Archive for Conservatism

We Win, You Lose

Allahpundit at Hot Air has a roundup of punditry’s reaction to the elections. Aggie’s observation that conservatism had a great night is true, but the rush of opinion to fill the void of meaning is mixed, to say the least.

Conservative cheerleaders declare this yet another rejection of Obama’s policies, as in 2010 and 2014, taken out on hapless Democrats around the country. Certainly, Obama, anti-coal and pro-socialized medicine, was poison in Kentucky. When you add up the national losses for the Democrats under Obama, the numbers are staggering:

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. That’s some legacy.

Go ahead, conservatives, spike the football. We’ve earned it. But then look up at the scoreboard: Obama’s still winning. And by extension, so are the Democrats. On her personal failings alone, Hillary Clinton deserves obscurity, not the presidency. If Obama is as unpopular across the country as we’d like to believe, his legacy certainly won’t help her. Yet I believe Aggie still sees her as the prohibitive favorite to win. I don’t have a strong counter-argument.

Here are some thoughts. One, more voters turn out for presidential elections than for off-year elections, and more voters tends to mean more low-information, i.e. liberal, voters. The bulk of Republican gains across the country came in non-presidential elections. They are still gains, but they are hard to sustain in presidential cycles, much less do they lead to the brass ring of the top job itself.

But ask yourselves, conservatives: do you feel like you’re winning? I don’t, and I wonder why that is. One obvious reason is that the media will never, ever—ever—let you believe conservatism is winning. If you believe the narrative—big mistake—Republicans may have won individual battles, but have already lost the war. To go along with that, the national Republican leadership (using Republican and conservative synonymously, also a big mistake) are as whipped a crew as you can imagine. We gave Republicans the House, and then we gave them the Senate; they have two-thirds of the governorships and two-thirds of the state legislatures. Yet how have they stopped Obama’s relentless push of his radical agenda? About the only conservatives I can think of who can consistently out-talk the liberal media are Ted Cruz and the late Tony Snow; occasionally Fiorina, occasionally Rubio. Trump shouts over the media, which is a different thing.

There’s also Obama’s personal popularity. People who don’t like ObamaCare (me!) and don’t like his lawlessness toward illegal immigration (me! me!) are still loath to loathe him personally (not me!). That may give Republicans pause today, but the magic expires at the end of his presidency. Hillary gets no benefit from it, nor does she deserve to. Democrats picked Obama over Hillary eight years ago for a reason. Indeed, much as we like Obama (not we as in you and me, but they, them), we are probably happy to see the back of him after eight years. That sentiment does not help the next man or woman in line. Ask Al Gore.

I’d love to see a true conservative (Cruz) win the nomination to offer a stark contrast between the parties. But I would accept almost any of the serious contenders, minus Bush (who’s not a serious contender for much longer, if he ever was). My heart (or is it my brain?) tells me we could win that election, but my brain (or is it my heart?) says keep dreaming.


Why Do These Things Keep Happening to Him?


Russian Aggression Complicates Obama’s Options in Syria

How can nothing be complicated by something? Oh, I’m sure some CalTech math nerd can throw a few graphs and squiggles on the chalkboard, but in real life?

We’re already working on doing less than nothing:

The United States announced on Friday it would overhaul its failed efforts to support moderate Syrian rebels battling Islamic State, saying it would provide arms and equipment to vetted rebel leaders and their units.

The U.S. announcement marked the effective end to a short-lived multimillion-dollar program to train and equip units of fighters at sites outside of Syria, after that program’s disastrous launch this year fanned criticism of President Barack Obama’s war strategy.

Multimillion as in $500 million. That kind of multimillion.

The U.S. military began training for up to 5,400 fighters a year in May, what was seen as a test of Obama’s strategy of having local partners combat Islamic State militants and keep U.S. troops off the front lines.

But the more than $500 million program was troubled from the start, with some of the first class of fewer than 60 fighters coming under attack from al Qaeda’s Syria wing, Nusra Front, in their battlefield debut.

Another headline:

White House Is Weighing a Syria Retreat

Talk about breaking news from 2012!

Now let’s hear from someone who’s actually going to get things done:

The Nazarene Fund is an initiative of Mercury One dedicated to the evacuation of particularly vulnerable Christians from countries like Iraq and Syria into new countries where they might rebuild their lives.

Between now and December 2015 our goal is to raise $10 million to save more than 400 families from regions taken over by ISIS. ISIS has used the Nazarene sign to symbolize death – we will use it to symbolize life.


It’s not a matter of fairness – we wish we could help everyone – but it is a matter of practicality, resources and urgency. The United States is a Christian majority country that can more quickly and more easily rally support for displaced Christians.

We also have a grave concern for all of those being effected by ISIS in the region, not excluding the majority Muslim population, which has been the victim of more terrorist related causalities than any other religion or culture. However, the Christian community faces a particular threat of extermination.

I don’t listen to Glenn Beck much, but I did hear a few minutes today. He’s reached $10 million.

I have ridiculed and deplored those foolish European states that just threw open their gates to the hordes of refugees trying to turn Mu-slum nations into ghost towns.

But I have defended Glenn Beck.

He makes his case: he and his supporters will underwrite 400 families with $25,000 for one year. He is canvassing his audience for places to house the families, and he is pledging to vet thoroughly the refugees he sponsors. Europe has done no vetting; it’s not clear what vetting Obama will do.

I agree with everything Beck says, except the “we wish we could help everyone” nonsense. I don’t. I wish they could help themselves, but that’s exactly what ISIS sees itself as doing. We’ve spent every day since the first Gulf War trying to break up on Muslim-on-Muslim crime. And what has it won us or them? They still can’t hate us and can’t kill each other fast enough. Save the Christians and Jews, and those Muslims who are educated enough, wealthy enough, and assimilated enough to live peacefully in a Western democracy. All six of them.

I don’t wish them ill (well, some of them I do, but I’m a sinner). I don’t wish them much of anything at all. It’s their culture and their religion, and they don’t seem to welcome our input. Fine, then, we’ll just take the oil (and the Christians) and be on our way. Be well. Assalaamu alaykum.

Comments (1)

BTL’s Tax Plan

Flat tax, no deductions save for qualified charities, everyone pays something. I don’t know enough about a sales tax versus an income tax, but as long as we have an income tax, it should be low, but universal.

Everything else is, by degrees, fiddlesticks:

Donald Trump fancies himself a financial whiz and an original thinker, but his tax plan—characteristically vague though it is—runs up against the same problems faced by Jeb Bush and many other would-be tax-cutters and repeats their errors: It is nearly impossible to cut federal income taxes in a way that primarily benefits low-income Americans, because high-income Americans pay most of the federal income taxes.

The 2.4 percent of households with incomes in excess of $250,000 a year pay about half of all federal income taxes; the bottom half pays about 3 percent.

Exactly. It’s hard to cut taxes for those who pay none. Though the Democrats do try.

The centerpiece of Trump’s proposal is a zero income-tax rate for households with incomes up to $50,000 for married couples and $25,000 for individuals.

The median household income in the United States is only about $52,000 a year—it does not seem to me socially desirable (to say nothing of fiscally desirable) to have a tax system in which practically all those who pay the federal income tax are high-income households.

To my way of thinking, everyone has to pay in, however little, because if you don’t feel the pain of confiscation, you only covet (as Carol wrote in a comment on another post). The wealthy naturally should pay “their fair share” in taxes, and do, good and hard. (Twenty percent of a million-dollar income is a whole lot bigger than 20% of a $50,000 income—by $190,000, if your math is challenged.)

Republicans need to get it through their heads: This country doesn’t need another tax-cut plan—it needs a spending-cut plan.

Not content to leave it at that, Kevin D. Williamson (who, along with Jonah Goldberg and Andy McCarthy, are among the very few must-reads at National Review, now that Mark Steyn is long gone) returns to the theme:

Every Republican tax-reform plan should be rooted in this reality: If you are going to have federal spending that is 21 percent of GDP, then you can have a.) taxes that are 21 percent of GDP; b.) deficits. There is no c.

If, on the other hand, you have a credible program for reducing spending to 17 or 18 percent of GDP, which is where taxes have been coming in, please do share it.

There are no tax cuts when the government is running deficits, only tax deferrals.

Williamson acknowledges that economic growth spurred by tax cuts would yield greater tax receipts—but they would just be tossed skyward like an NFL running back on a cocaine bender “making it rain” at a strip club. My simile, of course.

BTL has shared with you ad nauseam that there are some problems so intractable, they cannot be solved, only avoided. Hitler’s Nazis, of course; and, I would say, the US debt. One enslaved a continent for five years; the other threatens to do so for as far as the mind’s eye can see. (Though Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and Catholics might not suffer so egregiously under impoverishing debt as they did under the Holocaust.)


Megyn Kelly is not a “Whore”, Obama Is

When Donald Trump pi**ed off Mexicans, many people cheered. When he pi**ed off some veterans, others cheered. Fewer people cheered when he pi**ed off most women.

But some did:

ERICK ERICKSON: I would like to read for you the emails that I am getting from Donald Trump supporters.

This is from Thomas in Sioux City: “You people, especially liberal Erick Erickson, are idiots. I am 56 in Iowa and I am a conservative. I am so sick of political correctness, I am mad as hell about what that [blank] in the White House has done to our country, I want someone else who is mad as well. I want Trump, if you are smart, you will back him, not the whore [debate moderator Megyn Kelly].

This from Mark: “Disinviting Trump just showed how [skewed] the political process is maybe you should ask the “c-word” not to ask gotcha questions. “

This from Bridgett: “Shame on you Erick, she very clearly was on her period. I am a woman, I want my America back, and I refuse to let Fox News dictate to me who the president will be. Mr. Trump is not politically correct, he is a great America. F**k you.”

I gotta tell you guys, I made the right decision.

Trump insults everyone but the two people who deserve every bad thing he could say about them: Obama and Clinton. So what if Megyn Kelly was combative (if she was combative)? Obama is ramming through a supine Congress a bill that betrays the nation. Hillary is a serial liar (like her husband), and is under investigation by the FBI. They are terrible, terrible people, who have to be stopped. I don’t care which one he accuses of menstruation without representation, he’s worse than a waste of time until he’s more selective about his enemies.

As Jonah Goldberg wrote, rudeness is not a conservative principle. If this is just about Trump (as what about Trump is not?), he can’t be gone soon enough. With the first primaries six months off, I don’t see him lasting. God willing.


BTL’s Immutable Truth No. 47 [UPDATED]

There are so many, it’s hard to keep track of them all, but I’ll share them with you as they occur to me.

No. 47: Fix a problem before it becomes a bigger problem.

Seems pretty obvious, but consider: if concerns about, say, equal rights for gay couples and health insurance for all who want it had been addressed more directly by conservatives, we might not have Constitutionally-affirmed gay marriage or ObamaCare today. Regardless of how we feel about same-sex marriage, we want to be fair. Had conservatives pushed civil unions for gay people—complete equality under the law, without affixing the word marriage to the deal—marriage itself might have remained a pipe dream. Besides, don’t conservatives believe in equality under the law? I do.

Similarly, people without health insurance, or with pre-existing conditions, had legitimate concerns that government could have addressed—without the nationalization that ObamaCare essentially and miserably accomplished. Republicans now say they have alternate plans for when ObamaCare is repealed (not if, when); they are a decade too late.

I am still an advocate for limited government: “That government is best which governs least.” But the least bit of governing, at the very least, puts off over-governing. Conservatism is not doing nothing; it is doing only enough.

And conservatives would not only avoid appearing indifferent to the concerns of people—but would reap the benefit of creating solutions that might actually work. As opposed to ObamaCare (which I do not personally support), and redefining marriage out of whole cloth (which I do).

Of course, there are innumerable ways conservatism can and should intervene to shrink government, not just grow it more slowly. Anyone looking at the disaster that is Greece (or Illinois) can see that a sterner hand would have avoided the death-spiral both are facing. Once you create a new “entitlement”, people start feeling awfully entitled. And we’re learning the limits of “austerity”. In economic terms, the opposite of fat is not lean; it’s never getting fat in the first place.

Comments (1)

Remedial Economics

“Listen up, everyone. You’re in this class because you won’t listen—and I’m talking to you, Barack Hussein Obama. You sit up here in the front row. If you sit in back with Betty Warren, you’ll never learn anything.”

Four years ago North Carolina’s unemployment rate was above 10% and the state still bore the effects of its battering in the recession. Many rural towns faced jobless rates of more than 20%. But in 2013 a combination of the biggest tax-rate reductions in the state’s history and a gutsy but controversial unemployment-insurance reform supercharged the state’s economy and has even helped finance budget surpluses.

As Wells Fargo’s Economics Group recently put it: “North Carolina’s economy has shifted into high gear. Hiring has picked up across nearly every industry.”

The tax cut slashed the state’s top personal income-tax rate to 5.75%, near the regional average, from 7.75%, which had been the highest in the South. The corporate tax rate was cut to 5% from 6.9%. The estate tax was eliminated.

Wait, what? You can cut tax rates and raise money??? It’s a miracle!

Who in his right mind would oppose such a thing?

I said: who in his right mind. But there’s more:

Next came the novel tough-love unemployment-insurance reforms. The state became the first in the nation to reject “free” federal payments for extended unemployment benefits and reduce the weeks of benefits to 20 from 26. The maximum weekly dollar amount of payments, $535, which had been among the highest in the nation, was trimmed to a maximum of $350 a week. As a result, tens of thousands of Carolinians left the unemployment rolls.

Margaret Thatcher said “The facts of life are conservative.” Rush Limbaugh said “Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people.”

When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.

What shows more love giving a person the means to look after himself? The means and the faith that he/she can? And what is more factual and conservative than cutting taxes and reaping benefits?

As Wisconsin goes, so goes North Carolina.

But not so Connecticut.


Right and Left, Good and Evil [UPDATE]

Dennis Prager goes big picture:

The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between left and right.

I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the “little guy” holds conservative — or what today are labeled as conservative — views.

Difference No. 1: Is Man Basically Good?

Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good. On the other side, conservative doctrines hold that man is born morally flawed — not necessarily born evil, but surely not born good. Yes, we are born innocent — babies don’t commit crimes, after all — but we are not born good. Whether it is the Christian belief in Original Sin or the Jewish belief that we are all born with a yetzer tov (good inclination) and a yetzer ra (bad inclination) that are in constant conflict, the root value systems of the West never held that we are naturally good.

I admire Dennis Prager as much as I admire anyone. Clear, precise, moral, he has been a revelation to this “transitioning” conservative. (Like me, and a lot of you, he was raised as a liberal, and voted as one, until life and reality burst the bubble of belief.)

But I have one small quibble. I still believe that “people are basically good”, even as a conservative, but that they are lured to evil by something not of themselves. Sometimes it is religion, sometimes it is drugs or greed, sometimes it is government. The best thing any of these factors, be they temptations or institutions, can do for people is to encourage them to find their own way. The worst is to take over their lives.

I’m not saying I’m right—determining man’s innate goodness, or lack thereof, is above my pay grade—but at least my position lends a moral element to conservatism. Robbing people of their selves surely must be the highest of crimes—and what robs people of their selves more than thoughtless obedience to an ideology, be it spiritual or political? Who can look upon decades of inner-city decline and generations of government assistance and not see degradation of the human spirit?

I hesitate to say that the likes of Prager and Aggie and I are superior because we have thought one way, and now think another. But we ought to be taken seriously as people who have put thought into our conversions.


Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn’t easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion.

In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was — and remains — that fundamental to many American Jews’ identity.

Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so.

Naturally, I encourage you to read the entire piece. I will share his follow-ups with you as I come across them.

Upon further review, what is Prager talking about?

“Left-of-center doctrines hold that people are basically good.”

Liberals hate people! They want to pass no end of laws mandating how people behave. They want to punish the majority of people who meet even one of the following criteria: work, believe in the word of God, have wealth, die, are white, aren’t yet born, disagree with them. Among others.

If liberals believed in the basic goodness of people, why do they try to change them so?


Don’t Accept the Narrative

Rand Paul is not my top choice for Republican nominee, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is that Republicans cannot let the media set the terms of the race.

If Rand Paul is “prickly”, Savannah Guthrie is “pushy”:

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: You have had views in the past on foreign policy that are somewhat unorthodox, but you seem to have changed over the years. You once said Iran was not a threat, now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel; you now support it, at least for the time being. And you once offered to drastically cut…

SEN. RAND PAUL: No, before we go —

GUTHRIE: Well wait, wait, wait.


GUTHRIE: So I just wonder if you’ve mellowed out.

Has she asked President Obama if he’s “mellowed out” on gay marriage? Has his views “changed over the years” on whether you can keep your doctor? How mellow is Obama on closing Gitmo? Or the IRS scandal that he condemned one day and dismissed the next? Or on his authority to summarily change immigration law? Or on his Harry Reid-like lie that there were shovel-ready jobs when he knew there weren’t? Or on his flip-flop over lobbyists in the White House? Or his promise to take only public financing in the 2008 campaign?

And I for one would love to hear Ms. Guthrie ask the president if he’s mellowed out on ISIS, which he once described as the JV of terrorists.

And then I’d like her to ask of herself how she is in any position to query any Republican when she’s married to a veteran Democrat political operative.

Were I Rand Paul, my internal voice has me answering my critics thusly: “Ms. Guthrie is an experienced political reporter and certainly doesn’t need her male colleagues to rise to her defense, however chivalrous their motives. She asked tough questions, questions I wanted to answer, questions that demanded an answer. That said, if she feels I treated her disrespectfully, I apologize unreservedly. That was not, and never would be, my intention. But I will answer questions I am asked so as to be understood. Out of respect to the questioner, to the viewer, and to the American people.”

Choke on that, liberal media dogs.


Griswold Family Values

A lovely tribute to director John Hughes from P.J. O’Rourke on the 30th anniversary of The Breakfast Club. Not my favorite John Hughes film—how could it be with Ferris Bueller and Uncle Buck in consideration?—but a good stepping-off point for O’Rourke:

John said, “You remember the line in The Graduate where the party guest tells the Dustin Hoffman character, ‘I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Plastics.’ That was 1967. If the Dustin Hoffman character had gotten into plastics he’d be a millionaire by now, instead of riding on a city bus with a crazy girl in a wedding dress.”

We were becoming conservatives—in the most conservational sense. There were things that others before us had achieved and these were worth conserving.

“I couldn’t go looking for a job wearing what people were wearing in 1970,” he said. “But I didn’t really know where to buy clothes that people weren’t wearing in 1970. I remembered that before I became hip my mother used to take me to Brooks Brothers in the Loop. So I went there. Behind the shirt counter was the same sales lady who’d been behind the shirt counter when I was a kid. She looked at me for a moment and said, ‘I knew you’d be back.’”

In 1976 John and Nancy had a son, John Hughes III, and in 1979 they’d have another, James. Family was the most conservative thing about John. Walking across the family room in your stocking feet and stepping on a Lego (ouch!) was the fundamental building block of society.

Before you object, I will stipulate that liberals can have family values too. But when I think about Hughes’ films, beneath the debauchery, there is a conservative core. Check that: the debauchery is the conservative core.

Like all of John’s movies, The Breakfast Club is conservative. Note that the first thing the disgruntled kids in detention do is not organize a protest, not express “class (of 1985) solidarity,” not chant “Students of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your locker combinations” and not claim it takes a Shermer to raise them.

They present themselves, like good conservatives do, as individuals and place the highest value, like this conservative does, on goofing off. Otherwise known as individual liberty.

That’s even more true of Ferris Bueller! What authority does Ferris respect? What authority is deserving of respect? None and none. Teenage impulsivity is the hero of the movie. Our founders called it the “pursuit of happiness”. In other movies, goofing off is only the starting point. Uncle Buck and Mr. Mom shows John Candy and Michael Keaton learning to put family responsibilities above mindless hedonism. Not fully in place of it, heavens no, just slightly above.

And who is more self-reliant than Macauley Culkin’s character in Home Alone? But even then, his happiness is complete only with the restoration of the family. Family (home) is also the driving force behind Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Family was even ripe for parody in National Lampoon’s Vacation.

O’Rourke’s tribute reminds me how good many of Hughes’ films were and still are. Ferris Bueller is my son’s favorite comedy not titled Groundhog Day. Some of the more angst-ridden pictures don’t age as well with me, though that may have more to do with the hair styles. O’Rourke also prompted me to consider how grounded these comic masterpieces are in old-fashioned midwestern values.

John and I never bothered to talk much about our politics. What we did talk about was the 20th century’s dominant scrambled egghead bien pensant buttinski parlor pinko righty-tighty lefty-loosey nutfudge notion that middle-class American culture was junk, that middle-class Americans were passive dimbulbs, that America itself was a flop and that America’s suburbs were a living hell almost beyond the power of John Cheever’s words to describe.

That’s the way it appeared to the Left. To Hughes, suburban Chicago was his Forest of Arden, a land of make-believe, magic, and imagination. No wonder his movies have become classics.


More Government Than I Need, Less Freedom Than I Want

Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a liberal, no one represented the forces of evil to me more than Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas.

What was my problem?

On March 4 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, with a decision expected in late June. If the court strikes down the payment of government subsidies to those who bought health insurance on the federal exchange, Republicans will at last have a real opportunity to amend ObamaCare. Doing so, however, will be politically perilous.

Republicans need a strategy that is easy to understand, broadly popular and difficult to oppose. It must unite Republicans and divide congressional Democrats, while empowering Republican governors and legislators to resist administration pressure. I believe that strategy is what I would call “the freedom option.” Every American should have the right to decide not to participate in ObamaCare: If you like ObamaCare and its subsidies, you can keep it. If you don’t, you are free to buy the health insurance that fits your needs.

The freedom option would fulfill the commitment the president made over and over again about ObamaCare: If you like your health insurance you can keep it. If Republicans crafted a simple bill that guarantees the right of individuals and businesses to opt out of ObamaCare, buy the health insurance they choose from any willing seller (with risk pools completely separate from ObamaCare), millions of Americans would rejoice and exercise this freedom. Such a proposal would be easy for Republicans to articulate and defend. And it would be very difficult for Democrats to attack.

Taking a cue from our racist, sexist friends in Hollywood, the simplest pitches are the best ones. Hot Tub Time Machine (I or II) takes no effort to decipher. Snakes on a Plane will have snakes on a plane, and Samuel L. Jackson mf-ing his way from cockpit to rear lavatory to kill them. The ninety-four minutes between opening and closing credits practically film themselves.

Even the Affordable Care Act is a model of packaging. Call it what it isn’t, and you can make it as impenetrable and obscure as Last Year at Marianbad, with Alain Resnais as the forbear of Jonathan Gruber in making people endure the unendurable.

But Gramm conquers all: “the freedom option”. Obama eliminated plans people liked and relied on for years. (He called them “bad apples”—the plans, not the people) Gramm restores them. You pick the plan you want, not the government. It’s not only tidy packaging, it’s Republican thinking.

The opposition would come solely from those who understand that ObamaCare is built on coercion—and that unless young, healthy Americans are forced into the program to be exploited with above-market insurance rates, the subsidies will prove unaffordable. That will be an exceedingly difficult case to make to the public.

By extinguishing coercion, the freedom option would put ObamaCare on the path to extinction. Without the ability to exploit the young and healthy, the Affordable Care Act will collapse under its own funding weight, all but guaranteeing a 2017 revision of the entire law.

[V]ictory will require a determination to govern. The alternative will almost certainly be a long or a short path to capitulation.

Government by choice, or government by coercion. I’m thinking, I’m thinking!

PS: My favorite Gramm line of all time was this: “I have more guns than I need, but less guns than I want.” Even as a tsk-tsking liberal, I admired the pith and confrontational attitude of the line—also its genuine Texan questionable grammar, corrected for the bumper sticker:


Islamic Terrorism Explained

Before I taunt all you haters with YET ANOTHER PATRIOTS SUPER BOWL WIN, here’s something even more fun!

London’s mayor had some choice words Friday for Muslims who turn to radicalism, calling them sexually frustrated losers who turn to terrorism out of a deep-seated lack of self-confidence.

“If you look at all the psychological profiling about bombers, they typically will look at porn. They are literally wankers (masturbators). Severe onanists,” Boris Johnson told UK tabloid The Sun, citing an MI5 report.

Sometimes we need the voice of innocence to tell is what we already know. Btw, “Severe Onanists” is a great punk band name for any young readers out there.

“They are tortured. They will be very badly adjusted in their relations with women, and that is a symptom of their feeling of being failures and that the world is against them,” said the Conservative Party member, adding that they sought others forms of spiritual comfort because they were not “making it with girls.”

Johnson further contended that turning to radical Islam was a form of compensation for men with deflated egos and a lack of purpose: “They are just young men in desperate need of self-esteem who do not have a particular mission in life, who feel that they are losers and this thing makes them feel strong — like winners.”

To all you British, French, other Euro-weenie, and even American lovers of the “Palestinian” cause, ask yourselves: how tightly do you want to hug your “freedom fighters” now? Where have those hands been? To what use has that keffiyeh been put?

No wonder Yasser Arafat was a homosexual (reportedly). He couldn’t “make it with girls”.

PS: As for the Patriots:

We are the champions, my friends,
And we’ll keep on fighting ’til the end.
We are the champions.
We are the champions.
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions of the world.


Hey Libs! Put a Tarp Over Your Computer Screens

Warned you:

Top officials in the Koch brothers’ political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires’ sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.

The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.

During remarks Saturday, Charles Koch said the organization would not back down from its ambitions.

“Americans have taken an important step in slowing down the march toward collectivism,” Koch said, according to excerpts released over the weekend. “But as many of you know, we don’t rest on our laurels. We are already back at work and hard at it.”

Koch said the group’s efforts have been “largely defensive to slow down a government that continues to swell and become more intrusive.”

During last year’s midterm elections, Koch-affiliated groups spent millions in advertising to successfully toss out Democrats from the Senate and put the chamber in Republican control. In all, the Koch network is believed to have spent $290 million to help shape 2014 election results.

“We have never seen this before,” Sheila Krumholz, who runs the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, said of the Kochs’ planned spending, “There is no network akin to this one in terms of its complexity, scope and resources.”

Mwahahahaha!!!! The evil Koch Brothers, like the Borg, are relentless and cannot be stopped. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

With a few exceptions:

Steyer, Thomas & F. & Kathryn Ann Fahr: $74,009,434
Bloomberg, Michael R. $10,377,600
Eychaner, Fred, Newsweb Corp $8,267,000
Simons, James H. & Marilyn H., Renaissance Technologies/Simons Fdtn $7,624,700
Soros, George, Soros Fund Management $3,755,400

You effing cheapskate, Soros. Tom Steyer is bankrupting himself to save the planet from the peril of global warming; even Republican Michael Bloomberg spent over $10,000,000 on Democrat and liberal candidates; and you… you miser couldn’t cough up what amounts to nickels under your sofa cushion. You’re probably a Koch mole.



« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »