This flying squirrel has a liberal bias!

Liberal Flying Squirrel

Liberal Flying Squirrel

“Flying squirrels are hippies, have a well-known liberal bias and are part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy,” writes Darrell B. Nelson, at Project Savior. We think this is an important and often-overlooked point.

His argument is based on the issue of evolution theory. Over the years, conservatives have mustered a number of stock arguments against evolution, that they can turn out in any conversation at a moment’s notice. Most of these are well-known, for example: “Star fish haven’t changed in billions of years therefore evolution must be completely wrong” or “If everything is evolving why don’t chimps make sassy Broadway musicals yet?”

One of the more fancy arguments against evolution is based on an idea called “irreducible complexity” and goes like this. Evolution happens slowly, in baby-steps.  There are some features that are enormously complex, and if they are only partially-made they won’t work at all. For example, a wing is a very complex thing. Evolution is gradual, so it can’t make an entire complex wing out of nothing in one generation.

But how could evolution ever get to a whole, complex wing if it goes gradually in “baby-steps”? There is no use to half-made wing! Therefore, evolution would never be able to get around to making a full wing… unless there was something intelligent guiding it!!

That argument has been used over and over again by creationists trying to defend conservative principles against the immoral liberalism of evolution.

But there is a problem: flying squirrels.

Flying squirrels have legs with a simple flap of skin that allows them to glide through the air as they jump from tree to tree. They basically have a “half wing”: a very simple thing that is like a partially formed wing. But it is not useless.  It helps them jump farther and faster, both to get food and get away from predators.



The only conclusion is the flying squirrels must be liberals. We have added the appropriate speech bubble in the above picture to signify this fact.


Temperature anomalies have a liberal bias!

Liberal temperature anomalies

This left-wing propaganda chart seems to imply that this year is one of the hottest years since 1895. But that can’t be right, because some guy at Forbes magazine said the world is cooling!

According to this graph, January through July of this year was the warmest first seven months of any year on record for the United States. The national temperature of 56.4°F was 4.3°F above the long-term average. Most of the contiguous U.S. was record and near-record warm for the seven-month period, except the Pacific Northwest.


How do I know?

Because Peter Ferrara told me.

Who is Peter Ferrara, you may ask? Is he some notable climate scientist? No, but even better: he’s the Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute. And he wrote an article for Forbes magazine.

The title of this article is, “Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling.” So basically, you can stop reading right there. The earth is cooling, which totally disproves the above graph. Case closed.

But if you did bother to read further in the article, you would find that he attended a conference where lots of serious people said serious things, and one of the people presenting at this conference predicted that we are now in the middle of a 25-year cyclical cooling period. He makes dire predictions that it could get REALLY cold, in fact, over the next 10-15 years. You just wait.

You will also be impressed by the fact that Peter Ferrara spends a lot of time talking about how scientific and objective and not like partisan political hacks any of the people at these conferences are. You know he can recognize partisan political hacks when he sees them, because when you look over his history of contributions to Forbes Magazine you get things like:

Obama’s Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession’s On The Way
Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History
There’s No Mystery To Slow Economic Growth: Progressives Are The Problem
Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

Clearly this is a man who is not only unbiased, but is also correct about everything.

So I leave you with this question: which would you rather believe? The above chart created from government data? Or Peter Ferrara, the obviously neutral and unbiased non-scientist who attended a conference recently?

I know who I trust. How about you?

graph source: National Climactic Data Center

Sneaky climate chart uses numbers to lie!

Biased Climate Change Chart

This chart severely misrepresents the ambiguity of the Global Warming debate. By relying on liberally biased “numbers”, it fails to represent the basic principle of fairness: there are two sides to every story.

This chart is being spread on Facebook and through other liberal social media conduits. It divides the circle into two pieces: one piece represents people who believe in the fallacy of global warming (black) and the other piece represents the people who correctly reject the discredited theory of global warming (red). By nefariously making the surface area of each piece proportional to the number of studies supporting each position, it gives the overall impression that there is overwhelming support for the climate change lie.

In fact, by looking at this graph, one might even get the impression that people who deny climate change are just a sad, tiny little fringe cadre of whack-a-doodle extremists pathetically trying to get some attention by catering to ignorant people.

But that interpretation is obviously nonsense!!

The only conclusion, therefore, is that the graph must be wrong. This graph is simply unfair to climate change deniers.  And don’t liberals say they like fairness?

Unbiased climate change chartWe at have decided to provide for you the unskewed version of this same graph. Notice that this graph more correctly represents the fact that there are two sides to this story, and nobody can really know for sure what the right answer is. This graph shows the fair and balanced version of the debate.

Notice that we are not lying about any of the numbers, per se. We point out that 24 papers reject global warming. But we have adjusted the area of each section of the graph to correctly get across the correct feeling of the debate, namely: there are two sides to every story, and we’ll have to leave it there.

We will not allow our graphs to be dictated by numbers and statistics!

After all, if we did that, it would inevitably lead to liberal bias!!


graph data source: “The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming” by Dr. James Powell
graph found via: The “I fucking love science” Facebook Page

Dumb liberals think human beings are fish

Global Warming Myth

Recently the ultra-left wing fringe communist website Media Matters criticized Fox News for their in-depth debunking of the “Global Warming” myth. The only thing sadder than liberals claiming “Global Warming” is liberals explaining away the PROOF that Global Warming is false.

Daily Mail reporter David Rose completely debunked the myth of Global Warming in every way, and this was covered extensively by the expert incisive reporters on “Fox & Friends”. Of course, this is when the Left Wing Hate Machine unleashes their demon attack dogs from hell to try to defame and drag through the mud anyone and anything that disagrees with their radical socialist agenda!!!111

There are too many things wrong with this Media Matters “hit piece” to even bother going through them all, so we will just focus on one point: the above graph.  According to the slimy Media Matters Article Of Lies,

Another problem with Rose’s analysis is that looking solely at atmospheric temperatures ignores a number of other indicators that global warming is happening… As the graph below shows, the global ocean has been warming considerably during the time that atmospheric temperatures appear to have stalled.

So in other words, supposed “global warming” is going on in the oceans but not in the air.



People aren’t fish. Why do liberals not have any common sense?

Plus, if it’s just in the oceans you can’t really call it “global” warming, can you? It’s just “water warming.” What possible difference could that make?


graph found via:

There are two sides to every story, and one of them is socialist.

Conservative Graph

When science says that Fox News is biased, there is only one obvious and correct response: “Nuh uh… you are!”

Liberals like to make fun of conservatives for being “anti-science” and unfortunately a lot of conservatives fall for this trick, and get all squeamish and apologize or deny that they are anti-science. The fact is, if you are a real conservative, you should stand up and be proudly anti-science.

Science explicitly and unashamedly does not take values into consideration when evaluating theories. Science is tyrannical about rejecting theories that do not fit data, no matter how much those theories might make intuitive sense or be based on moral wisdom. Science is elitist and scoffs at anything that it doesn’t consider “real data”. Why can’t Christian Values also be considered data, huh? Stupid tyrannical scientists.

There is no reason to think that being anti-Science is a bad thing. The only reason people in our society have been brainwashed into accepting that science is good is because of the moral decay and insidious propaganda of the left wing.

According to science, when there are two sides to a story, one of them is right and the other is wrong.

According to conservatives, when there are two sides to a story, one of them is Right and the other is socialist!

And that is why science itself has a permanent and unavoidable liberal bias!!!


graph found via: (altered by to remove all the bias)

Death Valley has a liberal bias!

Happy Christian Valley.

Happy Christian Valley.

Death Valley has recently been declared the hottest place on earth.

There is something fishy going on here, and it smells a lot like liberal bias.

Consider these questions: Who might benefit from people associating something negative like “Death” with high temperatures? What agenda might be served by ramming down the public’s throats the idea the things being “hot” means something negative or hurtful?  Could this possibly be part of a sinister plot by environmentalists and liberal scientists to further promote the agenda of the fake and completely made-up “global warming” ruse?

We’re just asking the question.

Obviously, liberals would love it if everyone associated high temperatures with death and destruction. It is part of their plan to subjugate humanity through fear and weather.


In order to combat this sinister form of liberal bias, please check the box below to sign our online petition to immediately re-name “Death Valley” to “Happy Christian Valley”.  That way, on the off chance that the planet is actually getting warmer, people will know that it’s God’s will and will be happy about it.

  • YES! I agree that “Death Valley” should be renamed “Happy Christian Valley” in order to promote conservative values and combat the evil liberal bias of climate science.

Thank you for your support.


Liberals from outer space?

Liberal Aliens

Liberal Aliens

According to the lunatic fringe left-wing Atheist gay-promoting media outlet, The Guardian, some Japanese scientists looking through a telescope in Hawaii found a galaxy that is 12.9 billion light-years away, and is therefore the “oldest galaxy” observed because supposedly if it is that far away then the light that we are seeing must have left that galaxy 12.9 billion years ago. Thus, they have given the article the title: “Oldest galaxy discovered using Hawaii telescope.”

Now, if you are a good conservative, I know what your first reactions to this will be. The universe is only 6,000 years old, so the conclusions of the article cannot be correct.  In fact, their entire argument is riddled with logical flaws. For example:

  1. Japanese scientists? These foreigners cannot be trusted. P.S. remember Pearl Harbor?
  2. A telescope in Hawaii? The place where Barack Hussein Obama is supposedly from? Clearly this data has been faked.
  3. 12.9 billion light years? Science can’t possibly measure a number that big. There must be a flaw in the theory.
  4. How do we know light always travels at the same speed? Maybe the light has been traveling for only 6,000 years, and it just goes faster most of the time and gets really slow when it comes closer to earth, probably because of the influence of Satan?

All of these are very logical, and you are right to think of them!

However, I sense a deeper problem!!!!!

It is also possible that this galaxy is actually itself a liberal!!!!!  It is therefore deliberately trying to trick Human Scientists into believing that the universe is older than it really is!

We cannot turn a blind eye to the possibility of alien, outer-space liberals. It is the kind of thing that could infect our planet and destroy us exactly because so many people brush it off as silly. Remember: Did anyone expect 9/11? NO!  And they aren’t expecting this, either.

We will be sure to keep you updated about the danger of liberal distant galaxies in outer space. In the mean time, I have added the appropriate speech bubble to the above picture to remind you of this warning.

original article: The Guardian


Addendum: it is noticeable that does not contain an article about this!  They must be feeling guilty and repentant after their previous gaffe in reporting left-wing propaganda, which we reported on last week.


Australian rock art has liberal bias (+ gay animal butt sex)!

Liberal Rock Art

Liberal Rock Art

Radical left-wing communist media organization Fox News has recently reported that some scribbles on some rocks in Australia are 28,000 years old.

It is fine if they present this as a “theory” that some “scientists” have. However, if they were really a fair and balanced news organization, as they claim, they would have also presented the argument that the world is only 6,000 years old and that these rock pictures were drawn by a race of evil demons called the lamia (which are mentioned in the Bible!).  The lamia were the earliest examples of evil and therefore liberals, so it is no surprise that they would be planting fictional evidence to try to make people think that the world is older than it really is.

Gay Animal Butt Sex Rock ArtHow can we tell that these cave drawings were created by liberal demons?  Look at a close-up of this highlighted section to the left!


I’m not sure, but it sure looks anti-Family to me.

This entire rock picture is very suspicious, and it is clear that whenever it was made, it was drawn by liberals. I have added the appropriate speech bubble in the original picture to signify this fact.

original story:

Science’s increasing liberal bias!

History of Scientific Bias

History of Scientific Bias

Liberals like to talk about how conservatives have become more and more hostile toward science over time.  The fact is: it is science that has become more and more hostile toward conservatives over time!

The above graph demonstrates conclusively that ever since the birth of Jesus, science has had an increasing liberal bias!  Indeed, if you exclude the anomalous freak occurrence of the radical liberal Aristotle in 384 B.C., science has basically had an increasing liberal bias throughout all of history!

An explanation and analysis of the graph is provided below. The “liberal bias score” was determined using an 11-point balanced Likert scale evaluation of each scientific theory by a convenient sample of survey participants (N=1). But none of that is important because let’s face it, nobody ever pays attention to the methodology of scientific studies: they just look at the pretty graphs.

625 B.C Thales of Miletus says that the earth floats on water.Analysis: This statement is consistent with the Bible, which states that originally there were the “waters of the deep” and that the earth, i.e. land, was created in that water. Thus, we give this theory an overall rating of “conservative.” Score:



460 B.C Democritus claims that all matter is made up of atoms.Analysis: Atoms are never mentioned in the Bible, so this claim is slightly suspect. Plus, the person’s name is “Democritus” which automatically suggests liberal bias. However, the theory itself is not especially liberal or conservative. Thus we give this theory an overall rating of only “slightly liberal”. Score:


(slightly liberal)

384 B.C. Aristotle claims that all events have a natural cause, and although there must have been an original “un-moved mover” (God) it (sic) no longer participates or willfully influences the world.Analysis: This is clearly heretical and filled with godless liberal nonsense. It denies the possibility of a personal God granting miracles or punishing gays or doing any of the other things that God obviously does. Moreover, Aristotle wrote political essays about how the government should help citizens to have happy lives, which means he was also a socialist who was against personal responsibility. Obviously a radical liberal lunatic. Score:


(extremely liberal)

287 B.C. Archimedes discovers mathematical laws that govern the volumes of shapes and the properties of simple tools like levers.Analysis: There is nothing especially conservative or liberal about these mathematical relationships. On the one hand, it is important to observe and understand the laws that God has commanded the universe to work by. On the other hand, it might have been better if Archimedes had made the point that God can over-ride these rules at any time. As a result, we give these discoveries an overall rating of neutral. Score:



161 A.D. Galen analyzes animal bodies in order to develop theories about human anatomy.Analysis: Galen was a strong proponent of using observation in order to develop medical theories, but also understood the importance of using logic, intuition, instinct, and beliefs in the development of scientific theories. Plus, he refused to violate the dignity of corpses and instead experimented on animal corpses. He is therefore one of the earliest examples of an anti-Animal Rights activist, and so we give him an overall rating of conservative. Score:



354 A.D. Saint Augustine explains that although beings have constantly changed since creation, one species cannot change into another.Analysis: This brilliant insight cannot be stressed enough, even in current scientific debate. Evolutionists like to claim that because things change, one species automatically must change into another. Augustine argued against that over a thousand years before Darwin was even born! He therefore deserves credit for being extremely conservative. Score:


(extremely conservative)

525 A.D. Dionysius Exiguus discovers that all years should be counted starting with the year of Jesus’s birth and should be identified as “the year of our Lord” (Anno Domini, or A.D.).Analysis: Obviously this is one of the great scientific discoveries of all of history, and is completely consistent with conservative values. Liberals who are trying to destroy our culture want to replace this label with “C.E.” Score:


(extremely conservative)

1473 A.D. Copernicus claims that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe.Analysis: This is an attempt to minimize the importance of man, God’s highest creation, and reduce us to “just some part” of a larger universe. Although not totally liberal on its own, this theory is setting the stage to erode conservative values. Therefore, this theory gets a score of “slightly liberal”. Score:


(slightly liberal)

1564 A.D. Galileo claims that scientific theories must be validated by experiments.Analysis: This was clearly the beginning of the end, when it comes to science. Prior to this, scientists turned to scripture, morality, and intuition to help them to decide what theories were correct. Galileo thought that experiments mattered more than scripture or faith. Obviously a liberal theory. Score:



1642 A.D. Newton describes three laws of motion.Analysis: These laws are neither liberal nor conservative. Although they are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, the Bible does talk about God’s Laws and it’s reasonable to suppose that these laws of motion might be exactly what God intended. The overall score of these laws is therefore neutral. Score:



1791 A.D. Faraday introduces the notion of magnetic “force fields”.Analysis: The very idea that there are unseen forces that are not made up of matter, but are not the direct will of God, is downright pagan sorcery and magic. Introducing the idea of a “field” into physics is basically the same as saying “Devil powers” but using a less intimidating name. Obviously a liberal theory. Score:



1809 A.D. Darwin comes up with the idea of evolution.Analysis: This one really requires no discussion, right? Score:


(extremely liberal)

1916 A.D. Einstein’s theory of relativity.Analysis: There are a number of problems with relativity, not the least of which being that it involves “relativism” which states that things depend on your point of view. This is a dangerous idea that can lead to moral decay. Score:



1925 A.D. Heisenberg claims that positions and velocities are uncertain and are not even concretely defined unless they are observed by people.Analysis: The whole idea that the state of the universe depends on what people observe? What about what God observes? God knows the position AND velocity of every single atom! To deny the omniscience of God is the utmost of liberal atheist arrogance! Score:


(very liberal)

1936 A.D. Alan Turing comes up with the conceptual basis for the programmable computer.Analysis: Turing was a homosexual. Obviously anything he creates is very liberal. Score:


(extremely liberal)

1945 A.D. Schroedinger publishes “What is life?” putting forth theories about chemistry, structure and replication.Analysis: This discussion of life does not allow any role for the soul and attempts to completely reduce all life to just chemicals like the stuff you find in a bucket at a factory. ARE YOU JUST CHEMICALS? Of course not. Liberal nonsense. Score:


(very liberal)

1965 A.D. Discoveries by Penzias and Wilson lead to the broad acceptance of the “Big Bang” theory.Analysis: The “Big Bang Theory” is not described in tbe bible, and is very clearly an attempt to remove God from any discussion of the origins of the universe. But can the “big bang” explain life? No. And where did the “big bang” come from? Obviously a flawed atheist theory meant to undermine conservative values. Score:


(very liberal)

1997 A.D. Wilmut and Campbell clone a sheep.Analysis: Once again arrogant scientist are trying to infringe upon the domain of life and creation, which by all rights should only be the proper activity of God. This is immoral and contrary to good conservative values. Score:


(extremely liberal)

Prehistoric eel-worm has liberal bias!

Liberal Eel-Worm

Liberal Eel-Worm

Recently paleontologists have found a fossil of some kind of tiny worm thing that they say is related to us. This is plainly ridiculous based on the following proofs:


2) Just because something is similar to us, doesn’t mean it is our ancestor. Triangles are similar to squares, but did triangles evolve from squares? I DON’T THINK SO.

3) The science performed by the scientists is already suspect, since they claim the worm is 505 million-year-old and that would mean it was around before Creation and nothing was around back then, that’s why it’s called “Creation.”

4) I once buried a dead worm in a flower pot, and when I dug it up a month later it was TOTALLY GONE which proves that fossils of worms can’t exist.

Despite all of these logical and irrefutable proofs, this worm is fooling all kinds of science people into thinking that we evolved from worms!


I’ll tell you what is wrong with this worm. Tens of hundreds of years ago, when dinosaurs were being hunted by Noah for their tasty flesh, this worm was conspiring with Godless atheist liberals in a devious plot to spread their amoral agenda.

This fossil is nothing more than evidence that this worm is a LIBERAL!!!!

I have added the appropriate speech bubble to indicate this fact.

: Michael Vacirca

Being a conservative Republican makes you rich!

Sciencey Graphs

Liberal elitists are always saying that conservatives don’t understand science or history or other things that don’t matter, but here is a scientific study that we do understand and it is sure to make the liberals cry.

Everybody knows how science research works:You find something that you either love or hate that you want to make a point about, then you find a relationship between that thing and something that is either good or bad, and you assume that the first thing caused the second thing.

This is how all science is done. You don’t believe me? Let’s look at some examples.

Scientists find that children who use Facebook a lot also drink alcohol more. These scientists are parents who hate Facebook because they don’t understand it. And children drinking is bad. So, BAM! Using Facebook caused the drinking.

Another example? Scientists find that girls who read fashion magazines also worry a lot about their appearance. Scientists are liberal feminists, so they hate fashion magazines. And children worrying is bad, so BAM! Reading the magazine caused them to worry about their appearance.

See? That’s science.

Using this exact same widely accepted scientific method, we can conclude from the above graphs that being a Conservative Republican causes people to get rich.

As you can see in the graph, for most groups the distribution across income is fairly flat. With liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, and moderate Independents it’s most obvious: there are about just as many low income people as high income people.  But among conservative Republicans, there is a huge difference: there are massively more rich than poor people in this group!

Obviously, being a conservative Republican makes you rich. (Interestingly, being a conservative Democrat makes you poor, because this combination is obviously a crime against nature.)

This is solid scientific method. If anyone comes at you with some kind of weird mumbo-jumbo about “correlation” and “causation” just remember: all that talk is just a bunch of liberal bias….

source: The 2000 and 2004 data are from the National Annenberg Election Survey; 2008 is from the Pew Research pre-election surveys.