SHOCKING: Weird climate change poll suggests that money matters to people.

Liberals have been trumpeting a recent poll result that suggests people are willing to pay more for their energy bills in order to fight global warming a.k.a. climate change.

“By an almost two-to-one margin, 62 percent to 33 percent, Americans say they would pay more for energy if it would mean a reduction in pollution from carbon emissions,” says the Bloomberg National Poll website.

This goes against the headlines from 2012, where a Huffington Post poll said that 54% would be unwilling to pay more to fight climate change, compared to only 20% who said they would be willing.

Has the American population shifted its opinion THAT DRAMATICALLY in less than two years?

(the answer is below the image… can you guess it before you scroll down?)

Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.
Climate change poll results depend on exactly what the question asks.

No, it hasn’t. In fact, there is no evidence that the American people have changed their opinions on this issue at all. This is something that gets us really, really mad here at Liberal Bias because it involves biased reporting about NUMBERS AND STATISTICS, and unfortunately in this case it is not tied to one side of the partisan divide or the other. Both liberals and conservatives have mis-reported this result.

The difference is in the details of the questions on the surveys.

The 2012 survey asked: “If it meant we could stop climate change, would you personally be willing to pay 50 percent more on your gas and electricity bills?” (emphasis added).

The 2014 survey asked: “What if that significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly energy expenses by 20 dollars a month – in that case do you think the government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases?” (emphasis added).


So the first survey did not find “people unwilling to pay more”; it found “people unwilling to pay 50% more.”

The second survey did not find “people willing to pay more”; it found “people willing to pay $20 more.”

These two survey results, together, do not show that people’s opinions about climate change are “evolving”.  They merely show that the amount of money that people are asked to pay to fight climate change matters.

Shocking result, right?



Now, let’s talk about liberal bias.  For dedicated Tea Partiers and Conservatives, who live in a world where “unbiased” means “not liberal” and “fair and balanced” actually describes what Fox News does, the 2012 poll result represents the real truth, because “OMG FIGHTING GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SO EXPENSIVE IT WILL CAUSE TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!!!!1”

Obviously, asking people to pay a mere $20 more for climate change is unrealistic, right? We have to make the number big enough to seem scary.  If we don’t make regulation seem scary, well then that is just LIBERAL BIAS.

Do you agree?


Tea Party caucus proposes bill to define new list of Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers: Tea Party Style

The Tea Party has never been happy with some of the people who are considered Founding Fathers of the Unites States. Although no official list really exist, the Founding Fathers are generally assumed to include at least the Committee of Five (Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin), and often include other notable early American political figures as well, including George Washington, James Madison, Patrick Henry and George Mason. Some people consider anyone who signed the Declaration of Independence to be a Founding Father.

But several of the core Founding Father members, even members of the Committee of Five, don’t quite sit well with today’s Tea Party Conservatives. As a result, they have formed a new House Committee to propose legislation to officially declare the list of Founding Fathers to be Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, George Washington, John Calvin, Ronald Reagan, and Jesus.

“George Washington was cool,” the chair of the committee remarked, “He said ‘It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.’ Which is basically what we think, as Christian conservatives. But some of those other guys… come on. Thomas Jefferson? John Adams? And don’t even get me started with that weirdo freak Ben Franklin!”

This movement in the Tea Party really began in 2010, when the Texas Board of Education officially re-wrote history textbooks to eliminate Thomas Jefferson from the list of people who influenced the founding of the United States, and replaced him with John Calvin. Thomas Jefferson offends Tea Party politicians because he said, among other things,

“I am a Materialist. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being.”

John Calvin, on the other hand, is well-known for having put Geneva under religious martial law in 1537, and throwing people into prison for sleeping in church or inappropriately smiling during baptisms. Definitely a Tea Party Patriot.

John Adams is a bit more ambiguous. He did say, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity.” However, he also signed into a law a treaty that included the phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” There is some dispute over where that line originally came from, but Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and other members of the Tea Party caucus insist that any list of Founding Fathers must be totally and completely pure… and so John Adams is out. The Tea Party proposes Ronald Reagan as an alternate to fill his slot, although it is important to note that it wouldn’t be the real Ronald Reagan but actually just a collection of specific quotes and ideas from Ronald Reagan that the Tea Party likes.

Finally, Benjamin Franklin is definitely out. He overtly and plainly described himself as a “thorough Deist.” A Deist is a person who believes in the existence of a God or supreme, being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on his own reason and observations of nature. Deists reject the Judeo-Christian accounts of God as well as the Bible.

Jesus is considered by many to be a favorite to replace Ben Franklin, although there is still some debate over whether “that hippie should cut his hair first.”


This Congressional map proves Benghazi was NOT caused by a video!

Benghazi was completely different from all of the other protests caused by a video. It was caused by Obama's incompetence

This graph has been taken straight from the Congressional report “Recent Protests in Muslim Countries: Background and Issues for Congress” (PDF). It proves beyond any doubt that Benghazi is completely different from the dozens of other protests going on throughout the Middle East at the same time, all in protest to an American video, but the one that happened in Benghazi is totally and completely different and anyone who ever thought otherwise was obviously lying and deluded and stupid and OMGWTF.

All of this is very important because Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes sent an email September 14, 2012 to some people that said, “Hey I think maybe this Benghazi thing was in response to an anti-Muslim video.”  This is a COMPLETE OUTRAGE AND SCANDAL and also an OBVIOUS LIE! and PROOF OF A COVER-UP.

The argument is as follows:

1) I do not believe Benghazi was caused by a video because you have not proven it to me.

2) You then told someone to tell people that it was caused by a video

3) Therefore you are lying and covering up the truth

This is all very simple.

Now, somebody might ask how I know FOR SURE that it was stupid and ridiculous to think that Benghazi was caused by an Islamic video?

Well, that’s why I colored the dot on the map blue, people. Just to make that clear.

Try to keep up.


Use your brain, morans.

Hobby Lobby pays to kill innocent babies by forced abortion in China

Hobby Lobby says they are Christian. They say they love God. They claim that the reason they don’t want to pay for employee health insurance is that some of that money might end up paying for someone’s abortion, and they hate abortion. This is their argument:

1) If we pay for health insurance for our employees, that money goes into a pool of money that the health insurance company has to pay for things.

2) If that health insurance company covers abortions, then they might take some money out of that pool and give it to a hospital that performed an abortion.

3) Therefore, if we pay for health insurance for our employees it is the same as if we were paying for abortions.

Hobby Lobby thinks that paying for insurance that pays hospitals that pays doctors who perform abortions is like paying for abortions.
Hobby Lobby thinks that paying for insurance that pays hospitals that pays doctors who perform abortions is like paying for abortions.

As a result, they object, because they don’t want to pay for abortions.

This style of argument is common. This is the same logic that we use to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood, even though only a teeny tiny fraction of what Planned Parenthood does has anything to do with abortion.  The logic is like this:

1) If public money goes to Planned Parenthood, then it goes into  a big bucket with all of their other money.

2) Some part of the money in that bucket might get used to pay a doctor who performs an abortion.

3) Therefore, if any public money at all goes to Planned Parenthood in any way, then it is the same as if we are paying for abortions.

Using tax money to pay Planned Parenthood who might use some of that money to pay a doctor to perform an abortion is like paying for an abortion.
Using tax money to pay Planned Parenthood who might use some of that money to pay a doctor to perform an abortion is like paying for an abortion.

As a result, we object to public money going to Planned Parenthood, because we don’t want to pay for abortions. As you can see, the logic is impeccable.

Unfortunately, THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!

Hobby Lobby buys some of its materials from Chinese companies! Now, everybody knows that Chinese companies pay money to the Chinese government in taxes, and the Chinese government forces women in China to have abortions.

Notice, this follows exactly the same logic:

1) If Hobby Lobby pays companies in China for their products, then that money goes into a big pool of money owned by the Chinese company.

2) If that Chinese company pays taxes, then some of their tax money will go toward GOVERNMENT-FORCED ABORTIONS IN CHINA.

3) Therefore, when Hobby Lobby buys products from China it is exactly as if Hobby Lobby is FORCING CHINESE PEOPLE TO GET ABORTIONS.

When Hobby Lobby buys products made in China it is exactly as if they are forcing Chinese women to have abortions.
When Hobby Lobby buys products made in China it is exactly as if they are forcing Chinese women to have abortions.

Clearly, as you can see, the logic is the same.

So, Hobby Lobby, I ask you this:

Why do you hate babies?

Why do you hate God?

Don’t you realize that the only way to be Godly–using the logic that you are using to deny employees health insurance–is to make everything yourself and not interact with the world economy at all?

Honestly, Hobby Lobby. I thought you were better than this.



The Arizona Bible, and the 5 Commandments of Cake

The 5 Commandments of Cake

The single most important issue in Arizona politics today is cake. Christians want to be allowed to follow their deeply-held beliefs about who gets cake, and who does not get cake.

They have told the world that giving cake to homosexuals is AGAINST THEIR RELIGION. It is against the Bible, and against the teachings of Jesus. If you force them to sell cake to homosexuals then you are forcing them to go against the most deeply-held beliefs of their Christianity!

But is it really true?

As it happens, the Bible only mentions “cake” three times, and it is in the context of David giving cakes of dates and raisins to people (1 Samuel 30:12, 2 Samuel 6:19, and 1 Chronicles 16:3). These were not wedding cakes. I’m not sure what would happen if you tried to make a wedding cake out of dates and raisins, but I’m pretty sure those customers would not be happy.

So the Bible doesn’t literally say that Christians can’t sell cakes to homosexuals. In fact, the Bible doesn’t actually forbid Christians from engaging in any types of economic transactions with homosexuals.

Moreover, Jesus was known for giving stuff, including baked goods, away for free to large numbers of people. Often to sinners.

So according to most Biblical scholarship, there is nothing in Christian belief that forbids Christians from selling cake to homosexuals.

So where do Arizona Christians get this idea from?

Apparently, the Arizona Christian Bible is different. In Arizona, they know God better than God knows himself.

It’s possible that in Arizona, the Bible says that they are not allowed to sell bread to black people.  Maybe soon we will find out that Arizona Christians are morally obligated to not sell croissants to Jews.

What’s to stop them? In Arizona, apparently they are just so darned Christian that they can make shit up, and call any feeling they have a “deeply held Christian belief” that they want the rest of the world to respect.

So, in the spirit of the very special Arizona Bible, which has nothing to do with actual Christianity, we present to you:

(from the Arizona Bible, 2014 Edition)

The 5 Commandments of Cake
Excerpt from the official Arizona Bible, 2014 Edition, followed by all Good Arizona Christians.


How to argue like a fanatic! (5 easy tips!)

Rational debate is for sinners. Learn how to debate like a fanatic.
Rational debate is for sinners. Learn how to debate like a fanatic.
Remember: if you can make the other person flustered or angry, or you can get him to give up, that means that you won and he is objectively wrong.

If you are a true American conservative, then you are a fanatic. That is not an insult! It is a compliment. You should wear it with pride. The word “fanatic” uses the same root as the word “fan”.  Aren’t you a fan of Jesus? Aren’t you a fan of free market economics? Of course you are! As conservatives, we know what we know, and we believe what we believe. That makes us proud fanatics.

Unfortunately, I see too many conservatives balking and getting tongue-tied on social media, unable to argue effectively with “liberals” (which is really just a synonym or “atheists” or “disgusting perverts”). The purpose of this report is to arm you, as the second amendment requires, with the skills to effectively debate liberals with the gusto that a true conservative fanatic deserves.

1. “You’re just a hater.”

No matter what the topic, this is an effective and intelligent debate tool that any religious or political conservative can use. Whether your opponent is trying to convince you the believe in evolution or minimum wage, you know that the only reason they could possibly disagree with you is because he is a deeply troubled, angry human being who hates you personally, not just your ideas. Point this out to him.  Here is an example:

Them: “Recent biological experiments have actually demonstrated in the laboratory that one species of organism can evolve into another.”

You: “Haters gonna hate!”

See how simple it is? Guaranteed to stop an angry liberal in his tracks!

2. “Oh yeah? Well, look what it says about you!”

This line is best delivered in a calm, collected, even intellectual tone. (You may need to practice this in the mirror a few times to get it right.) The more calmly you state it, the more it will infuriate your opponent.  For example:

Them: “How can you possibly believe that the earth is literally only 6,000 years old, when we have actual historical records of human civilizations going back tens of thousands of years!”

You: “You seem like you’re taking this very personally. Maybe you should look in the mirror, and ask: what does it say about you that you get so angry when someone states the simple fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old?”

3. “Your motivations are suspect.”

Another great technique for effective philosophical debate is to question the other person’s motives. It actually doesn’t matter if you know the other person at all. In fact, it doesn’t even really matter whether your accusation is correct. Just go with your gut, throw out some kind of wild speculation, and it will definitely throw him off his guard. For example:

Them: “Historical data gives no support to the idea that cutting taxes is the best economic solution to unemployment. In fact, although Reagan’s tax cuts did correlate with an increase in jobs, Clinton’s tax increases lead to an even larger job increases.”

You: “I think what’s really going on here is that you’re jealous of me, and intimidated by my success, and you’re just arguing with me because you want to try to put me in my place.”

A total winner as a debate strategy!

4. “Too many words!”

You may have noticed that many liberals just go on and on. It’s almost as if they are trying to spell out clearly and carefully a logical argument that steps through, point by point, to a conclusion.  But you know that in reality they are just trying to BULLY YOU WITH WORDS. Don’t stand for it. Point it out. And make sure to use the word “bully”: it’s a liberal buzzword and will make them go all red in the face. Like this:

Them: “The reason that the top 5% of income earners pay more than half of the total tax revenue is that the income distribution in this country is so skewed. This statistic is thrown out there because it makes an emotional appeal and makes it seem like there is an unfair tax burden on the rich, but the fact is that even if we had a completely flat tax rate, if the average income of the top 1% is more than 700 times the average income of the bottom 50%, then the top 1% will still pay almost all of the total tax revenue. It’s basic mathematics, and doesn’t reflect the unfairness of the tax rate system, but rather the inequality in the income distribution.”

You: “I feel like you’re trying to bully me by writing such a long comment!”

What can they say after that? You’ve basically won the argument.

5. “Gosh, you’re so intolerant!”

Finally, there is one thing that you, as a proud conservative, must always remember: If other people don’t completely and unquestioningly bow down to every single one of your opinions, then they are being intolerant of your beliefs. Plus, you can get a kind of smirky satisfaction by finally calling someone else intolerant, since you have to constantly put up with people calling you a bigot day in and day out. (I’m sure people constantly call you a bigot. It happens to all conservatives. Nobody understands why.)

Them: “Gay people should be allowed to marry each other if they want to.”

You: “Why are you trying to oppress me and wipe out Christianity? You are being so intolerant!”



So keep these tips in mind! No longer will you be unwittingly forced into complicated sciencey arguments about “evidence” or “logic”, which really just means you’re dancing in the Devil’s playground. Now, you can argue like a real conservative.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: being openly Christian is courageous, being openly gay is not

Look, there seems to be a lot of confusion going around right now about what is and is not courageous when it comes to NFL football. As a public service announcement, we’d like to clear things up.

When you publicly announce or advertise your Christianity, effectively shoving it down people’s throats despite the fact that it has nothing to do with football, calling all of this attention to yourself based purely on the mere fact that you want everyone to know that you are Christian…… the verdict is: VERY COURAGEOUS.

Rush Limbaugh: Tebow showed courage.

Sean Hannity: What a courageous young man.

“Before It’s News”: Tim Tebow is blessed and courageous! It takes courage to be biblical!


On the other hand, when you publicly announce or advertise your homosexuality, effectively shoving it down people’s throats despite the fact that it has nothing to do with football, calling all of this attention to yourself based on the mere fact that you want everyone to know that you are homosexual…… the verdict is: NOT COURAGEOUS.

Rush Limbaugh: Announcing that you like to have sex with another man is not courageous!

Sean Hannity: This has nothing to do with football. Why are we even talking about this?

Some other minor radio host in Dallas: Who cares? I don’t want to know what he does in his spare time. It’s not courageous to throw it in our faces.



You see, ladies and gentlemen, it take real courage to let people know that you are a Christian. Christians, who make up 76% of the population in the United States, are completely shut out of the mainstream. Since every single President since Andrew Johnson and the vast majority of all politicians have always been Christian, it’s pretty clear that admitting to being a Christian is a shameful thing that people want to avoid.

It does NOT take courage, on the other hand, to let people know that you are a member of a minority group that regularly are victims of actual physical hate crimes and constantly suffer from teasing and ostracizing. It especially doesn’t take courage in organizations like the NFL, where there are coaches who have said that all gay people should be shipped to an island and nuked.

I mean, why would you think that takes courage? That’s just stupid.

What does it mean to be courageous?

Forbes editorial endorses using homeless people to clean up nuclear waste

This happy homeless Japanese man is off to clean up toxic nuclear waste. Look how happy he is, because he now gets to be employed. Go, capitalism!
This happy homeless Japanese man is off to clean up toxic nuclear waste. Look how happy he is, because he now gets to be employed. Go, capitalism!

A recent Forbes editorial by Doug Altner laid out a great conservative argument endorsing Japan’s practice of paying homeless people almost no money to clean up nuclear waste.

Doug Altner might not realize that this is what he has done; in fact, many conservatives do not realize that they are completely in agreement with the practice of Japanese organized crime rounding up homeless people and sending them to work on the decontamination of the Fukushima nuclear plant – a project that exposed them to massive and deadly amounts of radiation.

But although conservatives might claim that they would not be in favor of this practice, their economic arguments here at home in the United States show otherwise.

In November 2013, Doug Altner wrote an editorial for Forbes in which he explains why Walmart is awesome, and Walmart is not taking advantage of anyone, and Walmart is doing people a favor because hey getting minimum wage is better than nothing, and Walmart can’t be blamed for anything because its employees could just choose to work someplace else.

As a conservative website, we at of course agree with all of those things. However, we also like to make sure that would-be conservatives don’t wuss-out when it comes to applying conservative philosophy  across the board.

The fact is: the exact same arguments applied to Walmart also apply to paying homeless people tiny amounts of money to clean up dangerous nuclear waste!

Here are some direct quotes from the Forbes editorial, in which we have simply replaced “work at Walmart” with “clean-up of Fukushima nuclear waste”, and other similar phrases mutatis mutandis.

[On why nobody is being taken advantage of:] “Nobody has to clean-up of Fukushima nuclear waste if he feels underpaid and underappreciated. He can always seek another job!”

[On why they pay almost nothing:] “These positions require little or no work experience or technical skills. For any homeless person with modest credentials, these jobs provide good work experience – experience they can use to eventually land a higher paying job!”

[On why the homeless people should be really happy:] “The relationship that the Fukushima nuclear waste clean-up program has with homeless people is win-win! Every wage that it pays is one that the homeless person accepts.”



There you have it.

If you are a real conservative, you need to be applauding Japan for this move. Or rather, you need to be applauding Japanese organized crime, who seem to be the ones behind it. But that doesn’t matter. The fact is: ideologically, this is the right, conservative  thing to do.

Anyone who thinks otherwise… it just guilty of liberal bias!!!



FACTCHECK: Did Phil Robertson quote scripture?

Now that the dust has settled on the Duck Dynasty debacle, everyone has had a chance to take a deep breath and relax in the knowledge that nothing has really changed. It is worth examining one of the keystone claims under debate about the clash between Phil Robertson and A&E:

Was Phil Robertson suspended from A&E (temporarily) for quoting scripture?

The left, of course, claims that he was not. They claim that he was suspended (temporarily) for being crass, rude, insulting and offensive.

The right, on the other hand, claims that he was suspended (temporarily) for merely uttering the words of the Lord Almighty as transcribed in the Holy Bible (Amen).

Unfortunately, all that A&E said was that he was suspended for “offensive remarks”, without precisely spelling out which words were at issue. So we are left with something of a scavenger hunt: were any of the “offensive” things that Phil said actually Bible Verse?

Let us examine his actual words.


“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying?”


Probably not a Bible Verse. Despite performing a large number of searches for different combinations of key phrases such as “there’s more there!” and “know what I’m saying?” and “anus”, nothing even remotely like this seems to be in the Bible. Which is a shame, because more people would probably read the Bible if it talked more about the relative merits of anus and vagina.

Anus in the Bible


“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”


Probably not a Bible Verse. Although the last part does bear some similarity to the lyrics of the 1990’s dance song “Girls and Boys” by Blur. Someone should check into that. Otherwise, the Bible doesn’t discuss very many things using the term “morph out from there”.



“From the beginning Jesus said, ‘It is a man and a woman.’ Adam was made and Eve was made for this reason. They left their fathers and mothers and be united to become one flesh, that’s what marriage is all about.”


ALMOST A BIBLE VERSE! This is very nearly Matthew 19:4-5, in which Jesus says: “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife.”

Awesome. However, the problem is that this was Jesus answering the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3, who asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

So this quote is about the terrible sinfulness of divorce. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Or at least: it didn’t when Jesus said it.



“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”


ALMOST A BIBLE VERSE! The quote that he was aiming for here was 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Unfortunately, this is a fairly tricky verse to deal with, because of the many different ways that it has been translated.

Let’s look at just a few examples of the key homo passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

New International Version
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

New Living Translation

Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

World English Bible
Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

English Standard Version
Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

NET Bible

Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

Jubilee Bible 2000

Do not err: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals

King James Bible
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

King James 2000 Bible
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

American King James Version
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Weymouth New Testament

Cherish no delusion here. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor any who are guilty of unnatural crime,

Young’s Literal Translation
be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,

Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,



We can see immediately that there are some problems with the “inerrant word of the Lord” when we compare these side-by-side. Although the word “homosexual” appears in one form or another in most of these translations, it does not appear in all of them and it does not appear in any of the versions of the very famous “King James” translation.

Should we really assume that certain slangy phrases, like “abusers of themselves with mankind”, really do refer to homosexualism? Even if we do assume that, the last several translations on the list do not mention homosex at all in any form.

Some people argue that Young’s Literal Translation includes homosexuality in “sodomites”, but this is technically incorrect: “sodomy” simply refers to any act that is not penis-to-vagina intercourse, and therefore a heterosexual man who likes getting blowjobs is “sodomite” and a celibate gay person is not.

(Side Note: You gotta love the NET Bible, which calls out a specific sexual position. Apparently being gay is bad, but if you’re the one getting boinked then it’s REALLY bad. You get extra special sin points for being the “bottom”, and even more so if you like show tunes and fashionable outfits, it seems.)



The Final Verdict: MEH… CLOSE ENOUGH

None of the things that Phil Robertson were actually Bible quotes, but to of them were kind of close and the other two were stuff that Jesus was probably thinking and just never got around to writing down.

So, we might as well just give this a “Politifact Mostly True” rating and call it a day.

Mostly Bullshit

Do you know the story of Conservo Claus?

Liberal Santa

Liberal Santa


It’s that time of year again. A time to gather the children around the fire, and tell them the stories and tales of old.

Stories and tales that you hope will instill in them a sense of joy, and righteousness, and conservative goodness.

Of course, the contemporary story of “Santa Claus” has become twisted and perverted, and no longer really imparts a… well, a conservative enough message for today’s American conservatives.

So we here at feel that it is necessary to give you a conservative alternative to the standard liberally-biased Christmas Story.

You’re welcome.


Boys and girls, family members young and old. Let me tell you a story. This story begins far, far away, up at the North Pole! It’s very cold at the North Pole, and always will be, because weather is controlled by God, not fossil fuels.

Our story begins at the North Pole because that is where a great man lives, and that man is named Santa Reagan Claus. He has a wife, because he is heterosexual, and a whole collection of under-aged elves who work in his factory. You see, Santa loves the elves, and understands that the best way to help them is to employ them for minimum wage so that his wealth can “trickle down” to them. Without him, those elves would probably be unemployed and starving in the frozen tundra. Isn’t Santa wonderful? He even pays them with candy canes.. and who doesn’t love candy canes?

Because the North Pole isn’t burdened by socialist regulations and taxes, Santa is able to churn out millions of really cheap toys. He also contributes to the local economy by purchasing whale blubber for heat and lighting in his factory. You see, Santa prefers to remain “off the grid”, just in case Obama’s secret black ops army finally successfully engineers the radical communist take-over of the world government. This is also why Santa has stockpiles of guns and ammunition… just like your mommy and daddy should.

So anyway, because Santa is the CEO of a successful North Pole Factory, he is obviously a very hard worker. Some liberal malcontents like to perpetuate the myth that Santa only works one day a year, in order to paint him as some kind of evil entitled “One-Percenter”.

But the fact is, Santa is constantly going over very complicated paperwork and reports, trying to figure out how to cut costs. He is a big fan of Connie Mack’s “Penny Plan” and has been cutting his expenses by 1% every year since 1803, which is why he now employs under-aged elves and pays them with candy canes.

Conserva-ClausSo anyway, on Christmas Eve, Santa gathers together his distribution department,which consists primarily of handicapped people. In some folk stories these “assistants” are described as monsters, but that just shows you how racist liberals are.

Santa employs them because Santa does not discriminate: he employs people based only on their ability to perform the job required. In this case, the job that is required is scaring the ever-living crap out of children who have been naughty.

Notice in the photo, that Santa REAGAN Claus also wears a cross on his hat, because unlike the Liberal version of Santa Claus, he knows that Christmas is all about Jesus and scaring children.

So anyway, Santa Reagan Claus then goes out into the night on a beautiful mission to spread free-market values! This is the real message of Christmas, after all: If a child has worked hard enough, followed every single demand and rule placed upon him by his parents, while of course never being paid for anything throughout the entire year, then he will be rewarded in the form of a small toy, or possibly a snack, that serves as a “bonus”. This will prepare him for what it is like to be employed by a multi-million dollar multi-national corporation later in life.

On the other hand, if the child has NOT worked hard enough, then Santa’s mutant monster-looking assistants put the child in a burlap sack and beat him until he learns the value of hard, honest work.

Santa knows that being overly permissive with children will just lead them to grow up to be spoiled liberals and homosexuals. The purpose of Christmas is to teach these children that in the real world, there are winners and losers…. and Santa Reagan Claus will help you to punish the losers.



I know some people will think this is a joke. But just take a moment to think about it: Isn’t this exactly the kind of Christmas that our good, conservative politicians and leaders would want?

Just think about it, and share it with your conservative friends: The story of Conservo-Claus!

Talk radio discusses black marriage and racism

I think it’s fantastic when conservatives feel comfortable being blunt and honest about how tough it is to be a Christian. Here is a sample of a discussion that actually happened on talk radio earlier today.



Radio Caller: I’m really worried that these black activists are going to try to force my church to perform black marriages. Even though… I mean, I have nothing against black people. But it’s against my beliefs. But I’m being told that I’m a bad person for believing that.

Radio Host: You’re absolutely right. Well, this is the tactic that the left is using right now. They are trying to make Christians ashamed of their beliefs. If you believe that marriage is defined by Jesus, and so you happen to disagree with black marriage, for religious reasons… now all of a sudden you are bigoted. You are called a “racist”.

Radio Caller: That’s right. And that’s horrible, I’m not racist!

Radio Host: That’s right! Nobody wants to be called a racist or a bigot. It feels bad. It’s such a horrible thing to call someone. So that is the left’s strategy, they will start throwing out the word “racist”, when all you want to do is stop black people from getting married…. it’s really unfair. It’s an emotional manipulation that the liberals are doing to try to get their way. They are saying that just because you want to stop black marriages, that somehow that means you’re racist. It’s ridiculous!


(**NOTE: Since the word “gay” is so offensive, we have replaced the word “gay” in the above conversation with the word “black”. But, you know, the basic argument is the same.)

Ben Fergusan conservative talk radio host

Obamacare will completely destroy marriage… probably

Obamacare will destroy marriage

First, you were told that gay marriage would completely destroy marriage. Well, that didn’t work out. But now there is a new prediction: OBAMACARE will destroy marriage!!!

And we’re pretty sure it’s  right, this time! Probably.

The source of this prediction is the Heritage Foundation. It has a new report out, which explains that Obamacare penalizes married couples financially and therefore will end the world as we know it.

The Heritage Foundation is a well-respected research institute that has a long history of getting things right.

Therefore, in the interest of civility, we will overlook some of the more obvious and glaring problems with their argument, like the fact that married couples actually can choose to file separate returns if they want to, and the fact that the so-called “marriage penalty” in taxes has already been around for a very long time and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

Don’t pay attention to that.

Instead, the important point to focus on is that this is part of a LARGER CONSPIRACY by liberals to completely destroy America.  The liberal plan goes like this:

1) Make normal, heterosexual people not even want to get married by allowing gay people to marry. This will dramatically reduce population growth, because of all of the straight people who refuse to marry and have sex as a protest against gay marriage.

2) Make normal, heterosexual people want to get married even less by making people who file jointly less likely to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. This will dramatically reduce population growth, because straight people will say “I can’t get married and have kids if filing my taxes jointly will mean that I’m less likely to get subsidies for Obamacare!” That makes total sense.

3) Heterosexual marriage will then cease to exist, which means reproduction will completely stop and the entire United States will die off within 1 generation.

4) Liberals celebrate victory, and eat cake.


Consider yourselves warned.

If we don’t repeal Obamacare now, it will mean AN END TO MARRIAGE.

Even though married people get medical visitation rights, can make medical decisions for each other, can give tax-free gifts to their spouses, can receive benefits for their spouse, get discounted rates on automobile, health and homeowner’s insurance, get immigration residency benefits, have inheritance rights absent a will, get inheritance without incurring estate tax, get visitation rights in jail, can get “family loans”, and have the convenience of filling out a single return, and over 1000 other federal benefits that married people have that single people do not….. OBAMACARE will completely still stop people from ever getting married again.


BOTH SIDES ARE THE SAME… and we have proof!

If there is one thing that corporate media and conservative talk radio agree on, it’s that both Democrats and Republicans are terrible and evil and exactly the same.

For weeks, conservative talk radio stars, most vocally Sean Hannity, have been repeatedly  beating the drums about how all of the problems we face today are because both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are the same, and that’s why (for Hannity) real conservatives have to take back the party, and follow the likes of Ted Cruz, and wrest power away from the “establishment Republicans” who are, Hannity notes, not nearly conservative enough.

By contrast, some article at some liberal website has tried to declare that both sides are NOT the same, and paint a picture that the Republicans are somehow behaving more badly than Democrats are!

That’s ridiculous. Both sides ARE the same! And if you want proof, all you need is to remember a little history…



Remember Democratic Senator Russ Feingold threatened to SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT if Congress didn’t pass a law to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision? Democrats hated that decision, just as much as Republicans hate Obamacare. Surely you remember the Democrats threatening to shut down the government over this, right?

Feingold shuts down the government, because both sides are the same

Remember when President Obama threatened to veto the increase in the debt limit and throw the entire economy into a tailspin unless Congress passed his 10-point gun control legislation plan? Democrats hate guns just as much as Republicans hate foodstamps, so since both sides are the same, surely you remember this happening, as well!

Obama threatens to veto the debt limit increase, because both sides are the same

Finally, remember when Harry Reid threatened to never pass any bill through the Senate, ever ever EVER, unless Congress immediately reinstates a new Voting Rights Act? Democrats absolutely hated it when the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, just as much as Republicans hated it when Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court. Since both sides are the same, I’m sure you remember Harry Reid threatening to go ballistic and hold up any and all lawmaking until he got his way.

Harry Reid grinds capitol hill to a halt, because both sides are the same.



It’s obvious now, isn’t it? #BothSidesAreTheSame




Putin or Gay Porn Star?

Conservatives are all applauding Vladimir Putin for being such a strong leader, and for being so very very very anti-gay. What an awesome guy. Yet there is something a little off about his anti-gayness.

If you take a close look at all of the very manly things that Putin does to prove how masculine and not-gay he is, they all look a little…. well, gay. As an objective and fair-and-balanced reporting outlet, we here at have to ask the question:

Is Vladimir Putin subconsciously copying the poses of his favorite gay porn stars?

For example, here we see Vladimir Putin riding a horse shirtless, and a gay porn star riding a horse shirtless, just for a visual comparison:

Putin or Gay Porn Star

And again:

Putin Or Gay Porn Star

And also carrying a gun:

Putin Or Gay Porn Star

And also fishing, although it should be noted that there were not any completely shirtless pictures of the gay porn star holding the fishing rod, presumably because he was smart enough to put the fishing rod down before taking off his shirt:

Putin Or Gay Porn Star

Now, there is ONE SHIRTLESS PICTURE of Putin for which we were unable to find a corresponding gay porn star picture.  And that is this picture of Putin gasping for air while doing the butterfly stroke:

Putin swimming

Of course, we were able to find plenty of pictures of gay porn stars in the water. But they never seem to actually be… well, swimming.

There are pictures of gay porn stars jumping into the water:

Gay Porn Stars Not Swimming-1

There are pictures of gay porn stars playing with balls in the water.  (Duh).

Gay Porn Star Not Swimming

And there are even pictures of gay porn stars playing with a cute puppy in the water:

Gay Porn Stars Not Swimming

But somehow, there are no pictures of gay porn stars gasping for air while doing a serious butterfly stroke, to match Putin’s infamous swimming picture.


So maybe that is why we can all sleep safely at night, and feel completely assured that Vladimir Putin, conservative hero, is not secretly mimicking the poses of all of his favorite gay porn stars, after all.




[POST SCRIPT: If you can find any pictures of Vladimir Putin and gay porn stars in exactly the same pose as one another, please email them to and we will feature them in a later update. Thank you.]

Ted Cruz’s non-filibuster: executive summary

Did you miss the historic “big long speech” that wasn’t a filibuster by Ted Cruz, in which he argued passionately against Obamacare? That’s ok! The members of WinkProgress were live-tweeting the whole thing, and by reading through selected tweets, you can basically experience a re-enactment of the most important parts.
























Ted Cruz Not-a-Filibuster