Category Archives: Conservatives

Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump demonstrators in London

You be the judge as to which group is insane.

(A) Welcome Trump rally at American Embassy in London, July 14, 2018:

(B) Anti-Trump protesters in London, July 13, 2018:

Source of pics: Reddit


Another promise fulfilled: Trump gets NATO countries commit to increase their defense spending

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald John Trump vowed that one of the things he would do as POTUS is to make fairer and better “deals” with supposed U.S. allies — in Asia (Japan, South Korea), and in Europe (referring to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO).

In the case of America’s NATO allies, they are supposed to pay at least 2% of their GDPs as their “fair share” in defense costs — except they don’t.

But the United States not only pays our “fair share,” we actually do more than our “fair share” by spending not the required 2%, but 3.6% of our GDP on defense. In dollar amount, U.S. defense spending in 2017 was $685.957 million — more than double the defense spending of all other NATO members  combined, as shown in the table below (source: Forbes).

At the just-concluded NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium, unlike his predecessors, President Trump confronted the other NATO leaders for treating the U.S. unfairly by their anemic defense spending.

During a meeting early Wednesday morning, July 11, President Trump publicly embarrassed NATO Secretary-General Jens “666” Stoltenberg. (See “Another candidate for the Beast“)

Photo of then-Norway’ Prime Minister Jen Stoltenberg in a “666” t-shirt. Date unknown

President Trump said to Stoltenberg:

“So, we’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France, we’re protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia where they’re paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia. So, we are supposed to protect you against Russia. You tell me if that is appropriate. This has been going on for decades. This has been brought up by other presidents, but other presidents never did anything about it. It’s very unfair to our country, it’s very unfair to our taxpayers. And I think that these countries have to step it up not over a 10 year period— they have to step it up immediately.”

Reuters reports that in an emergency session the next day, July 12, Trump gave an angry ultimatum that the United States could withdraw its support of NATO and “would have to look to go its own way”, according to one diplomatic source present in the room. Reportedly, he also told the NATO members that “a commitment of 4 percent would be required to achieve parity with U.S. defense expenditures.”

Stoltenberg and the other NATO member states blinked.

Fox News reports that “after confrontational and testy discussions between Trump and other NATO leaders,” the U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

In an impromptu press conference after an emergency session on July 12, President Trump said that the leaders of several other NATO member states had agreed to more quickly meet their commitment to raise their defense spending to 2% of GDP. NATO allies in 2014 had vowed to meet the 2% spending target by the end of 2024. Trump said an additional $33 billion would be spent on defense by NATO allies in “a relatively short number of years.” (Radio Free Europe)

For their parts (Radio Free Europe):

  • NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that “all allies have heard President Trump’s message loud and clear,” but later clarified to CNN that NATO countries had committed to defense spending at 2% of GDP, but would not confirm a claim made by Trump that the target was actually 4%. Stoltenberg said: “We understand that this American president is very serious about defense spending, and this is having a clear impact.”
  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel said there was a “clear commitment to NATO” by all who attended: “The American president demanded what has been discussed for months, that there is a change in the burden sharing. I made clear that we are on this path. And that this is in our own interests and that it will make us stronger.”
  • Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his country remains committed to increasing military spending as it pledged in 2014.

Other NATO leaders snipped and denied that they had agreed to increase their defense spending:

  • French President Macron insisted that the NATO members only agreed to the spending levels they’d previously agreed to in 2014.
  • An unnamed “senior European official” derisively called President Trump a crazy “old uncle”: “It was more a rant ‘2% immediately’ than a formal demand…there was no clear threat of withdrawal…. Usual Trump: a stream of incoherent sentences…. The allies looked the other way as when the old uncle gets nuts.”

Ever ready with his snipes, fake-Republican and fake-patriot Sen. John McCain blasted President Trump for his “disappointing” behavior, “misstatements and bluster” at the NATO summit, and dismissed what Trump said as “the words of one man”. (New York Post)

Between McCain and Trump, I certainly know which man is actually looking after America’s interests — and his name sure isn’t John McCain.



Steven Crowder confronts transgender who threatened to slash his tires

Steven Crowder confronts a hostile transgender who threatened to slash his tires during Crowder’s recent trip to Austin. Hilarity ensues when people lose their minds.

See also:


British actor Sacha Baron Cohen poses as disabled US vet to dupe Sarah Palin during interview

sacha baron choen

Cohen: Ugly man, both inside and out

Only a Hollyweird libtard would think it’s funny to pose as a disabled vet.

Cohen is a Brit with a juvenile sense of humor.

From Hollywood Reporter: Sarah Palin on Tuesday took to Facebook to reveal that she was unknowingly interviewed by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen for his upcoming Showtime series, Who Is America?

The former Republican vice-presidential candidate said she sat down for an interview with Cohen thinking he was a wounded U.S. veteran.

“Yup — we were duped. Ya’ got me, Sacha. Feel better now?” Palin began. “I join a long list of American public personalities who have fallen victim to the evil, exploitive, sick ‘humor’ of the British ‘comedian’ Sacha Baron Cohen, enabled and sponsored by CBS/Showtime.”

She continued: “This ‘legit opportunity’ to honor American Vets and contribute to a ‘legit Showtime historical documentary’ was requested of me via a speakers bureau.”

Palin went on to say that she and one of her daughters traveled across the country to meet with Cohen, who, she says, “had heavily disguised himself as a disabled U.S. Veteran, fake wheelchair and all.”

Out of respect for what I was led to believe would be a thoughtful discussion with someone who had served in uniform, I sat through a long ‘interview’ full of Hollywoodism’s disrespect and sarcasm — but finally had enough and literally, physically removed my mic and walked out, much to Cohen’s chagrin,” Palin elaborated. “The disrespect of our U.S. military and middle-class Americans via Cohen’s foreign commentaries under the guise of interview questions was perverse.”

Palin, who served as the ninth Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, then offered a “challenge” to Cohen, CBS and Showtime.

Donate all proceeds to a charitable group that actually respects and supports American Vets. Mock politicians and innocent public personalities all you want, if that lets you sleep at night, but HOW DARE YOU mock those who have fought and served our country,” she wrote, adding, “Truly sick.”

Palin also claimed that “the Cohen/CBS/Showtime production team purposefully dropped my daughter and me off at the wrong Washington, DC airport after the fake interview, knowing we’d miss all flights back home to Alaska.” She added, “I wrote this off as yet another example of the sick nature that is media-slash-entertainment today.”

Palin concluded her Facebook post by letting Cohen know that the daughter who accompanied her to the interview “thinks you’re a piece of ****,” asserting that “every honorable American Vet should feel the same.”

Read Palin’s entire post here. Showtime had no comment when contacted by The Hollywood Reporter.

Palin’s post comes just days after (I think they mean before) the July 15 premiere date for Who Is America? — described by Showtime as “the most dangerous show in the history of television” — was announced.

“Sacha is a comedic genius who shocks you with his audacity, bravery and inventiveness,” Showtime Networks president and CEO David Nevins said of the Borat star. “He is the premier provocateur of our time, but not for the sake of ‘gotcha’ moments. Behind the elaborate setup is a genuine quest for the truth about people, places and politics. Nobody knows how to cause a stir like Sacha Baron Cohen, and it’s going to be fascinating to watch what happens when Who Is America? is released on the world.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Let Showtime know what you think of this stunt. Contact them here.


We have a winner!

. . . for FOTM’s 179th Caption Contest!

There were 56 caption submissions.

This was a very difficult contest for the judges because there were so many very clever, equally good captions, and there was scant agreement among the judges.

The FOTM writers duly voted, each for what he/she considered to be the best (#1) and second-best (#2) captions. Each #1 vote is worth 4 points; each #2 vote is worth 2 points.

And the winner of FOTM’s 179th Caption Contest, with two #1 votes, totaling 8 points is . . .


This is the winning caption:

Soros: “I know you are dying but you’ve got to do more. We are losing!”

Six readers are in 2nd place, each with 4 points:

Hardtimes (two #2 votes): “Put your RINO mask on and get back out there!”

Jurist (two #2 votes): “You get one last chance to ruin everything, or your name is McCain’t.”

kjf (one #1 vote): “Damn it George, I’m a war hero and a Senator”  “No John, you are my biotch”

Paul Sunderman (one #1 vote): Soros: “Soon, you will be with my father — Satan.”

WRW (one #1 vote): “Say Hi to Dad for me when you get to hell. Tell him I’m doing the best I can.”

YouKnowWho (one #1 vote): “You’re gonna take it bending over or you’re gonna take it laying down, but you ARE gonna take it,”

lophatt and MoFrappy are in 3rd place, each with one #2 vote and 2 points:

lophatt: “Drop and give me fifty, McStain. Do you have any idea how much it costs me to keep you in the Republican party?”

MoFrappy: “John, don’t worry about dying- I’ve been dead for years and never felt better!”

Well done, everyone!

Congratulations, Roy!

Here is your fancy-schmancy Award Certificate of Great Excellence, all ready for framing! LOL


For all the other caption submissions, go here and here.

Be here tomorrow for our next, very exciting Caption Contest!


Fake News: Millionaires flee California because of high taxes

You may have seen reports of millionaires fleeing California because of tax increases on the wealthy. An example is an article by Steve Straub in The Federalist on July 6, 2018, in which Straub claims a direct cause-and-effect relationship between Prop. 30 and millionaires leaving the state:

According to new research released by Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, California lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals following passage of the Proposition 30 income tax increase championed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and approved by Golden State voters in 2012….

Prop. 30 raised the state’s top income tax rate by 8%, increasing it one percentage point from 12.3% to 13.3%, which is now the highest state income tax rate in the nation. Prop. 30 also hiked the tax rate on income between $300,000 and $500,000 by two percentage points, and raised the rate on income in excess of $500,000 by three percentage points.

In 2016, California voters extended the Prop. 30 income tax increases, which were originally scheduled to expire in 2019, until 2030. There will be an effort to extend those income tax hikes yet again prior to their expiration in 2030; book it now.

Varner’s new research examined taxpayers who were and were not hit by the Prop. 30 rate hikes. He found that in the two years before the Prop. 30 tax hike was imposed (2011 and 2012), net in-migration for both groups “was positive and roughly constant.” Yet following 2012 and the passage of Prop. 30, net in-migration dropped for households that were facing an effective tax increase of 0.5 percent or more. The reduction was greatest for households facing the highest effective tax hike, according to Varner and his coauthors, who include Allen Prohofsky of the California Franchise Tax Board….

Who could have ever predicted that raising taxes on the wealthy, higher than any other state in the country, would drive them out of the state?

Notice that nowhere in his article does Straub provide a link to his source — that study by “Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality” — which is always cause for suspicion.

Nor does The Federalist enable reader comments on Straub’s article, which means I can’t even notify The Federalist if Steve Straub is mistaken — which he turns out to be.

So I went looking on the web for the original source.

I could not find this study on the website of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, but I did find a news release by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (SCPI) which says just the opposite of what Straub claims. Not only is the much-touted “millionaire migration” from California “simply a myth,” migration in and out of California has nothing to do with taxes.

The research was conducted by these two individuals at the request of the California Board of Equalization, allowing them unique access to California Franchise Tax Board income data:

  • Cristobal Young, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford.
  • Charles Varner, then a doctoral candidate in sociology at Princeton University.

The SCPI news release states:

Embroiled in the California debate over Proposition 30‘s progressive income tax proposals, some politicians have argued that raising taxes on the highest earners will drive them to states with lower tax rates, taking businesses and jobs with them.

But a study released by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality concludes that “millionaire migration” is simply a myth.

The reason the number of California millionaires varies from year to year has almost nothing to do with taxes, the researchers found. Instead, the numbers change as incomes fluctuate, most likely because investments are sensitive to market cycles.

Varner and Young looked at millionaire migration after California’s 2005 Mental Health Services Tax was enacted, as well as after state tax cuts in 1996.

They found that millionaires did not flee as a result of the tax increase (in fact, more millionaires moved into the state than out during that period), nor did millionaires from elsewhere move to California as a result of the tax cuts….

What could account for the fluctuations in California’s millionaire population? According to the study, it’s not due to tax changes or rich people leaving the state. Almost all of the fluctuation comes from income dynamics at the top, with taxpayers falling into and out of the millionaire income bracket as their income rises and falls across the million-dollar mark from year to year.

The temporary nature of such high earnings may help explain why the additional taxes in the study didn’t cause a noticeable flight of millionaires.

Personal connections seem to weigh more heavily than tax rates in deciding where to take up residence. “People are tied to states for different reasons,” Young said. “They don’t want to take their kids out of school, they want to stay connected with friends, with families … with business contacts.” People crowd together, from Silicon Valley to New York City, because of the returns associated with collaboration, he said….

Young added that looking at the tax flight issue only scratches the surface of state financial woes. “People need to think about the depth of California’s budget problems,” he said. “I think there’s much, much bigger things to worry about than this issue of tax flight because it’s really hard to find any evidence of it.”

Even more curious is the fact that the embedded links to the Young-Varner study in the SCPI news release don’t work. When you click the words “study” and “Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality” in the phrase “a study released by the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality,” you get this message:

Object not found!

As Alice in Wonderland would say, “Curiouser and curiouser!”

I finally found a link to the elusive study by Young and Varner in a July 6, 2018 article by Patrick Gleason for Forbes, in which Gleason repeats The Federalist‘s claim that millionaires flee from California because of tax hikes:

According to new research released by Charles Varner, associate director of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, California lost an estimated 138 high-income individuals following passage of the Proposition 30 income tax increase championed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and approved by Golden State voters in 2012.

The only problem is that is simply not what the authors of the study actually wrote.

From Charles Varner and Cristobal Young, Millionaire Migration in California: The Impact of Top Tax Rates, 2012, pp. 2-4:

California is one of eight states that have established a “millionaire tax” in recent years. The popular appeal of these taxes is that they raise revenue from those seen to have greater ability to pay a higher rate on the highest portion of their incomes. The concern, however, is that millionaire taxes may lead to millionaire migration, with potentially serious loss of revenues for the state.

This study addresses the following key question: Do changes in California’s top income tax rates lead to changes in the migration of top incomes? . . . .

The authors summarized their findings, denying that there is a “millionaire migration” from California or and that this non-existent migration is due to taxes:

1. Migration is a very small component of changes in the number of millionaires in California. While the millionaire population sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of more than 10,000 people, net migration sees a typical year-to-year fluctuation of 50 to 120 people. At the most, migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population. The remaining 98.8 percent of changes in the millionaire population is due to income dynamics at the top – California residents growing into the millionaire bracket, or falling out of it again.

2. Using difference-in-differences models, which compare migration trends of the group experiencing the tax increase to a group of high-income earners not facing a tax change, neither in-migration or out-migration show a tax flight effect from the introduction of the 2005 Mental Health Services Tax. In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed . . . .

4. The 1996 tax cuts on high incomes likewise had no consistent effect on migration. There was a small effect for those experiencing the small (0.7%) tax cut, but no effect at all for those experiencing the large (1.7%) rate cut. While we are planning to analyze the 1996 tax cut in greater detail, the overall picture is one of no clear effect.

Instead, what the study found was that whatever “millionaire migration” there is is due to personal factors, specifically divorce:

There is a strong out-migration effect for high-income earners who become divorced. In the year of divorce, the migration rate more than doubles, and remains slightly elevated for two years after the event. This shows that there are circumstances that do generate millionaire migration. The tax policy changes examined in this report are very modest compared to the life-impact of martial dissolution.

The authors’ explanation for why California millionaires don’t flee because of the state’s high taxes is this:

Most people who earn $1 million or more are having an unusually good year. Most “millionaires” earned less in years past, and they are not likely to earn this much again. A representative “millionaire” will only have a handful of years in the $1 million + tax bracket. The somewhat ephemeral nature of very high income is one reason why the top-income taxes examined here generate no observable tax flight. It is difficult to migrate away from an unusually good year of income.

To conclude, the Stanford study cited by countless conservative bloggers and writers as showing millionaires fleeing California because of high taxes, actually says just the opposite — millionaires are not leaving California, nor are they fleeing because of the state’s punitively higher taxes on high-income earners.

In other words, what those articles in The Federalist, Forbes, NewsMax, and blogs such as report is FAKE NEWS.

It really does not serve the cause or interests of conservatives to distort the truth.


New York Times calls for war against President Trump using mafia Godfather tactics

The New York Times has abandoned all pretenses at objective journalism or even decency.

On July 6, 2018, the Times‘ editorial board published an editorial titled “Democrats: Do Not Surrender the Judiciary,” calling on Democrats and progressives to go to war against President Trump by deploying unscrupulous mafia tactics.

The editorial says:

With Republicans controlling the Senate and the judicial filibuster dead, the Democrats’ odds of denying President Trump a second Supreme Court appointment are slim. Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation.

This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue.

NYT editorial Democrat war on Trump

The New York Times tells Democrats to “take a page from” the 1972 movie, The Godfather. The following are the tactics used by the Corleone and rival crime families in the movie:

  • Spying
  • Garroting
  • Shooting (gunning down)
  • Ambush with machine guns
  • Car bomb
  • Sending a dead fish as a message that someone had been murdered (“sleeps with the fishes”)
  • Decapitating a horse and putting its bloody head in the bed as a warning

As Breitbart‘s John Nolte points out:

The term “going to the mattresses” means going to war.

The Urban Dictionary accurately describes the phrase as meaning “preparing for battle” within the context of a mob war, a violent mob war involving firearms, assassinations, and bombings.

The anti-Trump New York Times describes this editorial as a “call to arms” and adds that the “fire now raging against Mr. Trump and his nominees can’t be sustained indefinitely.”

As of July 7, Breitbart News has documented 190 acts (this list continues to be updated and now numbers 254) of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters during the last 31 months.

The establishment media continue to ignore, downplay, encourage, and even justify violence against their political enemies on the right, and the result of this indifference and wink-wink encouragement is an epidemic of violence and harassment.

Simply put, the media have declared “open season” on Trump supporters.

And now, we have the “esteemed” New York Times editorial board calling for Democrats to use the mafia as their inspiration to stop a judicial appointment.

Keep in mind that the same media encouraging this violence against everyday Americans is the same media constantly campaigning to have those same everyday Americans left helpless by disarming them.

The New York Times‘ despicable editorial is reproached by a reader, “Walked away,” who wrote this comment on July 7, 2018:

As an African American man, I have lived in the DC for a considerable period of time, and I have never seen the type of vulgar, mean spiritedness rage after an election. After the election I went to my place of work, and the police told us to remain in the building because of the riots taking place.

When President Obama was elected that never happened. Yes, conservatives hated it, vowed to make him a one term president, but no burning cars, broken windows, bullied people because you wore an Obama or hat shirt.

Now we have a Congresswoman openly endorsing harassment of cabinet members – at their home, and while they carry out their daily duties! What if a child is involved?

For the first time in my life we have our own elected officials advocating for people who are not American citizens more them than American citizens.

From where I’m sitting, the Dems are positioning themselves for a great loss during the Midterms and quite possibly the General. The vitriolic narrative is one thing, but assaults and harassment are another. You cannot act or be like what you don’t want in the White House, and yet; that’s what the Dems are doing. When you endorse harassment, censorship and hatred, the sleeper effects of the silent majority will nail you, just as it did election night.

In my opinion, fix both your narratives and optics if you want to win the SCOTUS and in the voting booth. What I am witnessing from the Democratic party is not just unAmerican it’s scary.

Here’s a screenshot of the comment:

See also: