Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 134 Comments
“It’s a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing. All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. There is no doubt that the U.S. is behaving badly. Why are they not seeking to confiscate weapons of mass destruction from their ally Israel? This is just an excuse to get Iraq’s oil. . . .
“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.”
– Nelson Mandela, Jan. 30, 2003
De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, eh?
History is distorted beyond recognition because liberals insist that their heroes must be everyone’s heroes, and many conservatives are so intimidated by the enormous prestige of liberalism that it takes a stern contempt for mere popularity to speak unpleasant truths.
The news of Nelson Mandela’s death at age 95 was announced while I was babysitting my newborn grandson Jimmy, and between attending him and my desire to be properly decorous, it was surprisingly easy to say nothing until I happened to see Mark Krikorian RT a message from the Communist Party of Scotland:
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 5, 2013
Ah, ancient history. There’s no one under 40 who really remembers the Cold War and the era of those Third World “wars of national liberation” in places like Algeria, Cuba and Vietnam. Locked into a worldwide battle for survival against communist aggression — the “long twilight struggle,” as John F. Kennedy called it — the United States supported or opposed foreign governments with a single-minded view toward defeating the Soviet menace. Under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the CIA masterminded coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), while under Kennedy, we attempted to overthrow Castro in 1961 and supported the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in 1963. Various other such adventures, less noted in history, were undertaken in many countries — hell, Greece nearly went Red after World War II — and if U.S. foreign policy was not defined by “unspeakable atrocities,” it was certainly not always a peaceful or pleasant business.
Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan executes a Vietcong terrorist, February 1968.
The best articulation of sound Cold War policy was Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” from which I quote:
The American commitment [under the Carter administration] to “change” in the abstract ends up by aligning us tacitly with Soviet clients and irresponsible extremists like the Ayatollah Khomeini or, in the end, Yasir Arafat.
So far, assisting “change” has not led the Carter administration to undertake the destabilization of a Communist country. The principles of self-determination and nonintervention are thus both selectively applied. We seem to accept the status quo in Communist nations (in the name of ‘diversity” and national autonomy), but not in nations ruled by “right-wing” dictators or white oligarchies. . . .
Something very odd is going on here. How does an administration that desires to let people work out their own destinies get involved in determined efforts at reform in South Africa, Zaire, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere? How can an administration committed to nonintervention in Cambodia and Vietnam announce that it “will not be deterred” from righting wrongs in South Africa? . . .
[T]he Carter administration . . . came to power resolved not to assess international developments in the light of “cold-war” perspectives but to accept at face value the claim of revolutionary groups to represent “popular” aspirations and “progressive” forces — regardless of the ties of these revolutionaries to the Soviet Union. To this end, overtures were made looking to the “normalization” of relations with Vietnam, Cuba, and the Chinese People’s Republic, and steps were taken to cool relations with South Korea, South Africa, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and others. These moves followed naturally from the conviction that the U.S. had, as our enemies said, been on the wrong side of history in supporting the status quo and opposing revolution.
What Kirkpatrick was saying was that the Carter administration’s policies were a departure from three decades of U.S. policy, and had set aside both opposition to communism and the pursuit of other U.S. interests. It did so because of its commitment to abstract ideals and its miscalculation of Soviet intentions. Carter was thereby weakening our friends and strengthening our enemies:
The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of good intentions but for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest.
It was in this difficult context, then, that the U.S. was obligated to support the friendly (and staunchly anti-communist) government in South Africa, not because of apartheid, but despite apartheid. Furthermore, so long as the worldwide struggle against communism continued, the United States could not afford to “accept at face value the claim of revolutionary groups to represent ‘popular’ aspirations and ‘progressive’ forces.” Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress was one such group. I’m grateful to Bob Belvedere at the Camp of the Saints for calling attention to the file on Mandela at David Horowitz’s Discover the Networks site, which details the ANC’s resort to violent terrorism and includes this:
In 1990, as the government of Frederik DeKlerk moved to end apartheid, the ANC was legalized and Mandela was released from prison. In part, DeKlerk was motivated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had made no secret of its desire to control South Africa’s vast mineral wealth and keep it out of Western hands. With the USSR gone, the Communist threat vanished. For his part, Mandela, in a 1991 speech to a joint meeting of the ANC and IFP, urged black Africans to abandon terrorist tactics and to use peaceful methods to end apartheid.
This is a key point: Revolutionary groups with no worse reputation than the ANC, and leaders with no worse reputation than Mandela, had in other nations posed as “agrarian reformers” and critics of abusive governments, until such time as they succeeded in toppling those governments, at which point they cast aside the “reformer” mask, unfurled the banner of Marxism, and aligned their “popular” regimes with the Soviet bloc. Such was the story in Cuba and Nicaragua, and the U.S. could not ignore Soviet aspirations in Africa.
Only after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and with the Soviet Union collapsing into “the ash heap of history,” could a peaceful transition to a post-apartheid South Africa safely occur. The tsunami of obituary praise for Mandela — “an international emblem of dignity and forbearance,” the New York Times proclaims — threatens to wash away the historical reality of who Mandela actually was.
— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) December 5, 2013
@joelpollak Hey, I just said it was a very interesting Tweet.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 5, 2013
Now, Joel Pollak is a friend, but he was born in 1977 — the year I graduated high school — so that by the time he was old enough to vote, the Cold War was already a fading memory. And I appreciate Pollak’s concern that conservatives observe decorum on this occasion, but if conservatives do not insist on remembering history as it really was, we acquiesce in liberal revision of that history.
Nelson Mandela was at all times a man of the Left — anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel — as attested by the fact that as late as 2003, he could say, “All Bush wants is Iraqi oil,” make a sneering reference to Israel, accuse the U.S. of “unspeakable atrocities,” and even play the race card over the Iraq War:
Bush is now undermining the United Nations. . . . Both Bush, as well as Tony Blair, are undermining an idea which was sponsored by their predecessors. They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? . . . They never did that when secretary-generals were white.
Mandela’s tenure as president of South Africa was, thank God, not the nightmare that Mugabe inflicted on neighboring Zimbabwe, but we ought not be fooled by liberal myth-makers who wish to reinvent Mandela as a secular saint whom all are obligated to revere.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
– John Adams
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 73 Comments
Remember the infamous business plan from the South Park episode?
- Collect Underpants
Say hello to the president’s economic theory:
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) December 4, 2013
It would be an insult to readers to explain why this won’t work, but I will say that in my adult lifetime, every increase in the minimum wage has been followed within a year or two by a recession. Drew M. at AOSHQ endeavors to address the flaws in Obama’s idea, but it’s depressing to think that any adult can’t figure out why raising the minimum wage inevitably causes an increase in unemployment.
And speaking of depressing things to think about, we’ve got 9 million people on disability, 15% of them for mood disorders!
Mood disorders! More than a million Americans are currently collecting a check every month because they feel sad.
It that’s not enough to make you fly into a manic rage . . .
The Declaration of Independence speaks of “the pursuit of happiness” as a natural right, but we can’t re-distribute happiness, can’t we?Nevertheless, we’ve got 1.3 million people getting disability payments for mood disorders, and Medicaid pays for their happy pills.
If that’s not enough to drive you crazy, try this:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday said Democrats would not support a budget deal that does not extend emergency unemployment benefits, which are set to lapse on Dec. 28 for about 1.3 million people.
Right: We must spend more money we don’t have to pay people not to work and WE ARE SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT!
OK, so now that you’re in a frothing bipolar rage, hurry to the nearest mental hospital and get diagnosed: Obama-Induced Mania.
There’s a lot of that going around lately . . .
Anyone else feeling on the verge of a Sam Kinison-style screaming fit? "MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES DON'T CREATE JOBS! AARRGGHH!"
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 5, 2013
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 35 Comments
Apparently they’re making so much money with bad Spider-Man movies they’ve already greenlit sequels for 2016 and 2018. I guess that’s the ultimate in movie properties — if you can make $750 million with a bad movie, then why the hell not just keep making them forever? . . .
So we all have this continuing Cartoon Nightmare for Adult Children to look forward to for some number of years . . .
Okay, I’m officially done with comic book movies. It took a while to get here, but now I’m agreeing with the cranky guys who’ve been saying “What the hell is this stupid crap?” for eight years.
Here’s a scenario: A lone blogger is transformed by a radioactive bottle of Valu-Rite vodka into a crime-fighting super-hero. He is opposed by the villains, SCOAMF and Pelosi the Botoxed Skeletor.
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 33 Comments
Woolwich, England, May 22: Killer shouted, ‘Allahu akbar!’
Britain plans to classify “Islamist extremism” as a distinct ideology, British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday, as part the government’s response to the murder of a soldier on a busy London street.
Cameron said he would implement recommendations he had received from a task force he set up after the murder of Lee Rigby in May, to try to stop people being radicalised by “hate preachers”. . . .
“Islamist extremism” would, for the first time, be classified as a distinct ideology to guard against it being confused with traditional religious practice, he said.
Cameron wants to tackle violent ideologies that claim Islamic justification but by doing so in a way that does not alienate Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims.
The new definition would make it clear that “Islamist extremism” was a distorted interpretation of Islam that betrayed the religion’s principles and tried to sow division.
The Muslim terrorist who hacked a British soldier to death in broad daylight [May 22] — and was captured on shocking video shouting, “You people will never be safe!” — was identified [May 23] as the son of Nigerian immigrants who had embraced radical Islam to the horror of his devout Christian parents. Michael Olumide Adebolajo, 28, was known to Britain’s MI5 intelligence as a potentially dangerous extremist, the Sun tabloid reported. Sources told Sun reporters that Adebolajo became a Muslim as a teenager and was linked to radical leader Anjem Choudary, whose Islamist group Al-Muhajiroun has been banned in Britain. . . .
Lee Rigby, a 25-year-old Army veteran of Afghanistan, was the target of the attack. . . . Video of Wednesday’s attack showed Adebolajo yelling “Allahu akbar” while brandishing a butcher knife and a meat cleaver with Rigby’s blood covering his hands.
It seems there are an awful lot of Muslims who share this ”Islamist extremism” hatred of the West. Perhaps I’m the only one who remembers watching TV news coverage on Sept. 11, 2001, when crowds of Muslims were dancing in the streets of Cairo and Gaza in celebration of the terrorist attacks masterminded by al-Qaeda.
Pamela Geller notices how the British government has tied itself in knots trying to distinguish Islam (good) from extremism (bad). Perhaps she and her colleague Robert Spencer could explain this problem to the British, if they weren’t banned from entering the country because of their “pro-Israel views”:
The move to ban us . . . was a massive operation. . . . At the first whisper of a rumor by some “hooligans” that Robert Spencer and I might be speaking at a freedom demo in the UK, numerous British government and law enforcement agencies sprung into action. Although Robert Spencer and I had not decided to go and speak in the UK until June, various government agencies began working to ban us as early as February.
Are supporters of Israel beheading British soldiers in broad daylight? Are radical Zionists bombing London’s subways and buses?
No, of course not, but the British elite class has succumbed to the kind of cowardly fecklessness that inspired Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” folly at Munich and so — as appeasement to Britain’s most dangerous enemies – Geller and Spencer are banned.
Can no one in England do simple arithmetic? The population of the United Kingdom is 63 million, and yet Her Majesty’s Government is engaged in this humiliating appeasement because of their concern that they “not alienate Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims.”
The 4 percent tail is wagging the 96 percent dog.
While certainly no civilized person wishes to infringe anyone else’s legitimate rights, must the vast majority of Britons silently endure the humiliating spectacle of their own government tiptoing around for fear of hurting the feelings of the 4% Muslim minority?
How rapidly does decadence advance! Scarcely seven decades ago, Britain stood alone against the unspeakable terror of the Blitz. Her soldiers, sailors and airmen covered themselves in eternal glory, fighting in the distant desert, on the high seas, and in the skies over London to defeat Hitler’s deadly totalitarian war machine. Yet now the grandsons of those heroes are willing to surrender everything because they are afraid of offending a handful of disgruntled imams, professional “activists” and liberal newspaper columnists?
Is there not one courageous man left in the United Kingdom who can summon that once-proud nation to recall its great heritage?
UPDATE: “By the command of Allah“:
The alleged murderers of Lee Rigby told police they cut his throat with a knife because ‘this is how we kill our animals in Islam’, a court was told today.
Michael Adebolajo said in an interview that ‘the most humane way to kill any creature is to cut the jugular’, the Old Bailey heard.
He allegedly also told detectives that he and Michael Adebowale targeted Fusilier Rigby because he was the first soldier that they saw while waiting near Woolwich Barracks on May 22 this year. . . .
Describing the day of the killing, he said: ‘We decided to wait in the vicinity of the barracks that are in Woolwich. By the command of Allah, Allah’s decree, we waited to find a soldier because between us we decided that the soldier is the most fair target because he joins the army with kind of an understanding that your life is at risk.’
Britain’s soldiers are killed in the name of Allah, but Her Majesty’s Government must take care not to “alienate” Muslims.
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 12 Comments
Once in a while you trip over a book that normally you wouldn’t look twice at, and so far this month I’ve found two of them. The first is a peculiar beast: It’s A Wonderful Death is a noir sequel to Frank Capra’s classic Christmas movie It’s A Wonderful Life, starring former New York assistant DA Richard Incles as a newly minted private eye, hired by Mary Bailey to clear her husband George. It seems the man everybody loves to hate, Old Man Potter, has been found dead in his office, his mouth stuffed full of money. Everyone’s a suspect – everyone had the motive and a lot of folks had the opportunity to off the old banker, but George Bailey is the #1 suspect. E.N. McMahon’s short novel plays with all the noir movie tropes in an amusing way, and is well worth your time and money. It’s free to Amazon Prime users under the Lending Library program.
So Join Amazon Prime.
The other unusual book is Monster Hunter Alpha by Larry Correia. I should point out that I don’t have much interest in conventional horror; tales of vampires, werewolves and such tend to leave me cold. By and large, I much prefer my horror in the Lovecraftian vein, whether it’s the Old Master himself (H.P. Lovecraft The Complete Collection) or contemporary versions of the Mythos such as Tim Powers’ Declare or Charles Stross’ The Atrocity Archives and its sequels. Correia does a good job of telling a classic tale of werewolf horror set in rural Michigan, one with its roots in the past but with plenty of contemporary complications to make a bad situation worse. I liked this enough to make me seriously think about checking out the rest of this series, and in the meantime I checked out his holiday novel, The Christmas (Noun) (and its two sequels) here. Good clean violent fun for the whole family!
A commenter brought this up on Black Friday’s In The Mailbox thread: Herbert Werner’s Iron Coffins, a grim and very personal history of the U-boat war in the Atlantic that goes very well with the more famous movie Das Boot , which is available free on Amazon Instant Video to Prime members.
I’ll probably be making a library run tomorrow. Any suggestions?
Also, thanks to everyone who bought books, movies and the Wand Essentials 8 Speed 8 Mode Wand, Purple (no, that’s not a joke) through my links last month. It was very much appreciated!
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 7 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: I Came, I Saw, Iran
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: The Tarantino Presidency
Michelle Malkin: Anti-Gun NFL (National Frauds League)
Twitchy: The Gift Of Truth! FLOTUS Announces “Stories Of The Season”, Laura Ingraham Slays
Bill Whittle: Shards
This Ain’t Hell: Bateman On Guns – It’s Time To Shut Up
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Millennial Generation Abandons Obama
American Thinker: Targeting The Low-Information Voter
Blackfive: Godspeed Edward “Babe” Heffron And Earl “One Lung” McClung
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Public Pensions Watch – Detroit Signals A Change…Maybe
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, December 4
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama’s America – Rent-A-Mob Protesters Get Paid To Get Angry
JustOneMinute: Show Us The Money! And The Memo!
Pat Dollard: Portland Tells Preteen To Stop Selling Mistletoe To Raise Money For Braces, Tells Her To Beg Instead
Protein Wisdom: Representative Government? Depends. Are You A GOP Corporate Crony?
Shot In The Dark: The Democrat War On Science
The Jawa Report: Al Qaeda Live Tweeting Report
The Lonely Conservative: Obama’s Latest Pivot – Income Inequality
Megan McArdle: Four Reasons A Guaranteed Income Won’t Work
Posted on | December 5, 2013 | 12 Comments
All of these guilt-mongers can go get stuffed. We can be intellectually honest about our shortcomings without veering into the destructive self-hatred that so many Lefties just seem to groove on. I don’t give guilt, and I refuse to receive it from them.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 | 52 Comments
A supposed hate crime that made big news in Massachusetts now appears to have been a hoax — but still, perhaps, a crime:
The investigation into who spray painted a home with racist graffiti last month has turned toward the woman who lives there.
Police said on Wednesday that Andrea Brazier is now considered a “strong suspect” in the case.
Officers say they executed a search warrant on Tuesday and seized two cans of spray paint and ammunition from the home.
Brazier, who is white, and her husband Anthony Phillips, who is African American live at the home with their 13-year-old son, Isaac. Brazier initially cast suspicion on her son’s Lunenburg High School football teammates, saying he had been bullied in the past.
The school’s superintendent cancelled the football team’s final game on Thanksgiving after no one came forward to take responsibility. . . .
(Whoa! They canceled the high school football team’s last game because of a mere suspicion of racism?)
A police affidavit obtained on Wednesday indicated that Brazier had stopped cooperating with investigators and had changed her story several times. . . .
During an interview with police and an FBI agent, she told them that she wanted the investigation to be over and wanted the media to go away.
Ruh-roh. If she lied to the FBI, she could be in big trouble. But since when is it the FBI’s job to investigate racist graffiti? And if real racist graffiti is a federal offense, what is fake racist graffiti? The alleged hate crime was a big deal last month:
Days after the vandalism, several hundred residents gathered in the center of town for a candlelight vigil to show their support for Isaac Phillips, who played on Lunenburg’s freshman and junior varsity teams.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 | 81 Comments
Yeah, a lot of readers are asking, “Charles Who?” But the dude actually used to be somebody, and now he’s reduced to playing silly Media Matters/Crooks & Liars “gotcha” games with blog commenters:
“Meanwhile, at Breitbart.com, where they’ve been on a non-stop campaign to get Bashir fired, they’re in a celebratory mood. And you know what that means: lots of gloating (nobody gloats like a wingnut), mixed with thousands of openly racist, xenophobic comments: MSNBC’S BASHIR RESIGNS!!!“
Johnson links to an article by Ben Shapiro. Is he accusing Shapiro of leading this “right wing lynch mob”? Is he saying that Shapiro or anyone else at Breitbart endorses and/or encourages “openly racist, xenophobic comments”? What exactly is he saying?
Better question: Does anyone believe that Martin Bashir resigned from MSNBC because of the “non-stop campaign to get Bashir fired” by Breitbart.com? Or do you suppose, rather, that Bashir’s comments were simply indefensible and that MSNBC — taking a look at Bashir’s anemic ratings — is probably just seizing on this controversy as a pretext to give that time slot to someone more likeable?
Posted on | December 4, 2013 | 62 Comments
Of course, if MSNBC fired every one of their hosts who said something stupid, they've be left broadcasting a test pattern.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 4, 2013
When you think about all the evil things the liberal media have said about Sarah Palin over the years, you know it took a special kind of stupid for Martin Bashir to say something so grossly offensive he had to resign from MSNBC because of it:
“Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments. . . .
“I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers.”
“Liberals are better than you and me because . . . they’re liberals,” as I observed at the time of Bashir’s fateful comments. Believing that their politics makes them inherently superior, liberals feel no obligation to cultivate ordinary virtues or even simple courtesy.
This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da – bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension. I’ll bet he’s mystified even now.
Via Memeorandum, with more blog commentary from Jeff Dunetz, Ed Driscoll, Weasel Zippers, Andrew Johnson at National Review, Patrick Howley at Daily Caller, Ross Kaminsky at The American Spectator and William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
Just a reminder of when Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Martin Bashir. http://t.co/2WvckjSIqY And it was EPIC!
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 4, 2013
By the way, Sarah Palin spoke at Liberty University today and said, “There are the world’s standards of perfection and God’s standards of perfection.” And then there are the MSNBC standards.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 | 17 Comments
Somebody’s going to be happy to get this awesome 32-GB WiFi tablet for Christmas, and I reckon one of our readers must have bought it on an Amazon Cyber Monday Deals Week special, because the regular price is $269, whereas our smart shopper paid only $219.
Tablets are like the new smartphone or something. All the cool kids have one. The original idea of the Kindle was like an electronic book, but now kids use them to play video games and watch movies. Like, you can get Fast and Furious 6 as an Amazon Instant Video download for $14.99, and Jeff Bezos says the Amazon Kindle Fire HDX 8.9-inch will kick the butt of those expensive iPads — for only $379.
You can buy anything at Amazon, get great prices and free shipping for most purchases over $35 and, as long as your shopping trip begins via the links on my blog, I get a small commission at no cost to you.
Obama has a web site that doesn't work and drones that kill people. Amazon has a functioning web site and drones that deliver gifts.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 3, 2013
Like the cool kids say, it’s awesome, dude.
Posted on | December 4, 2013 | 34 Comments
OK, it’s a little more subtle than that, but when Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor voted for ObamaCare four years ago, he knew this Day of Judgment was coming and now he says he’s seen the light:
Sen. Mark Pryor is out with a new TV ad offering a Biblical solution to the already heated 2014 Senate race in Arkansas.
Pryor’s campaign said the ad will begin airing on Wednesday. In the 30 second ad, Pryor speaks directly to the camera about his faith in the Bible. The ad is a substantial purchase for the campaign and will run statewide.
“I’m not ashamed to say that I believe in God, and I believe in His word. The Bible teaches us no one has all the answers. Only God does. And neither political party is always right,” Pryor says in the ad. “This is my compass. My North Star. It gives me comfort and guidance to do what’s best for Arkansas.”
Pryor ends the ad saying he supports the message because “This is who I am, and what I believe.”
Pryor is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country, partly because of his party line support of the Affordable Care Act and as his campaign is forced to deal with low approval numbers of Pres. Obama in Arkansas. . . .
Pryor is facing Republican Congressman Tom Cotton, who is vacating his seat in the 4th congressional district.
Mark Pryor is a Democrat. All Democrats are liars. Therefore, if Mark Pryor says he’s a Christian, the exact opposite is probably true, and he’s got a pentagram-shaped altar in his basement where he engages in ritual human sacrifice to His Satanic Majesty.
TOM COTTON for U.S. SENATE
Because Jesus wouldn’t vote for Mark Pryor
« go back — keep looking »