Stealth ATF (NES, 1989, residual from the War Games series)


Is it really “ATF”? It looks like “ACE” to me.

I don’t know what the “ATF” means. “Absolutely, Transparently Fictional”?


I don’t even know what jets these are supposed to be. They kinda look like Tornados but with just one engine.

In the game, you play as an F-117. The “F” stands for “Fighter”, but that was a bit of gimmickry to attract pilots since bombers and attack aircraft are for Herberts. Depending on who you ask, the “F” was also a bit of legal finaglery due to arms treaties controlling the number of bombers, or because Congress might’ve had a hard time approving a lightly-armed attack aircraft given that a bunch of better-armed ones were already in service and working just fine. The F-117 is designed solely to attack ground targets- it does not have any guns or air-to-air missiles. So… nothing in this game could possibly happen, but I guess in 1989 the publishers wouldn’t really have access to that info. They sure as heck WOULD have known that the ship can’t land or takeoff from an aircraft carrier!


I do not know what the hieroglyphs at the bottom mean.

Otherwise this game plays like any other fighter simulation that isn’t After Burner, meaning that when it comes time to land the aircraft I fail miserably. I apparently cost the fictional in-game U.S. government $255,600,000. They let you wrack up a tab of $127,800,000 before you get a game over. $213,000,000 was because I did not know how to land the plane, $42,600,000 is because I didn’t takeoff right on the first try. Every welfare recipient in the U.S. lost a dollar because of me.

The Political Stuff

Being a 1989 simulation, this certainly had Cold War potential. I didn’t get to the level, but there’s one set in Alaska so I can only assume the villain there is the Russkies unless the Eskimos allied with Snow Miser again (that’s what the REAL Aleutian campaign in WWII was about). Had I written for this instead of After Burner, it might’ve gone the same way as that, or the same way as the aforelinked “Flight of the Intruder” went. I’m just speculating; I don’t know where I would’ve gone with it. I know where I can go with it right now though.


This mission is no more real with Democrats than it is in the game… because you’d never send an F-117 to do that while sober.

The cries to bomb Russia have disappeared. The Left still believes Trump simultaneously exists in both a state of being an intellectually disabled failure of a businessman and a cunning Russian superspy who’s blood kin of Lavrentiy Beria.

In fact, the Democrats want us to be subservient to the Russians. They want Russia (or China, though as predicted that distinction is rapidly disappearing) to be the world’s only superpower. Their words of yore and actions at present bear this out.


  • Russia is not a threat.
  • We should reduce our missile defenses against Russian aggression
  • America needs to invest in Russia’s tech industry and help Russia dominate Silicon Valley
  • Uranium One
  • Paris Climate Agreement, which Democrats would adhere to by imposing its crippling effects on the U.S., at the same time as Russia and China (and other nations on it) would ignore the treaty they backed and fill the economic void left by our absence as producers.
  • It’s ok for Russia to interfere in our elections
  • It’s ok for Russia to take the lead in Syria
  • It’s ok for Russia to violate treaties.

At Present:

  • America should stop building and modernizing its nuclear arsenal as Russia expands its own, in violation of an Obama-era treaty which Democrats tell us our participating in would stop Russia from violating- in other words, Democrats tell you, as Russia violates the treaty, that Russia will only violate it if America stops adhering to it. Liberals are smarter than us, so this can only mean Democrats want Russia to get away with illegally expanding their arsenal while we continue to limit ours.
  • We should make it illegal for America to launch a first strike, a very peaceful and conciliatory move from the same Russia hawk party who claim they want a war, a move which would embolden Russia to attack in any non-nuclear way they can think of knowing that we’d never respond with something that mattered.

In other words, Democrats openly want to strip America of its defenses and economy while allowing Russia to expand its arsenal and polluting power. Does that sound like the same outraged anti-Russia party from 2 years ago, or the same pro-Russia party from over the past 100 years that I’ve discussed before?

Pro-Russia Side Effects

Not speaking to Russia directly, but we also  have the Green New Deal, which in one fell swoop with its extreme expense would eliminate the United States as a world power, or even make us a debt slave of China much as Africa is slowly becoming. But it gets better- Environmental groups are beholden to Russian and Chinese interests. Groups like the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Foundation, and the League of Conservation Voters. Even without the Green New Deal, these groups are seeking to disrupt our energy industry’s challenge to Russian and Chinese dominance. In other words, liberals talk of war with Russia while trying to increase Russia’s income and decrease America’s fuel reserve which would be much needed for a war.


Not really relevant except that I link to more anti-Left stuff, but you’ll notice a familiar name for the director and programming.

And why do I say this is all deliberate? Well, liberals like to boast of their superior intellects, so if a knuckledragging nitwit like me can figure this out then most assuredly a liberal knows this is happening, thus they either do not care or even want it to happen. This is further easily merged with the Left’s attempts to strip America of its defenses as I’ve discussed before to create a terrifyingly obvious portrait of a political movement serving Chinese and Russian interests far better than Trump ever has, even if we hold the notion that he’s a Russian plant.

Democrats spent years allying with Russia, asking Russia to interfere in our elections, whitewashing Russia’s evils, destroy our ability to deter Russia or fight them, and even now are outright on Russia’s payroll to destroy our energy industry, at a time when Democrats promote agendas that would devastate America and leave us as a country worse-off than Russia, thus by default elevating Russia’s status in the world. They do all of this, and then you turn the TV on and hear them complaining that Trump is the real Russian agent.

Let me put it another way: we have messages sent to a hitman about a job, we have paychecks sent to a hitman to carry out the job, we have the hitman boasting about how smart he is, we have a history of the hitman saying they wanted to do the job, we have the hitman’s arsenal in evidence, but whenever the hitman is asked he says those weapons are for something else and the hitman regularly and publicly says that the guy paying him is really paying his target to kill himself. Would you believe it? If you vote “D” but don’t hate America and don’t have a taste for borscht, you sure seem to.


Democrats And The National Emergency


Not this one, it’s only a statewide emergency. Image from USA Today

So… remember in 2012 and 2016 when far right bloggers were called crazy conspiracy nuts because they thought President Obama could declare a national emergency and suspend elections? Remember as far back as 2008 when far Left bloggers were called crazy by the NYT for thinking President Bush would do that? Remember how we were crazy for thinking anything bad about Obama’s power-grabbing National Defense Resources Preparedness document where he could seize everything in the country for himself while suspending elections?

Well, now the crazy Leftwing bloggers have the rest of the party with them on that particular warpath but this time they tell us that what was a lie 3-7 years ago is now the truth simply because the guy in the Oval Office is from a different political party. Of course we all know that if President Trump didn’t use a national emergency and the many Lincoln Administration-esque powers it gives the President, then the next Democrat in office probably would if a Republican Congress obstructed them. Look at the 2020 lineup and lie to me that any of them wouldn’t do that. Some of them are the same Senators telling us they’d end the filibuster in the Senate if they were in a position to, to squelch any resistance from Republicans. All of them praised Obama’s use of his pen and phone to get around obstructionists.


I’m not blaming Bush, I was just too lazy to look up what Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, the other Roosevelt, McKinley, etc. did.

It’s a pattern, if you look at it, where the next ones in power build upon the powers that their predecessors seized for themselves. President Bush used executive orders, Obama condemned him but then issued orders of his own that brazenly ran against the law, and now we have Trump using his pen and phone to fund the border wall. It’s not just with Presidents either. The filibuster in the Senate- first Democrats end it in certain circumstances, Republicans expand on that, and finally Democrats say that if they’re in power they’ll end it altogether. I’ve complained already that Republicans should beat them to the punch and ram through their agenda now; I’m glad Trump is at least doing that with his national emergency power.

And as for Democrat threats that their President will use national emergency powers? Well, they already did. Recall that Obama used his national emergency powers when he used the excuse of a total lie (as discussed before) to begin his assault on Libya, an action cheered on by warmonger Hillary Clinton. A Democrat already used a national emergency to topple a foreign government he didn’t like; the question is why wouldn’t a future Democrat use one to topple our government which they also don’t particularly like (and as referenced in the third paragraph at this link, make opposition illegal)? Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but at a time when every Presidential candidate on the Democrat side is backing the Green New Deal which will cause basically a soft-toppling (or not, liberals are smart enough to know that something like the Green New Deal would destroy the economy, and thus the country, like Venezuela or the former USSR. Except now electricity will be so expensive and families will be so poor that America will be sent back to 1900. Maybe America might be saved by a severe balkanization, leaving us like the current Russian Republic? At least that way liberals will finally have total control, even if its only of the Democratic Peoples’ Republics of New York and California and Ginsburg (because let’s be honest, they would change the name of Washington State to something not related to a slave-holding white man) who are reduced to such a carbon-friendly level that the horse and buggy is as much science fiction as a flying saucer) of our government by turning it communist, we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) threatening that their next Democrat President will use a national emergency declaration to handle climate change. Or maybe they’ll declare a national emergency to destroy border security, allowing 37 million new Democrats into the country to make sure that from there on only Democrats ever have the power to declare national emergencies, or really do anything else in government.

As a microcosm of this, let’s look at San Diego. Illegal border crossings dropped 95% after their walls went up. Democrats want to tear down those walls. Do you know what’s on the other side of that border? Tijuana, the murder capital of Mexico… which is saying something in the cartel country. Now is when someone will argue that the Tijuana murders are just a turf war. Well, what do you think will happen when new turf to the north opens?

Your Personal Security


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hid his NYC apartment behind locked doors, police officers, and small metal barriers when protesters pestered him. That’s more protection that he wants for you. Image from New York Magazine

You know, liberal, I couldn’t help but notice that in cities you put bars on your windows to keep criminals out. But you insist walls are ineffective, so wouldn’t such things as bars on the windows and locked doors also be ineffective? If walls are immoral for keeping desperate people away from the money they are entitled to, according to you, then aren’t your doors and window bars also just as immoral as they are ineffective? And what about the folks at MSNBC and on Capitol Hill who preach to us from behind not only walls and locked doors but also an army of armed guards? They tell us we’re not allowed to have guns and not allowed to have walls, from behind the protection of those very things. They tell us that the military is terrorizing poor desperate immigrants, from behind a militia of their own designed to terrorize people.

Liberals are smarter than us as mentioned above, so obviously they are aware of this hypocrisy, and since they keep getting votes I totally understand why they believe the public is stupid, but their intelligence also means they know that borders are necessary. So we are led to the question of why they want to get rid of them. Easy answer- 37 million Democrats to keep them in power perpetually. They gave up on convincing Americans to vote for them and decided just to import a welfare class that will vote for the Big Government umbilical cord, operated at our expense.

As for those of you who aren’t hypocrites and genuinely believe in open borders, do this and I will take you seriously: move into the worst part of town, leave your doors unlocked and windows open, take every cent of your money (cash out all of your investments too, anything that could create money) and put it in your house, then put a big neon sign outside your door that says “OPEN”. Live that way for the rest of your life. That’s the only way you aren’t a hypocrite on open borders.

Other Freudian Slips


I think she’s as prone to Freudian slips as Joe Biden. Image from wikimedia commons

Pelosi commented that the next Democrat President might declare a national emergency on guns, in a way she thought was a proportional response to Trump’s national emergency on the border. Like if I shove you and you shove me back. Except she believes that a President unilaterally exterminating the 2nd Amendment is the same as a President rerouting money. Worse, she believes the right of a foreigner to vote Democrat and receive welfare without contributing to the U.S. is equal to all of your Constitutional rights.

As you saw above with Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness, a President would have the power to do that. In fact, if a Democrat declared that anyone with a gun was in open rebellion and Democrats have their way with the Supreme Court, then they would be able to use Lincoln’s Administration as precedence for severe unconstitutional actions like that. In other words, Pelosi’s threat should be taken seriously, especially in light of the Left’s openly anti-gun agenda. And remember, as we saw in the UK, knives and hammers will be next.

Speaking of Californian Pelosi believing that the right of people being here illegally is of equal weight to your rights under the law, we have another Californian showing off their priorities. The governor believes that using the national guard to fight illegal marijuana growth is more important than using the national guard to deter illegal drugs from entering the country. Gov. Newsom (D) took a hefty sum of money from the Mary Jane industry, and wants to use the military to protect it from those participating illegally. Now isn’t that interesting? Democrats want to use the military to stop illegal pot growth at the behest of their donors in the legal pot industry, while at the same time they DON’T want to use the military to stop people from coming into the U.S. illegally who would use their illegal votes to help Democrats. Follow the money and follow the votes too I guess.

Trump And I Are One On Democrat Obstruction

How did it come to the point of the National Emergency? Weak-kneed Republicans as I keep complaining about, but also Democrats. They are absolutely dedicated to not letting Trump get anything done. Remember when 700,000 DACA recipients faced a humanitarian crisis, but Democrats refused a solution that would help not just them but also another 1.1 Million who hadn’t even applied for DACA solely because it came from Trump? Trump just wanted border security in return, something those Democrats supported, but because it was Trump who wanted it Democrats now refused.

Democrats are not now, nor have ever been, inclined to negotiate with Trump. I’ve mentioned before that they mock his negotiator abilities, but in addition to what I said before about party survival I’ll add here that Trump’s failure is also what Democrats want, no matter how many lives are hurt by it. His failure means less Republican voter turnout.

It’s tempting to simply blame Democrat incivility on Trump, to say that Democrats won’t negotiate  and will obstruct only because they hate Trump or because Trump is insulting or because Trump is a bigot or whatever, to say that if it were any other Republican then Democrats wouldn’t be so vicious. Nope. Remember under Obama, how Democrats weren’t inclined to deal with Republicans (Remember: Republicans are political terrorists for not adhering to Democrat demands when Democrats have the power, while Democrats are saviors for not adhering to Republican demands when Republicans have the power)? They said “win elections if you want your policies to pass”. Republicans did that, and instead of adhering to their words Democrats decided to oppose everything Republicans do… so, business as usual. How do you negotiate with someone dedicated to your destruction?

Democrats, Race, And The Electoral College’s Protections


Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Why does “diversity” mean “elect anti-Semites”? Image from CNN.

Democrats are supposed to be the pro-Israel anti-anti-Semite party, right? Republicans are the ones who will destroy Israel and hate Jews in general, right? Well… Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) might disagree. I’d add Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) but she does not strike me as being intelligent enough to understand the views she espouses. She’s the embodiment of those slogan communists Nikita Khrushchev condemned in his memoir as being all bark and no brain.


Aside from anti-Semitism, and the long list of racism we’ve discussed before, we now have some new developments to look at. Before we get to blackface, let’s start with redface. While the blackface discussed below was merely to mock people, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) faked Native American ancestry on various documents to pass as one, much like certain white people creating fictionalized racist incidents and pretending to be black (gotta love CNN though, they tell you that two universities touted her as part of their diversity but say she did not benefit from her status, even though her presence at Harvard clearly was from her ancestry, and yet despite Harvard itself touting her status CBS gives us the headline “Harvard didn’t consider Elizabeth Warren as Native American, report says”). The embarrassing results of her DNA test only emboldened her supporters, but eventually Warren relented (well after the damage had been done, and in ways that wouldn’t matter according to Native Americans) and just blamed her family for the whole thing. After parading them in front of herself in a campaign video, she threw them under the bus. Par for the course for the pro-choice crowd I guess. Just as an aside, this same Warren who supports the Green New Deal and wants to destroy the wealthy is herself worth $10 million. Let me put that into perspective- accounting for inflation, Sen. Warren has enough money to pay Francisco Scaramanga to kill two people.

Have you noticed how as more white Democrats are caught being racist, liberal thought leaders want to redefine what racism is? “You’re not racist as long as you help blacks” says the opinion piece from CNN, where Trump who brought black unemployment to its lowest point in decades is routinely called racist (look at this piece by the Washington Post- they outright say that CNN’s logic doesn’t apply to Trump! Only Democrats I guess, and black voters agree with their support of Northam’s 1980s Michael Jackson minstrel show). What if it came out that prominent Democrats were mentored by KKK members, would that mean the KKK is no longer racist? Isn’t racism an absolute? Isn’t that what we are told? Why are you letting a bunch of whites tell you that because a bunch of whites are racist, racism isn’t racism and you must tolerate what these whites do?

Racing Through The Chaff

The venerable founder of this blog had asked me a few weeks ago to write about the racism behind abolishing the electoral college as well as previous attempts by Democrats to engage in racist voter disenfranchisement measures. Largely due to the parallels to today’s environment, this ended up being a brief study of Democrats during Reconstruction as you’ll see later. As for right now, Democrats gave me the perfect setup to begin a conversation on race so let’s start with what a fun week it was last week. Although I laughed at it, the laugh wasn’t out of a partisan “serves them right” at first, it was instead of a “seriously?” nature.


VA Lt. Gov. Fairfax (D), VA State AG Herring (D), and VA Gov. Northam (D). I almost had a picture like this for the three Democrat superstars at the top, but from the angle I couldn’t tell if it was really Omar or not, the lower part of the face looked too compressed, so I went with CNN’s. Image from USA Today.

At the front of it all we have Democrat Virginia Governor Northam. The one who argued for legalizing infanticide, which based on abortion statistics would disparately impact people of color. The one who referred to black slaves as “indentured servants”. That same Northam has a picture on his yearbook page from college showing someone in blackface and someone in a KKK hood. His defense? He says he does not remember doing that, and he totally would remember doing that because he remembers doing other naughty things like… dressing in blackface for a Michael Jackson-themed competition. That’d be like if when Brett Kavanaugh presented his social calendar, it had “rape party without Dr. Ford” penciled-in. Speaking of Kavanaugh, how come the media so readily found his high school yearbook but NOBODY knew about Northam’s college yearbook? There’s a criticism here beyond just the media letting Democrats get a pass: where were Northam’s opponents in the primaries and the election? This should’ve been the first thing they found!

Northam refuses to step down, but if he does Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) would take his place. Fairfax is at the moment defending himself from sexual assault and rape allegations. Anyone else remember Kavanaugh? Remember when we were told that even if he was innocent, he’s still too tarnished so we should’ve moved on to someone else? Remember when we were told that men accused by women of anything were guilty and should just admit it? Remember that women should always be believed when making these accusations? Remember that women don’t make this stuff up? Remember that there is no presumption of innocence? Glad you remember, because Democrats sure don’t! “F#@$ that B%&#%” is what Fairfax allegedly said about his accuser behind closed doors. Remember when alleged comments by Trump became fact for the media and Democrats? Remember when the media attacked Kavanaugh merely for defending himself against accusations, saying that his heated defense clearly showed his guilt? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS were silent on Fairfax’s alleged remark (Washington Post was silent on something more important- they were made aware of one sexual assault long before it became public but decided that women accusing Democrats were liars and declined to investigate). Worse, while ignoring those remarks ABC said the real crisis stemming from the Virginia situation is that it could lead to a Republican governor, because it’s not just the governor and second-in-line for governor who’s found themselves in controversy.

Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, is third in line for governor, if Fairfax and Northam become too unviable. Well, after Herring condemned Northam for being in blackface, we learned that it was literally the pot calling the kettle black, because Herring wore blackface in college too. Democrats said that if a Republican won the governorship in Virginia, it would be such a racist act that it would lead to minority kids being ran over in the streets for sport. Yet the only acts of racism at the top levels of Virginia politics have originated from Democrats, and the media and Democrats which claim to be on your side are burying them and burying the sexual assault allegations… or rather I should say, treating the sexual assault allegations as they should be treated: innocent until proven guilty. But that means all the talk about victims’ rights and believing all women gets thrown under the bus along with the women that Democrats claim to work on behalf of. Like we saw with the accusations against DNC Deputy Chair Ellison that ran concurrently with the Kavanaugh media circus, with prominent Democrats ignoring pleas that all women should be believed and all women accusers are telling the truth by saying “I do not believe her”.

What’s With Sanctimonious Liberals And Blackface Anyway?


This would be Jimmy Kimmel. I’m pretty sure Al Jolson’s act wasn’t as offensive, if only because he wasn’t mocking anyone. Image from 247Sports.

Joy Behar, Jimmy Kimmel who was smart enough to know he was putting on a minstrel show, Jimmy Fallon who doesn’t act smart enough to know that he hosts a show, Sarah Silverman who isn’t really relevant to anything, Gov. Ralph Northam, State Attorney General Mark Herring. Then you have Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) pretending to be Native American, and I don’t know if dressing in blackface is worse than pretending to be another race just to reap the rewards. That’s a question that a liberal governor and a liberal front-runner for President gave us through their actions. Seems like the people you want protecting your rights, right citizen minority?


Here’s another question, directed at outlets like Washington Post telling us democracy will die without them- where the hell were you guys on situations like this? Or do you have the same definition of “democracy” as the “Democratic Republic of Korea”? I know you folks in the liberal media love supporting dictatorships, at least ones that Democrats support. So which of us is really making sure democracy dies in the dark?

Time For Cortez

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) might get off easy on anti-Semitism, but not when it comes to being a racial supremacist. She believes Latinos deserve special rights, all Latinos. She even thinks that all Latinos worldwide originated in the land that is now the United States and so are entitled to come and occupy land here if they like, without legally immigrating. A: that is a total lie. At best there are a couple of people in Canada and the northern parts of Mexico that can make such a claim. B: if all Latinos had free movement, including the MS-13 members who hate blacks and murdered people in her own district (to be fair, by letting MS-13 murderers and rapists into the country Ocasio-Cortez technically is representing people in her district like she is supposed to), then we’d have a much bigger problem for the black community by way of overburdened safety nets. Democrats already told you that supporting illegal immigrants would hurt you, now you vote for them to go and do that. With illegals that hate you.

Ocasio-Cortez said only Latinos deserved special rights. Native Americans ought to take note- we got the Latino race because the whites conquered the native ancestors and stole the women of the ones they did not outright kill. Now Cortez is at it again, and wants a Latino wave to sweep you out of the country (couldn’t resist the hyperbolic historical callback). Mexico has no Indian Reservations, and the cartels would surely want in on whatever businesses you do run on your lands, and of course your casinos.


She’s going to be a lot of fun. We’re going to have a lot of fun with this one. It’s like Joe Biden without a filter. Image from the Daily Caller

Cortez wants to see a country that looks like her. To the blacks who Democrats take for granted, your skin color is a little darker than what she wants. How do I know this? Why else is she taking actions that her own party said would devastate your communities? Why else would she say that Latinos, but not blacks, had a right to go anywhere they want? She didn’t say this was YOUR land, the land your ancestors were enslaved on, the land your ancestors developed, the only land your ancestors knew. She said it was HER land, the land her Latino ancestors never set foot on.


Let me ask you to do some simple math here. Where is the money coming from? 37,000,000 people in Latin America want to immigrate to the U.S., and those numbers are from 2017 when Venezuela wasn’t in such bad shape. 13.4% of the U.S. population- 43.8 million- are black without any Latino ancestry. In 2012, 41.6% of African Americans relied on the social safety nets that Barack Obama told us illegal immigrants would destroy. At the time he made this observation 13 years ago, there were only 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. How many more are there now? You’ll notice that immigrants in general, legal and illegal, tend to go for welfare (yes, I know illegal citizens are unable to apply for most forms of welfare, but if they have a child within the U.S., ie an anchor baby, then that child is eligible). So under Ocasio-Cortez, we can assume the reforms to citizenship would mean at least 63% of those 37,000,000 coming in would have some form of government assistance coming into the house. 18.2 million blacks are on welfare, and Obama was already warning that the social safety nets are strained by the 11 million illegal immigrants here, and now Ocasio-Cortez wants 23.31 million people added to welfare.

You might notice how the welfare programs already aren’t supporting you and your families and friends, how are they going to support more than double that? Ocasio-Cortez also wants reforms that will over 10 years cost twice as much as the U.S. has spent on its military in 200 years. The population under Ocasio-Cortez would already be increasing by 10% with the 37 million coming in, how could we hope to support welfare and her expensive programs? Answer: we can’t. And with Latinos free to migrate back to where they came from, and blacks stuck in America, and as you believe whites too rich to be affected by it, this means that only black people will pay for Ocasio-Cortez’s Brown Supremacist schemes. And remember: the chairman of your party, Tom Perez, told you that Ocasio-Cortez was your future.

But we’re not done yet! There’s also her Green New Deal. There is no way to pay for it, period. There probably isn’t enough money on the planet to pay for it. So who WILL pay for it? Poor blacks and whites too poor to flee the U.S. Latinos will simply pack up and head back to the countries they are still citizens of, countries which they’d be sending money to. Mexico alone gets several billion dollars from its citizens who live in the U.S., imagine another 37 million people sending money that could be taxed and fund welfare programs back to their home countries. Does it really sound like the Democrats have your interests at heart? Heck, their Green New Deal pretty much calls for printing


Maybe Democrats got confused and thought that people needed a lot of money (aka dough) to make bread? Images of 1922 Weimar Germany from Rare Historical Photos.

money, which was enough to even make white people dirt poor when the Germans did that in the 1920s and 1930s. You’d need a wheelbarrow full of dollars just to buy a loaf of bread, and you know your employers aren’t going to pay you in wheelbarrows. Venezuela is what will happen here, and blacks will be stuck with it while Ocasio-Cortez’s Latino coalition will simply leave the country. Her homeland that she is so proud of is Puerto Rico- she’d just move there and then become a citizen once Puerto Rico became wealthier than the U.S. (by default, they would simply renounce protectorate status once America became too poor), she has no stake in this. You, on the other hand African-American reader, are stuck in this.


Maybe you think they’re allied with you, but if so why does she only work for Latinos? She made it clear her Green New Deal is largely about taking stuff from whites and giving it to nonwhites, with Latinos getting preferred spots as outlined below and above, so what will she do if white people run out of stuff? Latinos will still want more, and blacks will have a lot more to give. Blacks may have been enslaved here, but Cortez made it clear she only cares about people native to here. Maybe it will start as an extra penalty simply for living on her soil, but when the money from whites stops she’ll turn on you to feed her Latino supporters. And right now there are already many more of them than there are of you. But I guess Black Lives Don’t Matter.

Well, maybe not. Afterall, the Green New Deal is guaranteed to kick you out of your home (while it’s being “updated“, quite a project for the projects) while making sure Latinos are the ones in charge (Cortez says the Green New Deal gives “indigenous peoples… a leadership role in in [sic] where we’re moving as a country”, and as you saw above she defines all “Latinos” as indigenous, so lookout African Americans, you’re being thrown out of your homes and under the bus. You keep being told that Republicans want you to stay in the backseat of the bus, but I daresay the backseat of the bus looks pretty attractive as the wheels of it speed towards your head when Democrats drive it). Once you’re roving the street homeless, maybe you can wander into Canada and get a job. Claim refugee status, or claim to be an undocumented Canadian. Good luck.

Stopping This At The Ballot


At least Democrats in NY are consistent- they care as much for the voting rights of the newly born as they do for anyone else’s. Image of NY Gov Cuomo (D) from WAMC

Democrats don’t want any resistance to their agenda. They want to stop you from voting against them, or at least stop your vote from counting, whether it’s by creating a law that makes it so that the Democrat-controlled government chooses who is allowed to be a candidate, or by abolishing the electoral college, or by making sure that these 37,000,000 incoming Latinos are all allowed to vote. Or by doing what New York State does and make voting extremely complex (they have the 2nd lowest voter turnout in the country), certainly much more than a simple voter ID law would.


We need electoral college, as these leftwingers told us in 2016 after Trump was elected. As they point out, all you’d have to do is win the white vote in some key parts of the country and you’d win the Presidency. With the 37 million new arrivals, you’d just need the white and the Latino vote. So… what happens to black voters? You have 37 million people who probably hate you, a party that is trying to say wearing blackface is ok just to save its white leaders, and a party that admitted that its open borders policies would hurt African American communities while gaining favor with Latinos. Heck, Democrats are already pushing black voters aside, so I guess at this stage abolishing the electoral college would mean nothing, right?

LGBTQ folks- don’t think you’re left out of this either. Minorities tend to be just as bad as whites, so it doesn’t matter if your oppressed Latino “allies” or even your oppressed blackallies” get into power. The boot stomping on you is always the same color, regardless of who wears it.

Looks like intersectionality is breaking down. So what happens when the electoral college is gone and all a candidate has to do is appeal to some combination of heterosexual whites and Latinos? Since Democrats have been gunning for the electoral college for much of their history, maybe their anti-Trump drive is just a way to get support from the people who need the electoral college most.

This Is Nothing New


One of the articles I link above says no President has done more to help blacks than LBJ. Don’t his quotes sound a lot like what I’ve been arguing this whole time that Dems were up to?

The Democrats have a bad history with race. They used to favor the whites, they then pretended to favor blacks while really everywhere that blacks and dems got together things went south… so to speak. And do you want to see what real racism looks like? Look at what blacks who try to fight Democrats face. Now you want to get rid of the electoral college to make sure this fight doesn’t matter (Jefferson Davis coincidentally complained about Abraham Lincoln winning with the help of the electoral college). Wouldn’t be the first time Democrats tried to disenfranchise minority voters.


  • Ex Parte Garland– former Confederate officials were allowed back into the U.S. government… remember that the Confederacy was largely comprised of angry Democrats. The five judges who decided to permit this were Democrats (at that time). The ones opposing it were Republicans (at that time). A very partisan divide, and if letting Confederates back into government isn’t racist then I don’t know what is (aside from Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson segregating the government).
  • 1866 New Orleans Massacre– a mob of Democrats attacks Republicans… mostly black Republicans. When else have we seen mobs of Democrats on the attack? 44 blacks were killed, blacks who merely wanted to have the right to vote. As I said above, Democrats found a happy medium for the process: give the right to vote, but make sure it doesn’t count.
  • Knights of the White Camelia– Democrat terrorists trying to stop blacks from voting. Democrats seem fond of terrorists, but to be fair Democrats think our own military is a terrorist organization. The Oxford Dictionary defines a terrorist as “A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Seems like a good description of Maxine Waters’ calls for mob action or really Antifa in general, and the post-election riots.
  • New Departure– this is an example of Democrats taking up the banner of “friend to the minority” in order to whitewash their pro-slavery past that, technically, cost them a whole country. Except they did this in 1865, when people still kinda remembered the Civil War. So recent was the Civil War that many Democrats opposed this strategy, still clinging to the idea that the South would rise again I suppose. Republicans publicly pushed the obvious conclusion that this was merely politicking on the parts of Democrats trying to win elections. Basically like Democrat Vice President Joe Biden telling blacks that Republicans would put them in chains, when Biden himself was a segregationist and was part of an administration that was quite harmful to the black community. And now we see something similar in Virginia, where Democrats are trying to show that the blackfaced Governor and State Attorney General are totally ok now.
  • Kirk-Holden War of 1870– KKK (Democrats, it was formed to #Resist Republicans) killed pro-black government officials, tried to conquer a local town, and fought a government militia. Sounds like Democrats in Portland, minus the murder and trade racism against blacks for racism against whites.
  • Meridian Riot of 1871– In Meridian, MS, the town refused for years to stop the KKK, and when they finally arrested someone related to all that it was… a black guy. Chaos ensued, 30 blacks were killed, the Republican mayor fled the town, and no one was charged for anything. Sounds kind of like the reverse of Maxine Waters’ lovefest LA Riots where about 40% of the murders went without justice. Or what I mentioned was going on in Portland, only sans homicide. Definitely gotta mention the Baltimore riots.
  • Amnesty Act of 1872– Some of the soldiers fighting in the Civil War got their experience fighting Mexico, so no this had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Like Ex Parte Garland, this was forgiveness to Confederates and reduction to legal barriers erected against them having positions of power, only now 7 years after the Civil War we see Republicans and Democrats both uniting on this.
  • Louisiana Gubernatorial Election of 1872– Democrats were running with #NotMyGovernor, so federal troops had to come in and force them to accept a Republican leader.
  • Colfax Massacre of 1873– A lethal version of what Democrats today are trying to do with the Mueller Probe and riots and mobbing public officials, Democrats in Louisiana who weren’t happy with the outcome of the governor’s race formed a small army and killed 150 blacks. There were many violent incidents that sprung from Democrats refusing to accept the results of an election (surprise surprise surprise!) but this one was the biggest.
  • White LeagueAntifa’s ancestor? It was a group formed to get Republicans out of office and intimidate Republican supporters. Mostly blacks, but you get the idea by now. Like Antifa, they were even once described as “the military arm of the progressive movement”, which means Democrats.
  • Coushatta Massacre– the White League proved its no Antifa and actually killed people. A couple of Republicans, and a lot more blacks.
  • Eufaula Alabama Coup of 1874– another act by the Democrat White League, wherein they killed several black voters and chased away a thousand more. Then they chased away the Republican candidates and declared Democrats the winners. Today the approach is more refined- until Trump came along, the media was successful at chasing away squeamish Republicans and declaring Democrats the winner. They still did half of that in 2016. Am I the only one looking at Democrats chasing Republicans out of office, and thinking of KKK-mentored Hillary Clinton’s words that civility can only return once Democrats are in power?
  • 1876 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election– Democrats worked to intimidate Republicans, again like Maxine Waters suggested. Because if it worked for Johnny Reb, it’ll work for Democrats today right? Nationwide, the compromise at the end of the 1876 elections marked the end of Reconstruction. Democrats in the South began reasserting their control without soldiers around to stop them.
  • The Red Shirts– Too bad for the sake of blacks these weren’t the guys in Star Trek. This was another Democrat terrorist group. Interesting how Wikipedia describes them as a militant group of Democrats trying to regain power for the party, much like Antifa was post-Trump’s election, much like some Democrats called for. I’m detecting a certain parallel here: Democrats riot when they lose and intimidate everyone until they get their way, whether it’s during the Reconstruction years or the post-Trump years. Where were the violent riots when Republicans lost in 2008? The worst anyone ever came up with is alleging that Tea Party people yelled racial slurs. Then Democrats get ousted, and 10 months later Occupy Wall Street protests are breaking windows. Then Democrats lose in 2016, and we see fires and their leaders say don’t be civil until we are in control again.
  • 1876 Presidential Election and Compromise of 1877– As mentioned earlier, this meant the end to Reconstruction, thus the beginning of Democrats taking the South back as close legally as it could get to pre-Civil War status. The Compromise came about because several states (good ol’ unreliable Florida among them) had disputed outcomes and both sides accused the other of fraud and intimidation, so Republicans met with moderate Democrats to hash out a deal: withdraw troops from the South in exchange for the Republican candidate becoming President. Oh, and note how Democrats who promised to protect black rights when it was politically convenient suddenly turned on them. Wasn’t that exactly what I have been arguing all along? Isn’t that why I hashed out the importance of the electoral college?

From the Democratic Party’s website. Gonna go ahead and say that their “more than 200 years” line is in dispute.

What a proud history that is! The Electoral College stopped Democrats from simply using violence and voter fraud to seize power, and their motivation now is pretty much the same thing. They don’t care about the black vote, removing the electoral college would make sure they never had to worry about the black vote again. Even though they don’t already- Obama said that if Democrats did what they’re doing now they’d hurt blacks, and guess what- Obama led the charge to do what they’re doing now. And Ocasio-Cortez is leading the reconquista charge which will run right over blacks as an influx of racists are brought in.


Does This All Sound Racist?

I mean aside from Democrats cynically favoring and exploiting one race over another while masking that by saying both should hate Republicans. And Don Lemon said it’s not ok to not see color, so if he’s ok with this then I don’t see the problem.

Am I stoking fear of Latinos? No, I merely collate data. Fact: Ocasio-Cortez wants a brown wave. Fact: her words reflect reconquista thinking. Fact: Democrat Presidential candidates are flocking to support her. Fact: the people coming in hate blacks. Fact: abolishing the electoral college removes the last weapon in the African-American community’s electoral arsenal to fight oppressive majorities, whether they be white or Latino. Fact: democrats believed that by embracing Latino illegal immigrants they would hurt black communities. What conclusion can you draw, other than they discovered that there were more Latinos in the U.S. than blacks and even more illegal ones waiting to vote Democrat, so they shifted their strategy to favor the group with the largest numbers. Their calls to abolish the electoral college and only use the popular vote show that Democrats only favor the majority. Not the minority. Also, if Steve King said something like what Cortez did (arguably he has) you’d be picking bits of his flesh out of your teeth by now.


I never did and never will call for genocide or say one race is inferior to another, and I certainly haven’t been photographed with or supported people who do. Image from Talking Points Memo

I thought it would be most helpful to illustrate my points on Democrats and their history of racism against blacks by showing that the pattern is still continuing, that blacks cannot take the party’s support for granted, that historically and presently the Democratic Party has not really cared about black communities. It just happens that their minority of choice now were Latinos. If we were facing an influx of whites then this piece’s theme would be the traditional black v. white dynamic, and that would’ve really been ideal because it would fit totally within the historical parameters set by the Democratic Party’s past. But alas the shift was from black to brown, so white had to go by the wayside and only be mentioned occasionally as the taken-for-granted-universal-oppressive-force that it is. Heck, I even tell blacks to hate white Democrats earlier on.


And really, if I am going to assail the narrative about intersectionality (that anyone not Republican and not a white Republican has common cause against those two groups and so can unite based on the bond of their shared oppression), I have to do it from the point of view of those affected by it, in this case by showing that the African American community is in direct conflict with the Latino American community, with Obama noting that the Latino immigrants are hurting black employment and black welfare, and with Ocasio-Cortez taking on the position that Latinos deserve to be here because this is their native soil… which can only mean that they deserve what non-native groups, like blacks, have. But I’m not surprised that smashing the intersectionality narrative by showing that humans naturally are in conflict with each other would lead to a charge of racism, anymore than I’d be surprised to see everything I wrote dismissed out of hand as Hispaniphobic, because the last thing Democrats want is people noticing what they’re up to so they’ll use any handy smokescreen.

Liberals On The Move


Bernie Sanders supporters outside the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Even if the Trump-Russia collusion story turns out true, I don’t see why liberals are so upset. Lefties like Ocasio-Cortez (whom the Democrats are racing to catch up with) hated Clinton and love the Soviet Union, while Trump stopped Clinton and works for an ex-KGB agent. Maybe they hate Trump because they’re jealous? Image from talkmedianews

Quick flashback to last week’s piece- it happened again!

Reactions to Trump’s State of the Union address  are a good way to start this off. We have CBS’ unbiased neutral journalists disturbed by Trump talking about the need for a wall, with one host mocking the notion that illegal immigrants come into this country and kill people. She obviously wasn’t aware that someone who lost there parents from the very thing she denies happening was a guest that evening. Or maybe she knew and didn’t care, it’s hard to tell. She also tried to justify their entry into this country by saying they just want a better life.

Well so do we, but as Obama himself noted in his Grammy-winning audiobook if we take in all of these people wanting a better life we won’t be able to provide one for our own citizens, let alone the illegals. 13 years later, Democrats sit and stare when Trump says much the same thing that their Grammy-winning messiah said. Democrats outright refuted their messiah (whom they hold in such high regard as to wonder if they’ll have “another Obama” for 2020) in their response- they believe letting in everyone makes the country strong, not border security (I’m not deliberately misreading her statement- first of all, for all the times Democrats conflate “illegal” and “legal” immigrants its their own fault that their words can be interpreted this way. Second, she says walls- border security- does not make the country strong but immigrants- letting people in- does. She says border security makes us weak and letting anyone in makes us strong. How am I wrong?).

Onward to abortion- as you’re aware, Democrats are looking to get infanticide legalized in the name of protecting a woman’s body and her right to choose. I’m not referring to in-womb abortion, I mean VA Gov. Northam (D) said that legalizing the killing of a living baby outside of the womb was all about giving a woman the right to decide what happens to her body. So what would that new legal definition mean? If your mother decided to slash your throat, rape you, drown you, or put you in an oven that it’d be legal because she’s just doing that to her own body? Afterall, if you as a baby outside the womb are considered part of her body as Northam said, at what age would you suddenly not be part of her body?

20 years ago, Democrats already were very open about their position on this issue. Sen. Rick Santorum (R) questioned Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) about this. Boxer said the child was not considered born until the parents brought it home and the family accepted it. So if let’s say a week after being born the parents decided they didn’t like the child, in Boxer’s own words the child could be legally killed. And what if the child is never accepted by the family and lives until 3 years old before the parents finally decided to kill it? Would we be hearing liberals arguing how the parents were shamed by society into not acting even with abortion now being legal past birth, and how we need to give them their right to rid the world of a problem child? Brian Williams complained that Trump was graphic in his rather sterile State of the Union remarks about abortion; I assure Mr. Williams that I would have given him something graphic if I were up there. Williams must know what late-term and post-birth abortion entails, as a liberal he is smarter than me and surely wouldn’t support positions without understanding them, so why is he so scared about the American public hearing what smart people already know?

Do I really have to say it? The networks loved the Democratic response more than anything Trump said and chose to bias their coverage. The press just defended a Democrat who believes in killing babies and wearing blackface, so should we at all be surprised by this too? They’re about to get their butts sued off for libeling teenagers and generating a rage mob that led to those kids’ school getting shutdown, all because of lies. Lies that a Democrat Congresswoman knowingly promoted (she tried to spread the false narrative days after the truth was known, and then deleted the tweet immediately after a lawyer for the kids threatened to sue.. and while the media loves talking about the death threats it receives, they have yet to report on the death threat against the lawyer who’s going after them).


Most “Mainstream Media” Outlets colluded with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Election. This list is only expanding.

The Worst Is Yet To Come

You can expect more of the above, now amplified to heights unimagined in the past as the vast field of liberal hopefuls try to drown each other’s voices out. Here are some prospective 2020 Democratic candidates, though Wikipedia has over 150 potentials as of the time of this typing.

  • Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) (and we’re supposed to believe she didn’t know of this? She wouldn’t be the first Democrat to want to bury such things)
  • Beto O’Rourke (failed Democratic Senate candidate for Texas)
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – but he’s too white and too male according to Dems
  • Pete Buttgieg (mayor of South Bend, Indiana)
  • Julian Castro (former HUD Secretary)
  • Congressman John Delaney (D-MD)
  • Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) – I kinda like her, not bad for a Democrat.
  • Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Let’s be honest here… Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) too despite Constitutional limits the Left wants to do-away with. Even if she’s not running this year, her policies are on the ticket.
  • Joe Biden (fmr VP, fmr Segregationist)
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
  • Eric Holder (first AG to be held in contempt of Congress, criminally, civilly, and bipartisanly)
  • Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Now, to be fair, a lot of these probably know they have no chance and just want the money and fame… maybe. They’re delusional enough to believe the below, so maybe they believe they have a chance too. Hard to say.


I was going to say that the above candidates all want their piece of the pie, but pie is so 1975. Image from howtocookthat

Here are some beliefs the party has

  • It’s ok to put the lives of teenagers in danger if they support Trump but didn’t do anything wrong
  • It’s ok for the DOJ to apparently collude with the media to allow a raid on a Trump associate to be filmed, so that everyone associated with Trump can be publicly intimidated
  • Democrats in government should be allowed to use the government’s counterintelligence agencies to investigate political campaigns, because that does not enable dictators.
  • The media should be used exclusively for targeting Republicans, even if evidence has to be buried or fabricated. (think Covington, or really anything anti-Trump)
  • White people are untermensch to be purged
  • If a woman accuses a male of anything, the male has no right to a defense or investigation and must be terminated immediately. No questions asked. (unless you’re an important Democrat)
  • If the Left accuses Trump supporters of anything, they have no right to a defense and must be terminated immediately. No questions asked.
  • Hatred for Trump trumps anything else (even your job, regardless of who you voted for)
  • Trump supporters deserve violence and death
  • White women do not deserve a voice
  • Women’s health doesn’t matter- they want abortions to be done by anyone, even people that aren’t doctors. If you’ll recall the left warned that making abortion illegal would be terrible and lead to women dying precisely because they’d have to go to people that weren’t doctors.
  • Jews and Christians should be purged.
  • America has no right to a border; we should pay for anyone who wants to be here on welfare regardless of what it does to native citizens of any race or origin.
  • Weaponizing law enforcement to intimidate dissent (what do you call these open displays of power that not even the worst serial killers and pimps are subjected to?)
  • Killing babies, in and out of the womb, is no problem. Caterpillars have more of a right to live than a baby that has been outside the womb for days, according to liberals. (Anyone remember the simple days when their excuse for murder was merely that it was a woman’s body and the child’s right to survive didn’t matter, and how we were all crazy for thinking that liberals would want to extend their death penalty to outside the woman’s body? Stuff they wouldn’t even do to animals, they’re happy to do to humans that can’t vote yet, and then they tell us they care about the suffering of people at our border whom liberals refuse to aid in their countries of origin just to force them to come here and vote for them here.)
  • Being associated with Trump automatically means everything you did in the past is evil, even if liberals supported it.
  • You’re a racist merely for voting for someone that isn’t a Democrat. (Trump lowered the unemployment rate for the black community, is trying to curb illegal immigration which Obama said in his Grammy-winning audiobook would benefit the black community, and he tried to reform food stamp programs to deliver healthy foods to blacks as liberals complain  about blacks not having access to healthy foods (and they also complained in that HuffPost piece that only 2 of the 14 members of the dietary guidelines advisory group were black… about 14%, and blacks make up 14% of the population so they are actually represented equally, but then again it is never about true equality). With Trump in office though, they want welfare benefits for blacks to decrease, and want blacks to eat bad foods, and deny that Trump is increasing black employment)
  • America has no right to lead in the world, we should cede this to other countries like Russia
  • We need to cut spending for defense at the same time Russia and China have built weapons we can’t defend against, at the same time Russia is violating an arms treaty, at the same time the Democratic Party wants a war with Russia. (Because of the optics, I found it funny that a Muslim Congresswoman in hijab was saying that we spent too much on defense after 9/11)

These are the platforms the Left is running on, what they want codified into law. And they will win the Presidency in 2020 since Trump has caved on the border wall. Republicans will be out of the Senate too, since they did nothing to help. Which means the only thing stopping the above agenda items is the Supreme Court, except with the Executive and Legislative Branches under their control, Democrats can easily add enough liberal judges to the court to make it give them the outcomes they want.

Does this seem like desperate fearmongering? Have you read the links? Democrats openly believe -mainstream Democrats, loyal to the party, powerful in the party, followed by millions, voted for by millions- the points I outlined above. Saying that Democrats do not believe in this is like saying the KKK doesn’t hate blacks. Saying that Democrats don’t actually know their leaders believe this is like saying a Klansman only dons the hood and pays their dues because they like the networking opportunity but didn’t read any of the literature when joining.

severed head

They complain that Trump is dividing us, then threaten everyone opposed to them.