole campaign season without needing their government! First there was a hurricane during the Republican convention, and then another one a week before the election. And more than that, Gov. Christie says Obama and the government did a good job!


Conservative ideology is right: the weather just didn’t cooperate. In the future, Republicans should push for elections to not be held during hurricane season.


3. That awkward moment when Rep. Darryl Issa holds a hearing on contraception and doesn’t invite any women.

Yes, contraception is a matter of religious freedom, protected under the First Amendment, and it makes perfect sense to only call on old male clergy to discuss it.  But Rep. Issa is a committee chairman, so he should know better than to hold a hearing that won’t play well in the press, especially with voters Mitt is courting.

This is just another case where the ideology is right—clergymen should make decisions about women’s bodies—but since women get to vote, conservatives just need to remember their codewords and not do things that inflame the weaker sex.


Not even a little. And besides, we all know Mitt is married to a nice woman, so he can’t be sexist. That’s impossible!


2. That awkward moment when Mitt Romney is fact-checked to his face by Candy Crowley.

This was so unfair—Mitt was merely repeating what Fox News told him to be true, when all of a sudden Obama please-proceed-governor-ed him, and then Crowley humiliated him.


Jim Lehrer had led Mitt to believe he could say whatever he wanted and it would go unchallenged.


1. That awkward moment when Republicans spend a billion dollars and destroy the economy and the black guy wins anyway.


Destroying the economy wasn’t Mitt’s strategy… it was McConnell’s and Ryan’s.



The jury is in! Most of the problems with this campaign were clearly Mitt’s fault.

Obviously, the problem is not the conservative ideology.

So in 2016 we can continue to push the same policies in the same way and expect different results… because we’ll have a candidate who can better communicate our message. In fact we should push for more extreme policies, because America will definitely love our policies more if they are pure!

Onward, patriots!

Official Prediction: Mitt Romney Landslide

LiberalBias.com Electoral Map Prediction.

The consensus is in: Mitt Romney will completely sweep the nation, leading to a new Golden Age of conservative prosperity. Or at least, this is what would happen if the world were not infected with the dreaded liberal bias.

The above Electoral Map is the product of an in-depth analysis performed by Jared Calfee. As he tweeted earlier: “I have managed to unskew the well-known online liberal media bias of Unskewed Polls.”

And a very good job he did, too.

Of course, Jared is not the only one predicting a massive Romney landslide like this.

Dick Morris, who is always right about everything, predicted a Romney Landslide on October 30th.

Sean Hannity, who always tells the truth, said on his radio show on  November 1st that “it could be a blowout” in favor of Romney.

Wayne Allyn Root, former libertarian presidential candidate, predicted a Romney Landslide way back on October 12th.

Larry Kudlow, who must be important since he has some kind of television show, predicted a Romney Landslide on October 26h.

Some other blogger, who really likes Ayn Rand, also agrees with Dick Morris.

Finally, we even showed in a previous article that the “13 Keys” model by Allan J. Lichtman can be used to predict a Romney Landslide, as well!

So, we here at LiberalBias.com have to ask this question:


Of course not. And look at that pretty map. So red. So pretty. Mmmmmmm.


Therefore, we throw in our prediction with Jared Calfee and the rest: Romney will sweep the nation and win with 528 Electoral Votes. Kittens and puppies will hold hands and dance. Mice wearing footie pajamas will sit on toadstools and sing songs under rainbows. All will be right with the world.

Or at least, this is what the world would look like if there were no such thing as liberal bias!


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.

The Founding Fathers would suppress Obama’s votes, too.

Wackos have liberal bias.

An insightful article by Steve Sailer published this amazing graph, showing that only losers, weirdos and fringe-people support Obama. We think this is proof that America needs to go back to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and just not let these freaks vote!!

First, let’s take a look at some of the deeply moving, profound and insightful observations that Steve makes about this graph that he has produced.

He observes: “Obama’s is an absurd coalition. It can be motivated only by exacerbating the bitterness of its members toward people fortunate enough to be closer to the heart of America. The correlation between being an Obama supporter and personal unhappiness, alienation, or dysfunction is not coincidental. The iconic Obama supporter is the black single mother.”

This is so true, and not said often enough! Essentially, the people who support Obama have nothing in common with one another except that they are losers who don’t represent the stereotypical 1950’s American ideal! There is clearly no reason that blacks, Muslims, single women, and people of unspecified sexual orientations would all agree on anything, except that they are pissed off that they don’t get to sit at the Cool Kid’s table.

He continues: “In contrast, Romney’s most supportive group is Mormons. Then come married white Protestants, white Protestants, married white men, married whites, married white women, white Catholics, whites, married men, and so forth: Americans who have a life.”

Once again: SO TRUE! Look at the groups at the top of the graph, who support Obama. Obviously, none of these people have lives! How could they? I mean, I’m actually asking: how could they? I’m not sure, since like Steve I’ve never actually met or seen any of these people in my entire life. But I hear about them on television all of the time. Mostly, I assume they commit crimes.

Finally, he concludes: “The plan fact is that the core of Romney’s support is the core of the nation: the kind of people who built America into the world’s leading country and who still keep it running.”

Bravo. To sum up: black, unmarried Jewish renters clearly play no role in running this country. That would be stupid.

NOW! Although we here at LiberalBias.com clearly can have nothing but praise for Mr. Sailer’s analysis, we do feel that he stops short of the obvious next step in his reasoning.

Look at the situation that the above graph is illustrating. Isn’t it clear that this is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they so wisely decided that only white male property-owners could vote!?

Liberals would have us believe that they were influenced by racism or prejudice of some kind, but what Stevie observes in his article is that our grand and wise founding fathers simply knew this fact:


Period, the end. If you aren’t doing well, if you aren’t the person up to whom everyone looks, if you aren’t the person that everyone longs to be, then get the hell out of the game and quit slowing us down!

It is time to take a sober step back, and think once again, as TRUE CONSERVATIVES, about what it means to take an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite and divinely inspired wisdom, foresaw this very day, the 2012 election, and that is why they didn’t want those people to vote.

So do your duty on election day: go out there and make sure that the only people who can vote in your district are the people that George Washington and Jesus intended: white married Protestant Cathololic Mormons….  just like you!


graph data source: graph created by Steve Sailer based on a Reuters-Ipsos Poll
graph found via: “Obama Fringe vs. Romney Core” by Steve Sailer

Mathematical model predicts Romney landslide

Romney Landslide

Allan J. Lichtman has devised a model to predict Presidential election winners called the 13 Keys model. He claims his model predicts an Obama victory, but that is only because of his liberal bias. We at LiberalBias.com use his model to prove that Romney is sure to win in a landslide.

His model consists of 13  yes/no questions that need to be answered. If 8 or more answers are “yes”, the model predicts a victory for the incumbent; if 7 or fewer answers are “yes” then the incumbent will lose.  Allan Lichtman answers these questions, and comes up with a win for Obama BUT HE OBVIOUSLY ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS WRONGLY.

In this table, we provide our own analysis:

Party mandate: After the midterm elections, does the incumbent party hold more seats in the House of Representatives? NO. Republicans took the mid-term elections in a landslide.
Contest: Is there no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination? YES. Even though we all wanted Hilary to run, there was no serious challenger.
Incumbency: Is the incumbent party’s candidate the sitting president? YES. Although there is some serious doubt as to whether Kenyan Muslim Obama is actually legally president, we will have to admit he is at least acting as president right now.
Third Party: Is there NOT a significant third party challenge? YES. It is true that there is no significant third party challenge.
Short-term economy: Is the economy NOT in recession during the election campaign? NO. The economy very clearly IS in recession! Just look around you!
Long-term economy: Is real per capita economic growth during the term equal to or exceeding mean growth during the previous two terms? NO. Growth has been the worst during this presidency than ever in the entire history of anything. I remember hearing that in Sean Hannity’s show once.
Policy change: Did the incumbent administration affect major changes in national policy? NO. He basically accomplished nothing, because he’s totally incompetant.
Social unrest: Was there NOT sustained social unrest during the term? NO. There was social unrest, both at home (Tea Party protests, Occupy Wall Street) and abroad (Arab Spring).
Scandal: Is the incumbent administration untainted by major scandal? NO. There have been tons of major scandals, ranging from Soylendra to Fast and Furious and most recently the Benghazi Embassy fiasco.
Foreign/military failure: Did the incumbent administration NOT suffer major failure in foreign or military affairs? NO. There have been a number of major failures, most recently the failure to predict and stop the attack on the Benghazi Embassy.
Foreign/military success: Did the incumbent administration achieve a major success in foreign or military affairs? NO. The only thing Obama pretends is a success of the assassination of Bin Laden, which everyone knows is really due to the planning and groundwork laid by George Bush.
Incumbent charisma: Is the incumbent party’s candidate charismatic or a national hero? NO. He’s a goofy, out-of-touch weird-looking and seems like the kind of person who would like rap music and basketball… if you know what I mean.
Challenger charisma: Is the challenging party’s candidate NOT charismatic or a national hero? NO. Mitt Romney is handsome and charming and has perfect hair. Who could not like a guy with perfect hair?

Clearly, Romney will win in an overwhelming landslide.  So you can all relax now.


chart by LiberalBias.com

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.


Will the stock market re-elect Obama?

 Landslide Elections and the Stock Market.

Robert Prechter, the head of the Socionomics Institute, recently published a paper with some very distressing statistics that may just predict the end of the world as we know it, a.k.a. the re-election of President Obama. According to his study, a booming stock market usually leads to a landslide re-election. And as we have already reported, our liberally biased stock market is booming right now, despite the evil incompetence of our foreign socialist President.

After extensive statistical analysis, using a number of different methodologies, Prechter and his colleagues found one conclusion that consistently showed up when looking at re-elections going back all the way to the very beginning of the United States as a country: the margin of victory of an incumbent facing reelection is positively related to the percent change in the stock market over the prior three years before the election.  As a result, the elections that were held after the largest three-year increases in the stock market lead to landslide re-elections of the incumbent, while elections that were held after the largest three-year decreases in the stock market lead to landslide ousters of the incumbent and election of the challenger.

This statistical result is surprisingly robust, with the same pattern showing up over the entire history of the country and even when special efforts are made to remove other possible factors, such as the GDP and employment.

If we take this statistical pattern seriously, it spells big trouble for the upcoming election. Even though President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist who plays basketball and hates successful people, the fact remains that from November 1, 2009 to September 28, 2012 the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by 50%.

Does this really mean Obama is destined to win?  And possibly in a landslide victory?

Or is it just one more example of statistics and numbers exhibiting a disgusting liberal bias????

We report, you decide.


graph source: “Social Mood, Stock Market Performance and U.S. Presidential Elections: A Socionomic Perspective on Voting Results” by Robert R. Prechter Jr., Deepak Goel, Wayne D. Parker, and Matthew Lampert.
graph found via: Social Science Research Network

Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition

Big Bird Is A Liberal Communist Loser Suckling Off The State.

Liberals have been circulating this chart around the internet and saying: “Look how small the spending is for PBS! Isn’t it stupid to cut funding for Sesame Street when it will make almost no difference at all to the deficit?”

Obviously, these liberals know nothing about business. So, in order to educate stupid, ignorant liberals about how to run business, we here at LiberalBias.com present to you a Classroom-Style Lesson, called: “Why Big Bird Must Die: the kid’s edition.

Hello, boys and girls! Today we are going to talk about budgets!

To help you to understand about budgets and deficits, I’d like you to imagine for a moment your family’s household budget. As you know, daddy earns lots and lots of money for you and mommy to spend.  Then, that money gets spent. What happens if more money gets spent than daddy earns? That’s called a deficit, and it makes baby Jesus cry.

So, whenever there is a deficit, your family has to find a way to decrease spending. They cannot possibly find ways of getting more income, because that would interfere with daddy’s free time. Instead, your family will make a list of stuff that costs money, and it will include things like this:

$1100 per month for daddy’s new Mercedes
$880 per month for mommy’s spa treatments
$34 per month for the family to see a movie in the big movie theater!

…and so on. Now, daddy has to decide what to cut.

Obviously, he can’t sell his new Mercedes and get a cheaper car. Daddy works very hard and deserves to have a nice car. If you take away his car, he will have no motivation to work really hard and you all will suffer.

Obviously, mommy can’t give up her spa treatments, because without her spa treatments, mommy will be in a very bad mood. Very, very bad. You don’t want that to happen, do you? Because if mommy is angry, who knows what she might do.

So, the only thing left to cut is the movie tickets! You can’t go out to the movies any more, because daddy needs to cut back on spending. It’s really the only logical conclusion.

What does this have to do with Big Bird?  Big Bird is like the movie tickets. It may not cost that much, but it’s the only thing that daddy and mommy don’t care that much about… so it has to go.

It will make mommy and daddy feel better, to think that they’re saving at least something. And you want mommy and daddy to feel better, don’t you?



graph found via: Think Progress


Romney’s tax plan for middle America

Misleading Romney Tax Graph

This graph is designed to scare people. Our goal at Liberal Bias is to show true, wholesome conservatives how to read a graph like this so that it does not upset you too much.

Liberals will point to the left 5 bars of this graph, and say, “Look, Romney will raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 per year!”

Your response should be: “Why are you engaging in class warfare? When you divide people up by talking about rich people and poor people, you are just dividing America. You should just treat every individual as a citizen and stop trying to divide us!”

In that way, you can ignore the left 5 bars.

Liberals will point to the right 2 bars of this graph, and say, “Look, Romney is giving huge breaks to people making more than $500,000 per year! How is that fair?”

Your response should be: “Why do you hate success?  Haven’t these people suffered enough, putting their skill and sweat  and tears into making a successful business? They should be rewarded for how awesome they are!”

In that way, you can ignore the right 2 bars.

The only bar you SHOULD be looking at is the $200,000 – $500,000 per year bar.  Those are the people who Romney has defined as middle class.

And as you can clearly see: his plan lowers taxes on the middle class.

Anyone who tells you any differently is just spreading liberal bias!!!!


Graph found via: finance.yahoo.com


Swing states have a liberal bias!

Biased Swing States.

We have put together this graph based on data from the Electoral Vote website, to illustrate a potential problem for this upcoming election: a strange and inexplicable liberal bias in the so-called “swing states.”

This graph compares polling data in September 2008 to polling data in September 2012, and (for each state) shows whether the support for Obama over Romney in 2012 is greater or less than support for Obama over McCain in 2008.  For example, on the extremes: you can see that in New York State the support for Obama is over 20% greater now than it was in 2008; on the other hand, in Alaska the support for Obama has decreased almost 20% in 2012 compared to his support in September before the 2008 election.

Of course, no matter what the increases and decreases, some of these states are solidly “red states” and will never support Obama while other states are communist “blue states” and will support him no matter how terrible he is.  To show these states, we have colored their bars red and blue, respectively.  So, for example, you can see that although Tennessee is showing more support for Obama now than in the 2008 election, this doesn’t matter because they are still overwhelmingly supporting Romney. On the other hand, Hawaii also is showing more support for Obama now than in 2008, but this doesn’t matter because they are all socialists and were going to support Obama no matter what anyway.

What actually is critical, however, is the “swing states”, which are colored in purple. Seven swing states (New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina) have changed to be slightly more in favor of Obama this year than they were at this time in 2008.  By contrast, only two swing states (Iowa and Wisconsin) have changed to be less favorable to Obama.

What is wrong with you, stupid swing states? Why do you hate freedom?


Luckily, there is one good thing we can get from this graph: a most extreme Red States (all of the red bars on the right side of the graph), which were already super-against Obama to begin with, have become dramatically even more super-duper against Obama this year!

Sure, some people might call this “radicalization of the fringe”….. but for good conservatives, it is called “progress.”


Data Source: electoral-vote.com
Graph Created By: liberalbias.com

National conventions have a liberal bias!

Biased conventions.

We have put together this graph based on data from the Rasmussen survey data website, to illustrate a problem with the political process in America today. Specifically: national nominating conventions appear to have a liberal bias!

It is common knowledge that a party’s candidate is supposed to get a “bump” as a result of their party’s national convention. In a fair and unbiased society, therefore, we would expect Obama’s approval rating to go down during the Republican national convention and his approval to go up during the Democratic national convention, and in the end there would be no real difference.

According to the always virtuous, reliable, and fair Rasmussen poll, Obama’s approval went from +1 (50-49) at the beginning of the Republican convention week down to -3 (48-51) at the end of that week, plummeting by a disastrous 4 points.

However, according to the same poll, during the Democratic convention Obama’s approval went from -4 (48-52) up to 5 (52-47) at the end of that week, an increase of 9 points! That is more than double the size of the effect of the Republican convention, and even pushes Obama’s approval greater than his disapproval.

What is wrong with you stupid conventions, why are you being so unfair to Republicans??


Luckily, there is one good thing we can get from this graph:Look at the difference between “Total Disapprove” and “Strongly Disapprove.”  Over time, this has been getting smaller and smaller, so that we are almost to the point where every single person who disapproves of Obama at all has an absolute searing hatred of him!

Sure, some people might call this “radicalization of the fringe”….. but for good conservatives, it is called “progress.”


Data Source: rasmussenreports.com
Graph Created By: liberalbias.com