Strzok Strikes Out, or, Democrats Applaud Claim That Law Enforcement Can’t Be Racist


According to Democrats, he’s the hero. In the ~27 minute clip I watched of the hearing, I think I saw each face here except the middle one. Image From Zerohedge.

Peter Strzok, for those who don’t know, was the anti-Trump FBI agent who exonerated Hillary and originated/was lead investigator for/was point of contact for one of the investigations into Trump over collusion with Russia, which began right after Hillary was exonerated, all in the midst of the 2016 Presidential race. During the Clinton investigation, Strzok texted that Hillary should win “100,000,000 – 0” before he had even completed the investigation, before a lot of the interviews had even taken place for it. He and his mistress Lisa Page were concerned that they were being too harsh to Hillary despite giving her a one-of-a-kind softball interrogation that Strzok himself was part of: they did not record the interview which is normal, didn’t make Hillary take an oath to tell the truth which is abnormal, and allowed her to have two previously-interrogated witnesses to be present, which is usually a no-no so that the government has a better chance of catching the accused in conflicting statements. One previously interrogated witness herself got a good deal- she got an immunity deal, then handed over her laptop which contained classified information when it should not have, then was allowed to walk out in the middle of her own interrogation because it went into an area she didn’t want it to go into! Strzok also altered the exoneration letter for Hillary, drafted months before Hillary was interviewed, so that the original text of “gross negligence”, which is a crime, was changed to mirror Obama’s phrasing, that Hillary acted carelessly. Yes, you heard right. The same President who said he does not talk to anyone in the DOJ about pending investigations, who said he hadn’t really been tracking the situation, said that Hillary was not guilty of a crime before the investigation had concluded, despite Hillary having illegally deleted emails (and lied to Congress about it, which usually means a contempt charge if say some unknown like you or me did it), broken a bunch of other laws, and exposed our sensitive info to hackers.

Why do I say Obama’s “careless” statement is an exoneration of Hillary? Because the FBI made a one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law: that Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. FBI Director Comey admitted this, saying Hillary needed “criminal intent”.

You hear “oh if someone else did it they’d be locked up” a lot, so let’s give a real-life example  A Navy sailor had no criminal intent (he had no intention to show the pictures to anyone until AFTER their contents were declassified) in a contemporary case that violated security and involved sending classified info to private sources. Guess what? He was jailed, his Hillary defense thrown out. (On the other hand we have Kate Steinle’s killer, who the jury determined had no malicious intent, so he was let off despite conflicting testimony from him about the incident. Because the Left thinks their candidate and their murderous illegal alien angels need proof of intent while an honorable sailor who made a mistake should be locked away for years offhand. Welcome to the Left’s vision for America).

As for the difference being that the sailor knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes fail to acknowledge, lest it makes the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, C: Hillary at various points demanded classified markings be removed from items that were to be sent to her, so she DID knowingly receive such info, her own words show that she DEMANDED it! Which also means D: Hillary knowingly lied to Congress, and pretty much everyone.

Back To Strzok

Since we’ll get into Strzok’s bias, let’s start with a quote.

“Several of their text messages also appeared to mix political opinions 
with discussions about the Midyear and Russia investigations, 
raising a question as to whether Strzok’s and Page’s political opinions 
may have affected investigative decisions”
--Inspector General Report on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page

Strzok went before Congress on July 12, 2018. The result was an appalling display of hypocrisy by the Democrats… as usual. So I guess forget that appalling part, it’s happened so much we’re numb to it. But let’s break down one of the incidents- when Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tried to question Strzok.

The Democrats put up a magnificent struggle to run interference for Strzok. They tried to deny Gowdy the ability to even question Strzok. Idiot Congressmen, I guess keeping their end of the bargain by protecting Strzok in exchange for his tipping the scales in favor of Hillary and starting the anti-Trump investigations, pulled out some real headscratchers.

  • Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) raised a point of order, repeatedly, that was not valid (and implicit in his point of order was that Congress has no oversight of the FBI, or at least SHOULDN’T have oversight of the FBI).
  • To Nadler’s point, a Congresswoman (camera wasn’t on her, but I think Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)) said the point of order could be that Gowdy was asking for a violation of attorney-client privilege. Firstly, it would be up to JERRY, not Sheila, to have a valid point of order since Jerry was the one raising it. Second, the circumstance for this was that Strzok refused to answer a question because FBI counsel said he shouldn’t. Strzok had his own lawyer, and evidently they weren’t

    “Hey Jerry” “Yeah Sheila?” “I think it would look great if we defended this guy. He looks all-American, great for photo-ops to show we love this country.” “You’re right. Let’s do it!” Image from Post And Courier.

    co-counsel (even if they were it would be stupid because at some point Strzok’s self-interest might conflict with the FBI’s). Strzok did not invoke his own lawyer’s advice, he just said that the FBI lawyer told him what he couldn’t say (he later consulted with his own lawyer, after all this, but not before the attorney-client privilege was raised as a point of order). Under these circumstances there is no attorney-client privilege. On top of that, such privilege doesn’t even relate to the matter at hand. It relates to communications between client and lawyer, like say if the client said he was guilty as sin the lawyer can’t be compelled to testify against his client due to this privilege. So basically- the female Congresswoman got it so completely wrong you’d wonder if she just heard the words when she flipped past Matlock while channel surfing. (especially sad since, if it was Jackson-Lee, she had served as a judge, though that was 28 years ago so maybe she forgot a few details). But then the same Left that tried to invoke attorney-client privilege to protect Strzok celebrates when a possible violation of that privilege leads to a leaked tape of a conversation between Trump and his attorney that tells us exactly nothing, so there you go.

  • After the above farces failed, Nadler attempted to have a vote on adjourning the committee. They were that terrified of letting Strzok continue.
  • Democrats, in a total reversal of their hero worship when Kamala Harris badgered someone testifying before the Senate and refused to even let him finish answering a question (with sexism accusations against the Senators that wanted her to behave herself), demanded that Gowdy stop asking a question so that Strzok had a chance to answer. Except Strzok WASN’T answering the question, and Gowdy was trying to keep him on point. Unlike Harris, who was just screaming because she knew CNN and MSNBC would give her airtime, and apparently already had a story ready to go because the NYT and WaPo published the same talking points about fake sexism in the stories linked above. The Dangerous Kamala was just following a tried-and-true tactic: spew so many accusations at someone that they’re stuck trying to defend one when a dozen more interrupt them so that they’re unable to defend themselves and look either slow or guilty when trying to keep up. Liberals HATE IT when someone can defend themselves (just look at their position on the 2nd Amendment, and look at 10/16 of the states that make it illegal to defend yourself when attacked and compare to the states that have stand-your-ground laws).
  • The same Democrat that interrupted to say that Gowdy wasn’t letting Strzok answer the question (since the whole party backed Harris, there’s no way this Dem isn’t being hypocritical here) also exclaimed that Gowdy’s time for questioning had expired. She might have been right if these were normal rules. I may have missed it, but the Chairman could’ve restored Gowdy’s time because of the interruption, in which case he still had 30 seconds. Later on, maybe that same Congresswoman (I’m bad with voices, I know this latest one was Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), but don’t know if she was the earlier one) interrupted again about the time. But it doesn’t matter, because the chair of the committee and the ranking member (Chair is always from the majority party, ranking member is always from the minority party, so Coleman’s party was in on this) agreed that the Chairmen and Ranking Members of each committee present would have whatever time they needed. Coleman of course, in typical spoiled brat SJW fashion, said that everyone should get that extra time. Just a puff of smoke while she fumed that her own party didn’t grant her a special privilege… and that her objection was partly squashed by her own party’s actions so her chance for a spotlight grandstand was denied.
  • While Gowdy was asking a new question, a Democrat interrupted to try and get him to stop asking it, by claiming he had asked it already

They succeeded in delaying Gowdy’s questioning by 15 minutes and interrupting a few times throughout.

Strzok himself had quite a performance during Gowdy’s segment.

  • He had a nice sneer throughout, about the only time he had a smug smirk was when Democrats were protecting him. Notice how he’s practically spitting out his statement about respecting the American electorate and Democracy? If that’s respect, I’d hate to see what contempt from him looked like.
  • Strzok repeatedly denied recalling having written the text messages, yet he was able to recall the exact provocation and the exact conditions under which the “we’ll stop it” text was written. What a coincidence that out of the 50,000 texts he claims to forget, he’d remember the circumstances around this one that he claims to have forgotten, and claims during the hearing that he needs a transcript to remember it, saying that the transcript had not been provided to him before (thus he could not have been prepared beforehand with knowledge of what this text he does not remember related to, since he didn’t even have it according to him). He keeps saying the context needs to be taken into account, but if he never wrote them or doesn’t remember writing them then how the heck can he testify to the context? (Go ahead, have a friend scroll through your text history and ask about a random text from even 6 months ago (Strzok had to recall from 2 years ago), see if you can figure out its context based on the date). He could at best say “I think maybe at the time I was”, but certainly he could not make the definitive statements he made about context if his “I can’t remember” testimony is to be believed.
  • After Gowdy, correctly, paraphrased a statement Strzok had made earlier, Strzok says A: that he, Strzok, stated that he testified that he was kicked off the Mueller Probe BECAUSE of his bias, and B: next says he was not kicked off the Mueller Probe for his bias, and C: says he does not appreciate Gowdy mischaracterizing their exchange earlier. Except Gowdy didn’t, if anything Strzok had the biggest screwup on that point.
  • The context Strzok named for his “we’ll stop it” (“it” being the Trump campaign) text was what Strzok characterizes as Trump’s “disgusting” attack on Khizr Khan. You remember him, the anti-gay (sharia is quite anti-gay) Muslim that Democrats paraded. Strzok says it was just awful how Trump attacked the family of a dead soldier. Well, the family became fair game when they made themselves political. Also, Hillary herself and her lackeys referred to plenty of similar families of fallen soldiers as liars or fame seekers when they criticized her. Hillary herself denied anyone was killed at Benghazi. Strzok was ok with all of that, he didn’t care about the families of dead soldiers then. And as for disrespecting service members in general, the candidate that Strzok thinks

    That’s the smile he had whenever Democrats interrupted Gowdy. Image from AP

    should’ve won “100,000,000 – 0” demanded that military personnel not wear their uniforms in the White House, and this prized candidate for whom he arranged a softball interview that NBC’s “do you get your feelings hurt” pro-North Korea Lester Holt would be jealous of also HATED the Secret Service agents assigned to save her life, and routinely disrespected them. Yet only Trump, attacking some homophobe who was politically attacking him, is “disgusting”, according to Strzok. I guess that means that gold star families whose relatives were victims at Benghazi seeking the truth, Secret Service agents doing their job, and military personnel doing their job are turds and a homophobic Muslim getting political is holy and protected according to Strzok. (Now granted, compared to Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, and Frederica Wilson, Hillary Clinton might actually be palatable because at least in public Hillary gives a reserved appearance, unlike these others who are more unhinged than a door laying on a floor). And of course we have blonde-haired blue-eyed Hillary Clinton praising the “vision” of the Nazi-esque totally racist eugenecist Margaret Sanger who wanted to kill blacks, and Hillary praising her “friend and mentor” Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV, KKK Chapter Founder and recruiter of 150 members- yes he renounced his membership, in 1993 saying it was a mistake (despite letters from his time as a Klansmen in which he says he didn’t want to be in the military because he’d have to work with “race mongrels”, despite in his 2005 memoir praising the Klan in a way remarkably similar to Trump’s “good people on both sides” remark that liberals used to call him a racist, despite Byrd having been the only Senator to vote against Clarence Thomas and Thurghood Marshal, despite having voted against civil rights in 1964, despite having opposed an end to segregation in the military), before Hillary was mentored by him, but if the Left’s Scalise Precedent of “speaking in the same building as a Klansman 15 years prior means you should be shot for being a racist” is in play, then certainly Hillary’s love of the founder of a KKK chapter can be considered fair game for racist accusations, particularly in light of Hillary’s praise of Margaret Sanger and her Gandhi joke and this next item)- and wrapped up her disdain for blacks with her “super predators” remark that is very much the 1994 equivalent of Trump’s “animals” statement that we’re supposed to accept as evidence of Trump’s racism, but apparently none of that was “disgusting” either so I guess my spiel in a moment about lily-white Strzok supporting our salacious title makes all the more sense.

The Left insists Strzok’s bias did not impact his investigations, probably because he’s just as biased as they are. Maybe his bias did, maybe not. No one really can tell what was going on in his mind during the process and what evidence he may have dismissed or decisions he may have made based on his biases.

But we do know this: the Left clearly judges what’s in the mind of Republicans based on THEIR statements. The opinions expressed under the First Amendment rights of President Trump in his TWEETS are enough to qualify as obstruction of justice. Ok, then why aren’t 50,000 text messages DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER PERSON INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATIONS enough to show bias affected Strzok’s investigation? Trump’s travel ban must be racist because of tweets, so the liberal courts say. Ok, then how does Strzok’s bias not affect his investigation? Steve Scalise is apparently a racist and deserved to be shot because he once spoke in a building that white nationalists later used for a meeting, such is the nature of the hate the Left wants us to feel. Ok, so then how come Strzok’s clear bias didn’t affect his investigation? (for that matter, why isn’t Hillary a racist for praising Margaret Sanger and for saying Klansmen Senator Byrd was her idol? That’s a bit more to go on for a racism accusation than sharing a speaking location on the same day) You liberals claim the shooting of Michael Brown was an unjustified racist incident, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the contrary findings of the black-led DOJ under a black President, despite the evidence that Michael Brown was aggressive and threatening the officer’s life which led to Darren Wilson being found “not guilty” by a jury. Ok, if you believe this despite a lack of evidence, how come you can’t even see the possibility that Strzok’s actions were biased?

Title Shot


You could tell Strzok thought he was a Rhinestone Cowboy… and truth be told, he did receive cards and letters from people he didn’t even know. Strzok image from Twitter, Glen Campbell image from YouTube.

Bringing up the racial sting of Michael Brown is a clever way to arrive at the clickbait subtitle for this article. At the end of the YouTube clip, Strzok gave a self-righteous speech and received a ton of applause from Democrats who were present. Except his self-serving speech basically is summarized as “even if I was biased, it was impossible for my bias to affect my work”. He reasoned that his subordinates and superiors and colleagues would’ve spotted it and overruled it.

By that measure, isn’t it ALSO totally impossible for bias to exist in a police force, or even in one police officer? Doesn’t this mean it’s impossible for Michael Brown’s shooter to have been a racist? Police too have a chain of colleagues, superiors, and even subordinates reviewing their findings, arrest patterns, patterns of brutality, etc. So if we’re to believe any of the moderates in the Democratic Party who says not all cops but some are biased thus we should not be in a state of anarchy and respect some laws, if we are to believe the DOJ’s findings about racism in the Ferguson department (because surely someone overseeing that department from the state capital overseeing the department would’ve noticed), if we are to believe the Left’s demands that we nationalize the police forces because the local  branches that states and the DOJ already have oversight over are racist, that MUST MEAN that Strzok’s safeguards CAN’T prevent bias from affecting one’s work. So unless we go with the mantra that everyone in the criminal justice system is racist, from the local precinct to the black-ran DOJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to the black-ran country itself under President Obama, Strzok’s argument is already disproven if we’re to assume the Left’s narratives on racism in law enforcement is true.

By the way, the Left’s narrative that cops are hunting blacks is pure fiction, probably designed to energize blacks into voting for Democrats, and maybe energize them into buying newspaper subscriptions and providing cable ratings. Definitely helps in making blacks feel like they are separate from whites (a Democrat Congresswoman, in that link, says that blacks are shot by police when they don’t elect black government officials), and whites are painted as being the sole race present in the GOP, thus discouraging blacks from joining the white party.

Down To Cases

Let’s talk a particular case- Freddie Gray. We had the accusation that in a city with a black police chief, black district attorney, and black mayor- under a black DOJ under a black President- racism was afoot. Well, clearly based on the Strzok grandstand that Democrats applauded there couldn’t be any racism there, especially under the conditions outlined presently.

There was a zealous prosecutor, whose husband was on the city council representing the district Freddie Gray was from (9 out of 13 members are black, ALL are Democrats, and it has been that way since 1942, and since 1942 they only had two Republican mayors with the last leaving office in 1967,  so any systemic racism could ONLY have come from the Democrats), who received campaign contributions from Freddie Gray’s lawyer, who was in such a fervored furor to attack the police that she totally botched the case so badly that the arrest warrants had the wrong names and addresses.


Coincidentally enough, in the background when I put this picture in, was Ray Lewis’ Hall of Fame induction speech. By the way, despite her failure with the Freddie Gray case, which should’ve been easier than getting Tom Robinson convicted, she’s pretty much won another term in office as Prosecutor. Guess that means no one in Baltimore thinks what happened was racist, otherwise they’d make sure someone who could get a conviction replaced her, right? Guess they don’t mind that she pretty much helped cause a spike in the murder rate either. Oh well. I’d have been on the trucks with the Colts, so you know I don’t really care what happens there.

This prosecutor, who wanted a conviction so badly she tried to say the police had no reason to arrest Freddie Gray when in fact they did, this prosecutor who tried to hide evidence, couldn’t even get a conviction and had nothing on racism, a fact which further confirms to liberals the notion that Strzok is wrong about how there are checks on bias like his. If you believe the cops were racist and maliciously acted on it, you must believe Strzok is wrong because no evidence of bias was found. If you believe Strzok is right, then you must conclude that there was no racism in the Freddie Gray case. These are your only two options, an impossible conundrum for a liberal… which is probably why they usually riot and scream instead of thinking logically and debating rationally (go ahead, try to apply your whataboutism and give me an example of the Republican riots after Obama won… yeah, that’s what I thought. How about the “violent” Tea Party protests? Oh wait, no such thing, just claims of the N-Word being used that not even $10,000 could encourage evidence of). Now I know that no self-respecting liberal would believe that the prosecutor was blatantly biased herself, so I didn’t think it worth the time to mention how her handling of the case is a close-to-home example of how Strzok’s bias could’ve impacted his own dealings.

Since the Left STILL maintains the Freddie Gray matter was an example of racism, despite there being no finding of bias by said zealous prosecutor seeking any crime she could use, couldn’t the Right at least be forgiven for assuming Strzok’s bias influenced his behavior too? Afterall, with Freddie Gray it was kind of nebulous what motivated the officers involved, as far as what facts we have. You on the Left can all claim to be mindreaders and tell me the officers were racist, but we have no direct evidence of this (otherwise the prosecutor would’ve had them on at least one charge of misconduct), whereas we have the evidence for Strzok’s bias: his own written statements. Yet, with MORE evidence that Strzok may have acted improperly because of his hatreds, you insist that he did not, while we don’t even have evidence the Freddie Gray police officers were biased at all, and you claim they’re racists. Think about this objectively, liberal- which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory? The one with or without evidence backing it up?

Furthermore, if you contend there was racism there, that there is racism in all police departments and all law enforcement branches, then you must naturally believe Strzok was lying with his moralizing speech that clearly meant racism cannot interfere in the law enforcement process, and you must be horrified that your own elected officials chose to applaud him for his statement. And you probably think Strzok was a racist, going back to my notes about some of Hillary’s disgusting behavior and why such an interpretation would be a logical conclusion regarding Strzok.

But How COULD Strzok Have Acted Improperly?

Ignore or dismiss vital evidence, give softball interviews, draft the exoneration letter based on the wording of President Obama, the head of Hillary’s party, saying that Hillary was innocent, draft said letter months before Hillary has been interviewed, months before the investigation had interviewed everyone it needed to, give sweetheart deals to Hillary and her team in exchange for easy questioning just so that you can say you questioned them (or so I assume, based on Strzok’s July 31 text that indicated he was just going through the motions with the Clinton Investigation, that it only mattered in the sense that they didn’t want to have a procedural error, contrasted to how he says the Trump investigation matters because it is “momentous, and the later treatment under Mueller of Trump’s team, who find themselves staring down the barrels of police guns), and of course starting an investigation into the opponent of your preferred candidate.

If the concern was election interference or collusion, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary when we learned the Fusion GPS document she paid for came from the Russians themselves, with Hillary money going right to Russian oligarchs? Why was said Russian document used to get a FISA warrant to spy on a Trump campaigner? The Russians supposedly tried to hack the RNC too, how come Strzok didn’t investigate Hillary’s ties to Russia, like when she said “[America’s] goal is to strengthen Russia” and that she would be “thrilled” if Russia had its own “Silicon Valley”, ie a group of Russians with the skills to hack into the RNC? Nope, Strzok ONLY investigated Trump, after conducting a piss-poor excuse of an investigation into Hillary’s email use, and constantly during the Clinton and Trump investigations, he held firm in his devotion to Hillary and disdain for Trump. How’s THAT for an example of bias affecting your judgment?

And as for the alleged checks Strzok had, let’s test that. James Comey was the FBI Director. The same James Comey who lied about FBI agents believing Lt. Gen. Flynn was lying. The same Comey who claims to have had severe concerns about both the Obama and Trump Administrations, but only attacked the Trump Administration and had nothing but glowing support and love for Obama and Hillary Clinton. The same Comey who leaked memos he wrote about Trump (not having written any on Loretta Lynch) to a university professor so that he could trigger a special counsel investigation into Trump, the one that Strzok ended up serving on. The one staffed by Democrats.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was another of Strzok’s superiors, whom Strzok cited as being someone that’d stop him if his bias affected the investigation. McCabe is also known for holding court in his office, on one such occasion discussing with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page how Trump couldn’t win the election, a conversation that took place only two weeks into Strzok’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. Meeting in his office where his own legal counsel says Trump can’t win, in a conversation with the man investigating Trump. Sooooo not biased! McCabe’s wife is known for running as a Democrat in Virginia, with $675,000 worth of help from Clintonite Terry McAuliffe.

And just in general, maybe not Strzok’s own bias but just an example of flaws in Strzok’s theory of checks and balances in DOJ, we have Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He would have authority over the FBI Director, who has authority over the Deputy Director, who has authority over Strzok. Rosenstein told Trump to fire Comey, Comey leaked memos to start a special counsel investigation into Trump for firing him, and Rosenstein started the special counsel investigation in part to look at Trump’s firing of Comey which Rosenstein himself demanded.

And of course, when it comes to Strzok’s colleagues who would keep his bias in check, we have FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who we saw in the texts wanted Strzok to stop Trump, who outlined to her boss and the man investigating Trump a hopeful scenario where Trump would lose the election.

What an effective system of checks and balances we turned out to have! No wonder Democrats clapped for Strzok’s speech, it’s just the kind of system of checks on their power they like- NONE


“I’m getting away with all this! AWESOME SAUCE!!!!” Image from OzarkNewsTalkRadio. Well, at least they eventually fired him.



Mario Bros. (Various, 1983-2001)


You know you’ve hit it big when your 1983 arcade game appears on Miami Vice in 1986. (Season 2, Episode 21 “Trust Fund Pirates”)

The Story

As I slog my way through the quagmire known as Donkey Kong Country on the Game Boy Color, I wanted to take a break from the political articles I’ve been marking time with until the DKC review is through (that would be the last 4 to 6 articles, depending on the order these get posted). Seems fitting that I’d focus on DK’s original foe for the piece I write while trying to finish off one of his games.

We Wanted The Game’s Story, Not Yours!

Here it is, set to the theme tune from the always funny “Car 54 Where Are You?”. Sadly the humor (and humors) of the show are not involved in our 8 bit subject of today. And yes, the Atari 2600 was 8 bits. Its processor is a cheap version of what the NES would later use.

Mario Bros. has a simple story- Mario and Luigi are plumbers in New York City. They are trying to clean the pipes out, and must also collect the coins because that is how they get paid. Welcome to De Blasio’s New York.

The objective is to kill all of the monsters that come out of the pipes. You don’t have to kill the fireballs, but they give you points if you do (at least in the Super Mario Advance version, I can’t remember if I ever managed to kill a fireball in the other ones). You achieve fatalities by smashing your head onto the platform beneath the monster you wish to liquidate (literally, your goal is to knock it into the water) and then running directly into the monster whilst it is disabled.

There are 99 different “phases”. Not quite 99 different stages, because several phases take place on a stage. In almost every phase, your goal is to kill the enemies to advance as stated above. However, in phase 4, 8, 16, 24, and presumably the rest of the multiples of 8, you are given the challenge of collecting 10 coins before a timer runs out. If you do, you get an extra life.


Different Versions

Look, there isn’t much to the game. That last paragraph would’ve been the end of this piece if I didn’t pad it out with a comparison between different versions. Besides, I rarely get to see side-by-side screenshots like this detailing different releases.



Atari 5200 gives a big Mario sprite that reminds me of the one in Super Mario Bros. Platforms animate when bumped. There is still only one stage design.


The Atari 2600 version looks pretty simplistic. You only see one stage design. You can’t walk on the POW block in the middle. When you bump your head on the platform above, it does not show an animation indicating where you bumped (this is the only version I played that didn’t). You start with A LOT more fireballs here I think than in other versions.


Atari 7800 gives a very detailed stage… but it’s the only one. At least Mario handled well, his movements were tight relative to the controller commands. And no, I played it on a standard 4:3 TV, not a widescreen 16:9 one. I don’t know why they chose to stretch Mario and the platform graphics.

Nintendo’s Entries


Here is the original arcade version. I did not play it. Image from


Now we get to the NES, which I assume is the closest port of the arcade version out of the ones I played. The stages actually change after a certain number of phases pass. but Mario handles very poorly, skids like he’s on ice even when he isn’t.











On the Game Boy Advance, we have what appears to be a remake sort of (from the Super Mario Advance games). HD upgrade maybe? In keeping with a tradition started in a minigame in Super Mario Bros. 3, the turtles you initially get are replaced by ambulatory spiky shells. All graphics for the player and enemies are on par with the Mario games from the Super Nintendo. Backgrounds and stages have also received a visual upgrade. Mario can now duck, and can throw the POW blocks.


There’s also this variant- a minigame from Super Mario Bros. 3. On the NES version, it only appears if you challenge the other player to a duel. The winner is either the one that isn’t clobbered by an enemy or the first to kill 5 enemies. If my NES were able to read SMB3 properly, I’d have had no need to take this image from strategywiki














The two-player only variant also appears on Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES, via the Super Mario Bros. 3 entry. This time though you need two controllers to ever be able to access it, unlike on the NES where I got everything done with just one controller. On the main menu for SMB3, a “Battle Mode” option is presented so that you can take on your friend immediately instead of waiting for an encounter in the main game.

Believe it or not, there are releases not covered here. Mario Bros. found its way onto the GBA again in the form of a port of the NES title. It also popped up on Nintendo’s Virtual Console, Apple II, Commodore 64, FM-7, NEC PC88, Amstrad CPC, Atari 8-bit home computers, an arcade compilation for the Nintendo Switch, Game Boy Advance e-Reader cards, and on the NES Classic. And maybe even somewhere else I didn’t name. A sort of sequel appeared on the Virtual Boy in the form of “Mario Clash”.

So… How Did You Do?

In case you were wondering, here are the scores from the best run-throughs I had this time around, plus how many lives each game gives you to start with:

  • Atari 2600- 5 lives, Phase 6, 34400 points
  • Atari 5200- 5 lives, Phase 6, 43370 points
  • Atari 7800- 3 lives, Phase 12, 71990 points
  • NES- 3 lives, Phase 9, 69670
  • Game Boy Advance (Super Mario Advance)– 3 lives, Phase 28, 245950 points


Setting The Barr Low; or, The ABC’s Of Bigotry


from wikimedia commons

Yes, it’s a little late, but time has no meaning to me. Playing DKC on the GBC does that to you.

Oddly enough (to the thinking of some of you in the audience), I do believe Roseanne’s remarks are a little racist. Spot on about the Muslim Brotherhood part, but racist with the “Planet of the Apes” reference. Not that I’m condemning her for anything except lacking awareness about the reprisal such remarks would bring. As I will outline in a moment, we all are entitled to our opinions, to condemn others would be to condemn ourselves (yourselves, liberal, as you will read if you dare).

I should clarify- I meant the reprisal that statements like Roseanne’s SHOULD bring. You see, ABC is lacking some awareness itself. Here are some folks ABC still supported wholeheartedly, fervently, and partisanly despite similar remarks to Roseanne’s- or worse, real attitudes they hold (which should always be the measure).

  • The Presidential Candidate that they lobbied very hard for, that they were disappointed lost, once made a racist joke about Indians and participated in a faux pas related to the African American community… make that TWO (and it’s amazing how forgiving media outlets such as ABC and Democrats were over Hillary’s superpredator remark when and how they voted for her- and don’t say too much time passed, ABC went after Steve Scalise with the rest of the media wolves over a fake racist incident that would have been 12 years old if it had really happened- yet when President Trump refers to MS-13 gang members as animals Democrats and media outlets like ABC suddenly decide that all gang members are divine creatures who cast down bullets of love upon us, who are merely filling women with love when they rape them, who merely are spreading the word of peace when they put a knife into us a hundred times, as opposed to VOTING FOR Hillary Clinton when she said much the same thing about African Americans) (ALSO, listen again to the Gandhi clip. You hear the people laughing at Hillary’s remark? It’s clearly a racist joke, yet your party of tolerance that has called Trump a racist more times than a pulsar will emit a beam of EM radiation in its lifetime is sitting there LAUGHING at a racist joke!)
  • ABC’s buddy Joe Biden once said Obama was the first mainstream African American candidate who was “clean” and “articulate”. Joe Biden ALSO picked on folks of the Indian persuasion, so I guess since he became Vice President after he said that and Hillary Clinton was almost President after mocking Gandhi, that means Democrats are perfectly ok with being racist towards Indians. That kinda takes the wind out of the sails of their anti-Apu movement.
  • ABC’s buddy Harry Reid once said Obama had “no Negro dialect” (something ABC didn’t let others get away with) and made an Asian joke that ABC decided wasn’t even newsworthy. (ABC also failed to mention when Harry Reid said “why would I want to do that” in response to being asked if he’d fund children’s cancer research, so there you go.)
  • ABC’s buddy DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison was/maybe is an anti-semite (note how he had issued a statement as Wolf noted saying his association with Farrakhan is long ended, admits to being associated with Farrakhan in that clip, but says he has always forever and ever opposed anti-Semitism despite his admitted association with Farrakhan)
  • ABC’s party of choice, the Democrats, standing behind anti-Semitic hate-monger Farrakhan (Hillary Clinton allegedly called her husband’s campaign manager a “Jew bastard” so in its love for Hillary, ABC already established its forgiveness of anti-Semiticism if it comes from a Democrat. Because as we know from the Associated Press still claiming Steve Scalise spoke at a white supremacist rally 16 years ago when that is factually untrue and was disproven 3 years ago, journalists like you’d find at ABC won’t let the truth get in the way of a good slur if it’s against a Republican)

Why so many Democrats listed? What do they have to do with ABC you ask despite the links linking them? Read the chart.


ABC is well-represented on this list of journalists working with someone who has a history of making racist remarks, who is involved with a Party that has a history of racism, one which still appears today as evidenced throughout this piece.

And of course, ABC itself currently has, or had, other racists/bigots/misogynists/folks of ill-repute in their employ who were not canned. ABC’s choices of news and programming arguably support much the same thing.

  • ABC’s Joy Behar dressed as a black woman for Halloween, and shared the picture with the cast of ABC’s The View on ABC one morning, saying she looked cute when dressed in blackface. (so while Roseanne simply made a throwaway remark on Twitter to her relatively small following, Behar was proud of having dressed in blackface and showed millions how happy she was about it on ABC’s network, and yet Behar kept her job)
  • ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel (and Joy Behar) smearing Christians (without at least equal time to other religions, not one joke or attack directed at Islam has passed their lips, what do you call it when you single out a group because of certain stereotypes about them but let another arguably worse group get a pass?)
  • ABC ignoring Farrakhan’s history while praising an event featuring him (he praised Hitler, for example, but that was never mentioned by ABC)
  • ABC supporting sexism by not exposing links between sexual assaulters and Democrats
  • ABC’s very feminist act of ignoring an alleged rape because the accused were illegal immigrants rather than white frat boys
  • And then of course ABC’s programming consists mostly of hateful diatribes, keeping in line with the personalities it hires. (guess I shouldn’t be surprised about some of this, after all, ABC news folks were happy to call America sexist and seemingly agree with Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ remark)
  • Don’t forget to consider just about any time ABC airs anything by Spike Lee, whose least-racist quirk is glaring at interracial couples

It’s perfectly fine, if you are a liberal, to be bigoted or to support bigots (we’ll even throw the Left’s favorite playbook at them- why didn’t ABC denounce Farrakhan 55 times while praising his rally? Why has ABC never denounced the New York Times or Esquire over their association with a racist?) is perfectly acceptable. Party of tolerance indeed!

Maybe They Just Didn’t Like Her

It’s readily apparent that ABC simply hated Roseanne. Her show was a ratings smash, but not with the right regions (New York, Los Angeles. You’ll notice that the networks tend to promote shows that resonate with them, as they’re the top ad markets in the country. Suburbs of a big city, apartments in a big city, nerd scientists in a big city, singing a pure propaganda song about your big city on New Year’s with millions watching while said songworthy big city makes cesspools look like mountain springs, crimes in a big city. Big city nights! The suburbs and rural areas are full of crooked rednecks and people killing each other. What’s the backdrop painting for the late shows? A cityscape. And by the way, where do all the journalists live?).

ABC was champing at the bit to find an excuse to cancel this politically toxic (to them) show, like with Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing”. Tim Allen’s show was ABC’s second-highest rated series, but the first excuse they found (production costs) they dumped it because they hate anything that appeals to anyone who is not already waving a Soviet flag from their Brooklyn apartment window. Want more evidence for this? What does ABC replace the Trump-country appeal of the Roseanne revival with? A spinoff that takes it to the Left.

Or to put it simply- Roseanne didn’t embody “New York Values”.


Just one example of New York Values, from wikimedia commons

The Big Apple Didn’t Fall Far From The Tree

  • ABC’s parent company hiring misogynist Keith Olbermann.
  • ABC’s parent company not bothering to release Jemele Hill over her racially charged remarks (which tended to be anti-White, and tended to be almost anything she said)
  • ABC’s parent company not even punishing Bomani Jones after he said all American sports fans were racists

Just To Be Clear…

I’m not saying ABC doesn’t have the right to hire and fire who they want, if they want 24/7 bigotry and misogyny that’s their business. I’m saying it’d be nice if they weren’t so openly biased and applied their rules equally. Oh well, what do you expect from liberals? Typical. They can’t even play by their own rules because they know they’d lose. You know, their “rule” that says we should all be tolerant and open-minded. Their other rule that states such things as were said by the above folks are racist/sexist/bigoted/etc. Clearly, that only applies to people they hate, not to themselves.

Just For Fun…

Let’s end with some more bigoted liberal quotes (Liberal leader Al Sharpton sure didn’t seem like an LGBTQ buddy in the one at that link!). A quick glance into the world that ABC wholeheartedly supports, the world of Democrats. Maybe Roseanne was just a token sacrifice so that no one will question ABC’s liberal ethos when it supports the below intolerance. (NOTE: ABC has yet to apologize for or denounce or otherwise distance themselves from the below remarks, nor from the above incidents, aside from Roseanne’s statement… whereas if even one Trump supporter is shown as a racist the President must answer for that individual’s beliefs as if they were his own according to ABC and the media’s playbook, interesting how when a Muslim jihadist attacks it’s never Islam’s fault yet every indication of racism from a Trump supporter reflects that entire side of the aisle)

  • “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” – Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights, someone thinks this is an inspiring quote. So is her quote about accusing Republicans of racism to distract from real issues.
  • “(I get to) kill all the white people… How great is that?” – Jamie Foxx discussing his Django Unchanged role on NBC’s Saturday Night Live, a statement made to a cheering crowd.
  • “(Blacks and Hispanics) are too busy eating watermelons and tacos to learn how to read and write.” – Mike Wallace, CBS News 1982
  • “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” – Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania
  • “I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” – New York City Councilman, Charles Barron (who also said we attacked Libya for oil… just like Iraq I suppose because we never got any from Libya either!). His full quote was about him saying that blacks needed reparations in part because they paid for facilities under segregation they never could use. So did whites. And yet he was happy to impose Obamacare on people so that people who object to abortion would be forced to pay for it. Typical. Also, Barron, I have a question: if a white person can’t understand certain aspects of being black, how the hell does a black understand what being white means? Does your race have this magic ability to see beyond its skin color simply because you think it’s superior?
  • “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” – Former DC Mayor Marion Barry who was busted smoking crack with a prostitute
  • “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” – Barack Obama, who is known for not being a fan of whites.
  • (Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” – Dan Rather, CBS Evening News
  • “A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” – Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy
  • “Hymies.” And “Hymietown.” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail (Jesse used “Hymie” as an anti-Semitic slur. Hey, remember when the Left went after Ted Cruz for being an anti-Semite because he said “New York values”? Why does the Left still love Jesse Jackson after his Jew-hatred was revealed like a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert?)

And of course, the patron saint of welfare himself-


Climate Of Fear

Editors Note: At the time of this articles posting I was unable to fully verify or disprove the information of this article. I must say this does not fully reflect the views of C-Gaymer on Climate change. I can, however, verify these claims made in the article and confirm they are in line with my own views:
1. Many Climate Change Scientists have manipulated data, they are a disgrace to the scientific community and damage the cause of raising awareness about and combatting manmade climate change.
2. Under the Obama Regime government agencies like the EPA routinely engaged in dishonest and destructive behavior for various reasons from keeping their budgets to attacking the political opponents of the regime. The EPA is no exception and Mr. F.L.A.G. convincingly makes the case that the Colorado mine disaster was intentional.
3. I fully agree and support the Presidents decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. Having actually looked into the accord after the fact, I can confirm it was a useless attempt to look like leftist governments were combatting climate change. In reality, they only restricted the economies of western governments like the United States while giving a free pass to dictatorial regimes like China to pollute and destroy the Earth. It is a worthless document much like the Iran Nuclear Deal. Another part of Obama’s Failed Legacy.

Here at C-Gaymer, we are Eco-Conservatives. This means we acknowledge Manmade Climate Change and the need to combat it. Unlike our dishonest and ignorant Liberal Counterparts, however, Eco Conservatives believe in the power of the free market and believe in incentivizing companies to seek green solutions and alternatives to things such as plastic waste or Energy. It is more effective than lies, witchhunts, and petty rhetoric. To learn more about being an
Eco Conservative, visit Know that this website does not fully reflect our views either, but they are a great place to start learning about being an Eco-Conservative, and we need to take the reigns of that movement. Thank you for your time.



Not Hawaii but you get the point. From You Only Live Twice

Isn’t this interesting. For April, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached its highest point ever, as recorded in Hawaii. Right before a volcano erupted near the observation site. Except instead of linking those two, scientists said this carbon dioxide came from the burning of fossil fuels. Maybe I’m too much of a cynic, but if these scientists don’t issue a correction or at least explain why A: Al Gore was only saying last year that CO2 emissions were on the decline and B: why CO2 from a volcano does not affect CO2 readings in the atmosphere near said volcano, I’m pretty sure they’re abusing the fact that we can’t distinguish CO2 that came from a volcano from CO2 that came from humans, in order to promote their climate change agenda.

Maybe what I said is totally impossible because of altitude (but then how did CO2 reach that section of the atmosphere for them to read such high levels in the first place?), maybe it’s exactly what happened. We don’t know, so advantage liberals because guess what: most scientists are liberal. Scientists have a monopoly on knowledge, and they use that to their political advantage to shove through whatever agenda suits them, claiming that if you oppose them then you oppose reality. Though reality comes along and bites them in the ass (as we saw with the liberal scientists of the Soviet Union) even when scientists hide from the truth behind their iron curtains of “knowledge”, the fact that opponents like me don’t have so wide a knowledge base still leaves the scientist with enough ethos/ego to dismiss any criticism.

It Was Supposed To Save The World

Let’s run with the scientists’ assessment though. Hawaii is quite a long ways from anywhere that didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement (the unenforceable agreement that anyone could cheat on, but was supposed to save the world) or abide by it. In fact, you’d have to go all the way to Idaho or Arizona or Alaska before you hit a spot that doesn’t abide by the Agreement that’s supposed to have saved our planet. The way air currents travel though, none of the air from those states would be reaching Hawaii in an


As you can see from this photograph taken 20 miles from DC, all of the pollution from the rest of the backward business-loving Republican strongholds has left a layer of smog so thick that it causes anyone looking at it to hallucinate so vividly they think they actually see a pretty wooded path.

unfiltered form (especially after passing through the lush green paradises of treaty signatories India, Russia, and China). They WOULD, however, be reaching me here in the nation’s capital in their purest, most CO2-laden form. The Left has already made the atmosphere quite toxic here, sans pollution. Now, for there to be enough CO2 in Hawaii from the mainland USA’s horrid pollution that Hawaii would still record the highest CO2 levels ever after the rest of the world greened itself, that would mean that the East Coast would look like Beijing or something.

So explain it to me liberal- you contend that the U.S. is the largest and only producer of CO2, as the restrictions present in the Paris Climate Agreement indicate (the treaty allowed every nation except the U.S. to increase its fossil fuel use, while the U.S. must keep reducing its use. For example, China, that pollutes much more than the U.S., with double the CO2 emissions of America, is allowed to indiscriminately pollute for 13 more years before the treaty restrictions start. Maybe the framers of the treaty read the fake news in the NYT, AJC, and Ecowatch that claims somehow the pollution stats are way off and the U.S. is worse than China. Remember, these science deniers are the ones telling us global warming exists, to begin with, the ones who say China with acid rain covering way more than a third of it and with lethal pollution in its waterways and crippling smog covering its cities is somehow less polluting than America with its swimmable rivers, distinct lack of acid rain, and clear-aired cities. Think I’m exaggerating on how much these liberals and scientists who warn us about global warming love China? A major politician involved in planning


Public executions are popular events where thousands attend, in the country that the UN believes has the best government for fighting climate change. As if the pictures didn’t make it obvious, their rationale for why they think China is the best government does (especially given what was presented in the “California Attacks Muslims” piece and what will be discussed here later). And all this time I thought liberals were against the death penalty, but I guess they only oppose it if the murderer in question is black and shot a cop. image from

how we stop polluting, the UN Climate Chief, said that China has the ideal model for action on global warming, despite as you may have read in the above links how China’s provinces simply ignore climate initiatives, and despite its failures. There is no clearer example of how distanced the climate change scientists/activists/politicians are from reality than what I have just outlined). Given your belief that the U.S. is the only cause of pollution, then how does liberal Hawaii with all it’s anti-global warming measures which only receives air from nations that signed the treaty, nations that had such low pollution that they were encouraged to BUILD polluting structures, record the highest amounts of CO2 ever in history? Surely after 24 months, the treaty would be showing some impact, yes? And remember- 9 of those months still had Obama in office. But I guess if you believe Obama winning the Democratic nomination was the day the seas stopped rising, you’d believe Trump’s inauguration is the day the sky caught fire.

Come to think of it, on the one hand the Left claims global warming is instant (No Arctic ice by summer 2008 as predicted earlier that year despite the fact polar ice has stayed about the same since 1979, Prince Charles said in 2009 there were only 96 months left to save the planet, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in 2009 there were only 50 days left to stop terrible climate catastrophe, the head of Canada’s Green Party said in 2009 there were only hours left to save the world) and there are points of no return that we’ve passed in date but not passed in damage to the climate (the Paris Climate Agreement was signed only at the end of 2015. 2015 was 26 years after the UN warned we had only 10 years- a warning which we followed with increased CO2 production. 2015 was 6 years after NASA warned that Obama had only 4 years to save the Earth. 2015 was 2 years after when Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone by. 2015 was the same year the UN said the temperature would rise 2 degrees Celsius, the same year climate chaos was supposed to be unleashed on the world as predicted by France’s foreign minister, and the same year a bunch of other deadly predictions outlined later in this piece did not happen. You will find a lot of failed predictions by these alleged scientists and politicians), but they also claim that any solutions to global warming will take a while to be effective. So CO2 works instantly, but its sudden absence does not? And surely with all of the climate measures you’ve put into place while you ran the government and all of the climate measures the rest of the smarter, more liberal world has instilled we must see at least some reduction in CO2/climate change/temperature increase? (Vox summarized the party of scientists and climate warriors’ actions from 2009-2016 best with its headline “Obama had a chance to really fight climate change. He blew it.”)


Let’s be honest- with this as the face of the Left, we can pretty confidently say they never have to explain away any errors to their followers. Image from Urban Dictionary

They have a way of explaining away why the things they implement will have no measurable impact (much the same way as apocalypse predictors can always explain why the date they pick is wrong once it’s past, or buy themselves time by pushing it into the future… much to the chagrin of scientists that want to advance the date by 50 years to 2050 instead of 2100)– they say the CO2 emitted in previous generations is still there, so whatever we do now won’t be felt because of that earlier pollution.

So… if you can’t even distinguish CO2 from a volcano vs. CO2 from a car if ancient CO2 is still hurting us, how can you distinguish CO2 emitted 250 years ago from CO2 emitted 250 seconds ago? How do you know it’s still there? How do you even know what we’re adding to it? Do you count how many CO2 sources there are (meaning count factory by the factory) and update every day in case one or more shuts down? And if it takes so damn long to shrug off the effects of CO2 emissions, what if we’re ALREADY at the point of sustainable CO2 output, but we just can’t tell yet?

Seriously, where are the experiments on how long it takes CO2 from source A to infect the atmosphere across the globe? Because if the U.S. is the only polluter as the Paris Climate Agreement’s punitive anti-American measures indicate, then obviously everything we do here has a worldwide impact. (I’m not disputing that one nation’s pollution can have a global impact; folks in San Francisco import some of their smog from China… but that can’t be since as I said according to liberals China pollutes so little that it has the ideal model for fighting climate change and can, under the Paris Climate Agreement, increase its polluting!).

Scientists Would Tell Us!

Scientists say the Paris agreement will drop the world’s temperature increase by half a degree at the end of the century (instead of rising 2 degrees Celsius over 100 years, it will rise 1.5 degrees… assuming the science behind it works, but fake data and bad conclusions throw shade on that, with signatories such as China outright lying about their data despite being the best people at fighting climate change as we have been told… plus, climate warriors thought the Paris Agreement was crap until Trump decided he hated it, at which point its Lefty critics found true love with it) Yet at the same time, in only 15 years of polluting enough damage will be done to kill off 250,000 more people on average per year. In fact, according to the IPCC, in the last 40 years disasters have been caused by mother nature alone without man’s help (and they said there was a stall in the increase in temperatures, at least until the Obama Admin faked some data) despite also believing that human-induced global warming impacted EVERYTHING over that period.

Let’s not forget- these are the people who tell us we will never see snow again because of global warming, and then a year after a blazing headline carrying that info these people brazenly tell us we’re entering into an ice age because of global warming, after spending decades ridiculing the notion of a new ice age, which came after spending a decade promoting the idea of a new ice age. “The people” being the whole freakin’ scientific community if we are to believe that 97% buy into climate change. Oh wait, turns out that’s fake news. The Left thinks it’s settled science that global warming will end snow/cause an ice age/be limited by a treaty/not be affected at all by our actions so far. And skeptics are either stupid or evil for not simultaneously believing all four of these are true and all four are false.

You would have to be either at the peak of stupidity to have a head so empty that yesterday’s talking points are so readily and unquestioningly swapped for today’s (like believing simultaneously that Antarctica is affected by global warming less and more than the rest of the world… and ignoring that it was waaaaaay warmer anyway, before humans could even pollute), OR you are some kind of super genius that both can co-exist in your mind at the same time. This DOES explain why the Left gets oh so violent when faced with someone outside their belief bubble– violence is the action of the unthinking beasts in the jungle, and if the Left actually analyzed what they believe for consistency and accuracy they might stop believing it. Can’t have that now, can we?

You’ve Been Misled In Other Ways Too


Polar Ice Cap circa 2015, according to Al Gore. Image from

Remember the repeated instances where leading climate scientists were caught faking data (I love this urgent CBS headline: “Mistakes in Climate Report Fuel Skepticism“. Ya THINK?! Let’s summarize it- “people who are lied to become skeptical of claims made by the liars”)? Remember how gas was supposed to be $9 per gallon, and milk was supposed to be $13 per gallon as wildfires raged across the U.S. and New York is submerged, in the far-off year of 2015? Remember how the North polar ice cap was supposed to have disappeared by 2013, yet here we are 5 years on and it’s GROWING? You CAN’T say it’s because Democrats came into office. Mother Earth doesn’t CARE what party controls the government (no matter how many times liberals tell you reality favors them) if said party does nothing except ram through a healthcare bill! The only climate initiatives Democrats undertook were the Paris Climate Agreement and to make it so that if you spat on the ground the EPA could regulate it as a protected waterway! I guess Solyndra too, though the only thing green about that was the money that Obama’s wealthy friends made at the expense of taxpayers.

If You Can’t Handle The Heat, Then Get The Hell Outta My Ozone! AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


Granted, the Second Impact was a slight setback for the ozone layer. Image from

The ozone layer is another bundle of fun. First, we’re given the wonderful news that scientists say the ozone layer will heal by 2050. But wait! Turns out a year later scientists want to horrify us into a coma by saying that all along global warming has been stopping the ozone layer from healing… although it’d be nice if they told other scientists about that too, because they’re looking very disorganized, especially when they say a warming climate is healing the hole instead of destroying it. Doesn’t matter I guess, since one of the eco-friendly saviors who signed the Paris Climate Agreement is destroying the ozone layer.  Oh yeah, and humans can and can’t take credit for the ozone layer healing, and they even say some holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with humans.

What Do They Gain By Fearmongering?

Solyndra is an example- they get money! Politicians get power. Then there are treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement which, if obeyed, ensure that one of Europe and China’s

patent-medicine-ad-yesterday's papers

Snake Oil?! I thought this was an add for the Paris Climate Agreement! Image from yesterday’s papers

largest economic competitors (America) is crippled while the aforementioned countries flourish. It was supposed to be a “major leap for mankind” that ends pollution (except from the statesmen who polluted in order to travel and meet for the deal when skyping or something would have worked, so its no coincidence the leaders omitted their means of travel), ends ALL hurricanes, and probably give every millennial a check for going to school like they do in Australia (which seems a bit classist to me- why would kids who can afford to go to college need extra money? Give it to the indigenous peoples of Australia or minorities, or at least give more money to the folks that can’t afford college. Geez, I thought Australia was supposed to be liberal!). I guess it’s not surprising this agreement was about inflicting economic damage since an IPCC co-chair once revealed that all their climate plans were about redistributing wealth rather than saving the planet, that they had “almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”.

Of course, scientists get influence and money too, and thus a license to act recklessly. The aforementioned data fakery is an example. But we also get new examples. Would you believe that the wildfires in California are the direct results of their liberal climate policies? The drought in California is because that liberal state’s government is squandering its resources while farmers are growing food that’s best suited to Florida’s climate, or at least Vietnam’s, whereas California is largely desert and mountains? And then they hide their utter stupidity and irresponsibility by filling the pockets of some scientists with nice taxpayer-funded efforts to say that global warming is to blame.


UN stands for “Unlimited Nickels”, at least as far as scientists are concerned. The UN doesn’t have a clever acronym for “scientist”, they’re just wondering how long before scientists and their blunders thoroughly discredit the scientific community, so that the UN can avoid paying expensive grants and hire cheap aspiring novelists like Ben Rhodes, given the amount of fiction in the climate reports anyway. Image from wikimedia commons

Seriously, as liberals love to say, FOLLOW THE MONEY! If research by institutes that get funding from oil companies or the Koch brothers is automatically tainted, what about funding to scientists that A: comes from a government with an interest in proving climate change exists (like say the Obama Administration, or the liberal California administration), a government that would withdraw said funding if it disagreed with the conclusion and B: goes to scientists who already believe climate change exists despite major incidents of faked data that should have left them with the least little scintilla of skepticism (based on the claim that 97% of scientists believe in global warming despite the severe credibility gap). Is that not also tainted? (It’s pretty much a given that the funding source will bias a scientist or pick biased scientists no matter what the research is about.)

And what if these climate treaty meetings receive money from fossil fuel companies and then decide that certain fossil fuel-consuming means of transport are exempt? Doesn’t that mean, by your standard, that the Paris Climate Agreement was tainted? And let’s not forget- while the oil company scientists and Koch scientists have yet to be caught faking data (you only claim it’s faked because you disagree, not because you have internal emails talking about faking it, unlike us climate skeptics who have the dark secrets of your scientists’ private thoughts spread on the internet for all to see in their own words), the global warming scientists have been caught faking it MANY TIMES. Does this not warrant any skepticism? Oh yeah, like I said in the article “California Attacks Muslims” (it was only unposted for like a few days, I just wrote like crazy in that time, hence why I never link to it) liberals will easily believe their side simply because it’s what they want to hear. Scientists too, apparently.

When Reality Is Not On The Side Of Liberals…

I mentioned the wildfires and droughts that the Left are trying to paper over with their bogus scientists. Probably some of the same scientists that said the very policies that caused the drought and wildfires were sound. But let’s also not forget when the EPA polluted an entire river basin. The corrupt liberals with their corrupt scientists and corrupt research wanted to steal some land from the folks in Silverton, CO. So these liberals and scientists schemed together and ended up polluting a river, which led to the residents deciding to vacate as the government wanted, only at the marginal expense of an ecological disaster of massive proportions. And yet we are still supposed to TRUST these people who just destroyed the environment over a land battle when they say they want to PROTECT it?!

…They Craft A New One


In the Left’s reality, New York City really was flooded by 2015 and temperatures had risen to create extreme heat, just as the Left predicted. But the Paris Climate Agreement reversed this. Image from

Here’s another callback to the “California” piece- the Left wants us to put MORE trust in them! Their version of climate denial has been responsible for wildfires, massive pollution, and a neverending drought. Now they want us to trust them with even more power to fight the climate change that they cause and other climate change that they’ve been faking data about. Liberals like Bill Nye, instead of debating their farce, are demanding that people like me be jailed for mentioning the flaws in the Left’s climate ideology. Like I said- unthinking beasts. What these animators did in jest the Left did with deadly conviction- invented a lie, they believed in it and acted on it, and now wish to punish anyone that DOESN’T believe this lie. Climate scientists, instead of arguing their point or disproving their opposition, are now suing to stop anyone from opposing them. How scientific. Attorney Generals of liberal states even now are using their power to attack anyone that publishes data against climate change. If the science is settled, why can’t you argue your positions? Why are you suing to shut up anyone with data you don’t like if it’s so easy to contradict? What is it you are trying to hide?

What else does the Left intend to do because of their “reality”? Well, of course, there’s the population control mentioned in the omnipresent “California” piece, in which the Left would pretty much decide that only liberals have children. Now we break into UN Agenda 21 (alias “smart growth”). Simply put: to fight global warming, every citizen in the United States will be confined to one of several super-cities (no suburbs because single-family homes are a no-no), leaving most of the country empty. You wonder how the Left will arrest climate deniers, how they’ll make sure you have only one kid, how they’ll execute any number of their measures? Well here’s one answer that they had for it, under the guise of environmentalism.

By the way- the good folks at the UN when discussing this were kind enough to mention that it has occurred to them to instill worldwide communism, destroy the middle class, and revert the world to a pre-industrial state (well, let’s be honest, everyone in the world except for them). So before you dismiss this Agenda 21 tangent as a conspiracy like a few Leftwing outlets have done (picking some of the more absurd claims, like the Jews being behind it, to make their case that ALL of it is a conspiracy theory) why don’t you actually read the statements from the people who you gave the power to implement this? And why don’t you take a look at my “California” piece for the references to current, respected liberals that demand such population control?  Motive, opportunity, and a history of such remarks are already established. Oh, and concurrent with Agenda 21’s introduction, we also have the Wildlands Project being introduced, which suggests 50% of the U.S. be depopulated (“rewilded“).

Remind Me Who’s Anti-Science?

A UN consultant gave us a statement to the effect that the UN believes wealth inequality causes global warming. SCIENCE!


But Earth-chan is so sick! Please help make her better by throwing all logic, reason, common sense, and really any brain functions that separate us from a herd of cows out the window. Speaking of a herd of cows, when I get to Agenda 21 you’ll see just how primitive of a state scientists want us to revert to. Propaganda image from Eurokeks

The ones who fake data supporting climate change, call upon state Attorney Generals to intimidate climate change deniers, and want to imprison anyone with a dissenting point of view? THESE are scientists? That’s what the Left has done, that’s what “scientists” have cheered, you want me to think that they are IN FAVOR of science? You want me to seriously believe that the majority of “scientists” who buy into this crap can credibly be called scientists? If your idea is so indefensible that you must protest against opposition, invent fictitious data because there’s no evidence supporting your assertion, and imprison dissenters then it’s readily apparent to anyone with an IQ above a potato that your idea can’t credibly be considered part of “science”, unless we tack a “pseudo” in front of the word.

It’s ironic too- as mentioned in the “California” piece, the Left attributes all sorts of oppression to religion. Including repression of scientific discovery. Yet here we have the Left doing its best Spanish Inquisition impression, with climate change deniers as latter-day Galileos. I guess the moral is this: no matter how ignorant you are, so long as you have a mind open to learning and discovery you’re more of a scientist than 97% of our scientific community.

But you’ll never get a paper published because it’s now all just a contest to get funding from liberal institutions and the people deciding what gets published are all a bunch of liberals hellbent on shoving their agenda down everyone’s throat, while the rest of the scientific community that might later claim to be sheep in this mess are openly abandoning the idea of scientific inquiry in favor of unswerving devotion to dogma. Scientific awards and academic journals are now on par with the Oscars- just forums for liberals to pat themselves on the back about how liberal they are while taking shots at nonbelievers. “Nonbelievers” is a very polite term- based on the Left’s utter contempt for people they deem inferior, ie people that don’t believe propaganda, and based on the Left’s drive for control of population (and the Left thinking that they’ve cured Down’s Syndrome by killing all babies born with it), I fervently believe that “nonbeliever” is more accurately replaced with “Lebensunwertes Leben”. Why don’t you ask a liberal and find out?

Illegal Dumping

Scientists want it to be illegal for me to insult them. But when they decide to attack countries that have cleaned-up their act, to punish a country that has done quite a lot to cut down on pollution, and to put on a pedestal the country which is the biggest example of anthropogenic climate change/government not caring about it and say they’re the one whose example we must follow, these scientists open themselves up to insult for such a backward, self-defeating, contradictory response that is in defiance not only of the urgent reality these scientists have imagined but in fact of reality itself. This can’t be considered libel because my statements are factually correct- liberals and the scientific community (more liberals) say we have very few hours/days/weeks/months/years to stop man-made climate change, and they tell us the best way to do this is to follow the example of the one country that, if it were to suddenly vanish, would cause the temperature increase to drop .5 degrees Celsius just as the Paris Climate Agreement aimed for.

Before you start ranting on about how anti-science I am for opposing scientists that wouldn’t know real science if it walked up and started throwing Erlenmeyer flasks at them, let me make my position even more clear: man-made climate change happens (otherwise my criticism against China would be bizarre). The problem is that A: the Left is blaming only the United States despite our fairly unpolluted countryside, B: the Left demands a worldwide totalitarian regime be installed to save us from their hyperbolic predictions of fiery death that have never come true, and C: the Left wants to silence opponents of their lies by jailing people/totally controlling the rest of the people right down to deciding if they’re worthy enough to reproduce (as established in the “California” piece). Their Final Solution to the Climate Question.


The UN’s new climate chief indicated in a recent interview that he too thought China was the best model for how to fight climate change. Image from wikimedia commons

And unfortunately, because of liberals, man-made climate change will doubtless continue and even reach the levels they are warning against. Not because of the U.S. which they target, we’re doing alright at least compared to where we used to be (except in liberal cities like smog-covered LA or NYC in which just one sip of the Hudson will probably give you cancer). Rather, it’s because of the countries the liberals are giving a free pass to pollute as they like (as established above with the description of what the Paris Climate Agreement allows, which makes this CNN piece saying China is near a point of no-return hilarious as the Climate Agreement lets China DRAMATICALLY INCREASE its polluting) while forcing the U.S. to make up the difference. As point of fact, while the U.S. is forced to withstand punitive, economy-damaging measures, we also are forced to PAY other countries (and Palestinian terrorists) so that they can keep polluting (the treaty is non-binding and there is no enforcement measure such as cutting off funds to a country that abuses them or ignores the agreement; the only reason America is forced to do anything is because of the Leftwing political leadership that brought us this agreement). But then again, as mentioned above, liberals have admitted at least twice that this is not about fixing the environment. It’s not about fairness or equal enforcement. It’s about wealth redistribution and ending capitalism. And even if we don’t believe the Left’s 97% claim, as seen at a Forbes link above we still have 80-90% of the scientific community on board with this radical ideology and inevitable genocide of political opposition.


All this just so that China and India can keep exemplifying the ills of man-made climate change or even accelerate their pace of polluting, as the Paris Climate Agreement permits. By the way, if China has the ideal form of government for fighting man-made Climate Change, would that also mean the USSR was ideal? Because you might want to rethink that assessment too… just as the UN has been rethinking its assessment of how effective the Paris Climate Agreement was. Doesn’t matter, it never was about the climate anyway, as stated before.

Why is it that I, the allegedly anti-science knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon guy blasting scientists and environmentalists for hyping man-made climate change, am the one who seems to know more about real man-made climate change than they do? I assume I do, otherwise, the Paris Climate Agreement which scientists marched in support of would look a lot different, and they certainly wouldn’t support bad actors/major polluters like China being given free reign to pollute as they please. Maybe I’m the only one mentioned here that actually believes in man-made climate change, maybe the scientists are just rallying behind it in a cynical attempt to usher in worldwide communism and destruction to their political opposition (their opposition is easy to identify- whoever believes their contradictory statements unquestioningly is with them, whoever doubts them is the enemy). Wouldn’t be the first time someone used an ostensibly laudable cause as a Trojan Horse, and scientists already have a pretty bad reputation morallyspeaking (something also cynical, aside from my outlook, but I noticed I had a very hard time finding info on Soviet and Chinese human experiments, with most of the search results for both countries being links to American experiments, and any search for China had Unit 731 listed near the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if either A: Google didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they hid results, B: academics didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they didn’t study it, C: journalists didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they never reported on it, or D: all of the above).

I Leave You With One Last Smear Of The Scientific Community

They’re idiots (and yes, these folks who claim that people who rape/behead/burn people alive are the real victims DO represent the scientific community). This is the state of our scientific community… and explains why we’re still such a primitive species, technologically. But you liberals reading this probably believe we’re still primitive because science itself is sexist because it deals in absolutes, ie. sexist because 2+2 will always equal 4. Whatever.

When Is A Spy Not A Spy?


Image of the third-best Riddler, from DC Database

Riddle me this caped crusader!

Answer: when an investigation into collusion is not an investigation into collusion!

A Little Before Mueller’s Time

The New York Times and Washington Post report that the FBI had someone providing them information about the Trump Campaign, someone associated with the campaign. defines “spy” as:

a person who seeks to obtain confidential information 
about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, 
especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:


to observe secretively or furtively with hostile
intent (often followed by on or upon).

President Trump said that the FBI had a spy in his campaign. This led to such headlines as:

  • “Donald Trump turned a rumor into a full-blown government conspiracy in just 5 days” – CNN
  • “Trump repeats unproven conspiracy theory” – CNN
  • “Trump’s FBI Spy Theory Is Completely Insane” – New York Magazine
  • “The No. 1 reason Trump’s ‘spygate’ conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense” – Washington Post
  • “Blame these people for Trump’s outrageous attack on truth and U.S. law enforcement” – Jennifer Rubin at Washington Post (their once alleged conservative columnist, though if that beastie is what WaPo thinks a conservative is it’s no wonder they’re so deathly out of touch with reality)

What exactly is THEIR definition of spy, or spying? Maybe this explains the credibility gap between us and the fake news media. Maybe they’re really telling the truth, but they speak an entirely different dialect of English. Or maybe America is suffering from Anosognosia Of The Media (A.M.).

The alternative, of course, is that these “journalists” believe that if they tell a lie (well, maybe half lie) enough, everyone will start believing it. And naturally, they complain that Trump is the one enabling dictatorships even though they’re the ones whose methods of deceit and whose goals of opposing free governments most align with the totalitarians. But like Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton’s mentor) said: accuse the other side of doing what you’re doing.

Repeat It, Like Other Lies, They Told About This…


Pictured: One of the many executions of American/Allied spies that the Left said would take place if we learned who the spy in the Trump Campaign was.  But like some Stalinist purge of history, I guess this didn’t happen since the NYT and WaPo were the ones that told us who the Trump spy was, instead of House Republicans. Image from The Real Cuba

They said that no one was ever spying on the Trump campaign. Well, that’s obviously a lie. Remember how they said revealing the spy would be illegal and jeopardize national security? Remember their breathless coverage of courageous Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) as he threatened to prosecute Republican Congressmen and Senators if they tried to find out who the spy was because people would die if that happened? Lies again! The spy turned out to be some guy who’s already well known for spying. So instead of looking like idiots for over-hyping the murders and collapse of intelligence gathering that would happen if anyone learned the identity of the spy, the media instead goes for looking stupid trying to say there was no spy after they themselves leaked enough details to identify the spy.

And so comes in my favorite Congressman to hate on- Adam Schiff (D-CA). This man must have stuffed a crayon up his nose or something as a wee lad, for all the wonderful sound bites he gives (like saying 15 months ago that there’s more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but not revealing any of it even after the House shut down the investigation he was part of, even after the Mueller Probe failed to find or at least act on any such evidence after a year of looking). Adam said, within 90 seconds, that revealing the name of the spy would kill people and collapse our intel networks and that there, in fact, was not a spy at all. Personally, I liked Mr. Krabs’ delivery better. The icing on the cake is this: Adam Schiff made these statements days AFTER the NYT and WaPo released enough information about the spy that within five minutes everyone had identified him.

So for weeks the media and politicians tell us that we can’t know who the spy is, then the media tells us who it is, then the media and politicians either say there was no spy or that we can’t reveal information about the spy without causing a lot of damage. Or both, as Adam Schiff went for. And Former DNI James Clapper and Former FBI Director James Comey, who both went so far as to say no one was spying on the campaign at all but people were spying on it (Comey has since gone to just say nothing happened at all, period, despite his earlier remark). CNN too, who think this is a vast rightwing conspiracy… even after the leakers and NYT and WaPo admit it happened. And after all this, after the government leaks info that the media says would lead to people dying, after the media itself reports that the government spied on a political campaign, we have folks coming out and saying that it is wrong to question the government’s integrity.

Speaking Of Wild Remarks


I don’t really know what elitist Schumer has against this chain of stores. Image from My Bank Tracker

Sen. Chucky Schumer (D-NY) said that only a banana republic would investigate its law enforcement officials if circumstantial evidence (like Brennan, a political hack like Schumer, who once voted for a candidate that really was colluding with Russia, aiming the intel community at Trump the moment he looked like the Republican nominee) indicates a possible abuse of power. Remember- Schumer champions the Mueller Probe which is looking at all things even remotely related to the election to find any kind of crime committed by anyone involved with Trump at any point in their lives. Even if it has to manufacture one, as Michael Flynn learned. Or they’ll just settle for destroying your life. So in Schumer’s world, creating a taxpayer-funded group of law enforcement sicarios (they’re only one step more civilized than cartel hit men, only because they didn’t give Michael Flynn a Colombian necktie, so I refuse to demean mafia torpedoes by comparing them to the Mueller investigators) with unlimited power to prosecute political opponents is perfectly fine, but countering this corruption is itself the definition of corruption.

Schumer has shown yet again that he, the DNC, and clearly the entire Democrat Party and its myriad voters are all a bunch of gangsters. Thugs. Wannabe dictators trying to remake the U.S. into a banana republic of their own. I am laying blame on the entirety of the Democrat electorate simply because we are told Democrats are smarter and more independent, and more sane than Republicans. If that is the case, then they MUST be aware of what their leadership, like Schumer, is up to. They either do not care about what is going on or even support their goals. At the very least this argument applies to every Democrat in the state of New York that voted Schumer in, as well as his plentiful donors across the country… and let’s be honest, across the world because the number 1 Senate Democrat probably gets his share of foreign investment the same as the number 1 Republican.

What Did That Informant/Spy Do?

Halper tried to establish whether or not the Trump Campaign had connections with Russia. He started work July of 2016. He was unsuccessful in finding evidence of collusion and was even frustrated when George Papadopoulos had no idea what he was talking about when he asked George about alleged Russian meddling.

Which Way Will It go, George, Which Way Will It Go?


Stalin looks on with envy at the DNC’s relation with the American Press, as he wonders why his contemporary Soviet Press can’t be anywhere near as friendly to him.

George Papadopoulos is significant because I think the current iteration of the investigation’s origins (not the Mueller Probe; I mean the investigation that put Halper into the Trump Campaign. The Mueller Probe has only charged George with lying to the FBI, with said lie being that he told them he made contact with someone before he joined the campaign. The FBI thinks it is a lie because, though not part of the campaign at the time he made contact with this guy, George knew he would be in the campaign.) have him as being important. I don’t know, I might be behind on the latest origin story and stuck with what it was for Earth-Two, courtesy of the fantasy weavers on the Left that might be on Earth-One right now. First, they tell us it’s Carter Page and the Steele Dossier, then George.

George was one of the targets for chosen spy Halper, and the timeline is where the Left and DOJ/FBI slip up. James Comey (FBI Director at the time) told Congress under oath that their investigation began in LATE July, and Democrats in Congress pinned the date down as being July 31, 2016. Except Halper started spying for the FBI on July 11, 2016. Oops. Plus, former DNI Director James Clapper implied George wasn’t so major of a player in all this as to be the start of the investigation (otherwise Clapper would certainly remember his name).

Going back to the Steele Dossier for a second- Axios is saying that the House GOP’s finding that the Pee-Tape Dossier was used to trigger the FBI’s investigation, and Trump parroting that, are now discredited because the FBI had been investigating Trump much longer. Two problems come to mind. 1: that means the DOJ withheld information from Congress otherwise they’d have known better, and 2: the FISA memo was in fact retrieved based largely on the Dossier, so it still played a substantial role. Oh yeah, and 3: it sure looks like the FBI acted on the Steele Dossier when they deployed Halper- the FBI received it July 5, and on July 11 Halper starts spying on Carter Page who is hyped-up mightily in the Dossier. It’s still almost/more than 3 weeks before we’re told the FBI started their investigation that we see the FBI investigating this.

Speaking Of Violated FBI Rules


Let’s not kid ourselves with this partisan stuff- the real reason Comey didn’t tell the Trump Campaign is because he was too busy thinking about the millions his book deal would bring him. As seen in this pic from, the only thought in his head is “baby you’re a rich man, baby you’re a rich man, baby you’re a rich man too”

Oh, by the way, in regards to the idea that Halper was just there to check if Russia was trying to infiltrate the campaign rather than check for wrongdoing by the campaign itself, the FBI’s rulebook says it was supposed to notify the Trump Campaign instead of planting a spy. The Obama Administration decided not to do this. Taken alone

that might just seem reckless and slightly abusive like they were looking for an excuse to put a spy in the campaign, but consider the other steps the DOJ took (and the lies) and this takes on a more sinister overtone. Steps like setting-up Mike Flynn for a perjury trap, steps like “leaking” that J.D. Gordon met with Russian ambassadors in a “secret meeting” (which turned out to be lunch at the RNC among hundreds of other ambassadors) so that his reputation would be destroyed, and finally steps like the Deputy AG ordering an investigation into Trump over (in part) obstruction of justice because Trump did what the Deputy AG recommended and fired the FBI Director (notice how Newsweek dismisses this and proven collusion with Russia as conspiracy theories, to defend the idea that there is no DOJ corruption and to defend the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory).

And now we add that the Obama Administration decided not to warn the Trump campaign they could be facing Russian infiltration. The Obama Admin also didn’t want to warn the Trump Campaign that Carter Page and Paul Manafort had foreign ties. And sure enough, there’s an investigation into Trump-Russia collusion afterward. It’s like if police were to take down those “one-way” signs and then lie in wait to give tickets to people that travel the wrong way up a street while having let someone get into your car who would tell you to drive in that direction. And oh look, they even charged Paul Manafort (for unrelated stuff), who never would’ve been in this position with the Trump Campaign to begin with if the Obama Admin had warned them.

Denying Spying

Well, there you have it. Spies, and what appears to be entrapment and outright fabricating charges (like for Flynn and George, where Comey had to fabricate intent for Flynn and George was charged for not sharing the FBI’s definition that you are working on a campaign before you work on a campaign). And the best defense the Left has is to deny that any of this is happening, or try to divert to an even more implausible story (as was the case when shifting from Page to Papadopoulos). But it’s as clear as black and white that there was spying afoot, as reported in the Left’s own black and white printed papers of record!


Question! What’s black and white right, but white and black wrong? Image from Star