Baby We’ll Just Have To Have A Ham Sandwich Instead


Image from “Slick Hare”, property of Warner Bros.

I’ll summarize the Mueller Report here: no collusion, and nothing with the obstruction charge (exoneration is what you do if someone has been accused of a crime; by default Trump can’t be exonerated if he’s never accused of a crime to begin with. That’s like if I said you were exonerated from raping someone- you’ve never been charged, how can you be exonerated? And the AP article above explains it as there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute with, which could mean there was nothing at all to use or just barely something to use).

They said a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Granted, I think Trump is quite hammy, but certainly no sandwich! And so we learn through the Attorney General that the Mueller Probe has no indictments of Trump or his family, and no indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice.

That’s not the story anyone on the Left was expecting, as you know by now (I love Chris Matthews’ reaction, he basically angrily shouted “how can the narrative we’ve been pushing be true if no one was indicted?”). Washington Post said Mueller should indict Trump if for any other reason than to make his report go public. Media outlets have been divining clues in earlier Mueller indictments that there is collusion afoot. Insiders on Mueller’s team even said there would be indictments against Trump. New York Magazine even says outright that Mueller found collusion, citing indictments that in fact had nothing to do with collusion, which I can say without debunking each claim individually since Mueller’s probe determined outright there was no collusion. Unless New York Magazine plans to argue that the very body indicting these people didn’t know what it indicted them for.

Of course, it was a miracle that the investigation even concluded. Trump must have fired Mueller a million times according to frantic news reports. Trump was dead-set on stopping Mueller from investigating anything and obstructing all the way!

Then we have Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) saying Trump will be indicted, if not for collusion then for many unspecified crimes and the one solid one of “obstruction of justice”.


Obstructed on the Clinton email probe, spied on Trump’s campaign, spied on journalists, spied on Congress, and certainly attacked the First Amendment. If Trump did this, Democrats would have impeached him or at least demanded it. Image from

Let me break that down for you- Democrats define Trump’s verbal/written opposition to the Mueller Probe and firing of FBI Director James Comey as obstruction of justice. Now, if we aren’t allowed to oppose with our words or tweets an active investigation (while not actually blocking it), then someone explain why Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D-VA) is still in office? Or how about Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (Democrat, now isn’t that scary- according to the Left’s standard he’s guilty of both domestic violence and obstruction of justice and he’s an attorney general!)? And Obama most assuredly interfered in an active investigation when he said Hillary Clinton was not guilty of anything months before the investigation concluded. Well… all of these points would hold true if Democrats didn’t have two definitions of “obstruction of justice”. Their first definition is the legal one, which they apply to themselves. Their second definition is “you beat Hillary Clinton”, which they applied to President Trump.

And as for firing Comey? Rod Rosenstein, the guy who ordered Mueller to investigate if Trump firing Comey was obstruction of justice, that same Rosenstein TOLD Trump that he should fire Comey. So… it’s obstruction of justice to do what the DOJ recommends? I learn something new every day, thank you Senator Blumenthal.

Adding to obstruction, there was a brief spat over something in Michael Cohen’s testimony, where Democrats said it would absolutely be obstruction if it were true. Mueller’s team said at the time it wasn’t, and based on a lack of indictments still believe that to be the case. It wouldn’t fall into the “maybe” category that Mueller allegedly left open; the way Democrats phrased it there was no question that it was obstruction of justice. Also, they claim that Trump lying to the American people is obstruction of justice… and Democrats believe saying “I did not collude with Russia” counts as a lie, even after the Mueller Report as we’ll discuss below.

As an aside, let me quote part of Rosenstein’s letter. “As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.” Doesn’t that sound like he wants someone to leave? If my boss told me that about an intern, I’d let the intern go because that’s what I’m being told to do! But here’s the thing- liberals immediately jumped on how Rosenstein was “shaken” and “felt used” because these words were used by Trump to justify firing Comey. “I want you to fire this guy. Oh you fired him? Now I’m mad that you did and I feel used because you did what I told you!”

It’s Like We Never Ate


Democrats are finished playing nice with ex-savior Mueller. Image also from “Slick Hare”.

As you probably expected, Democrats aren’t too happy with Mueller. Anger and denial (lots and lots and lots of denial) are generally what we see now. One plucky ABC pundit noted that Trump hasn’t been subject to ANY investigations in the past two years. Mueller whisked away to oblivion! In fact, Democrats are so mixed that they deny they even played up the idea of collusion.

An Interesting Take On Who Mueller Has Indicted

If Democrats parsed the previous indictments as carefully as they’ve been parsing the Mueller information to keep their narrative alive, they might’ve noticed something awry. Basically, the Mueller Probe declared of the alleged Russian interference (legally we’ll always have to say alleged, since Putin isn’t going to be sending anyone over for trial anytime soon). The most that can be said of them is that if what Russia did constituted collusion, then Hillary Clinton is just as guilty as Trump because Russia allegedly was playing both sides of the field. But, as I’ve mentioned before, Democrats like colluding with Russia so maybe all their anger is like that of someone coming home to find their wife in bed with their rival?


Image of Democrats waving an olde Russian flag, from Talk Media News.

Pac-Attack/Pac-Panic (Philips CD-I, 1995)

Pac-Panic_CD-IWow! Finally something without even a snide jab at politics. Somebody call my momma, I must be going crazy. As it is though, generally these video game entries are supposed to avoid those topics so this is in theory supposed to be the norm rather than the exception.

Pac-Attack_CD-I_TitleAnyway, you might notice that the material I photographed said “Pac-Panic”. As you can tell by the gold CD-I logo on the jewel case for the disc, that’s because this is the European release for this game. I thought it was the U.S. one for the year or two I’ve owned it- the European CD-I games and movies generally don’t have the slipcovers from what I’ve seen. Upon reading the Wikipedia entry though it seems this game wasn’t released on the CD-I in the U.S. at all. Furthermore, the CD-I release is enhanced over the versions seen on consoles in the U.S.

About The Game

The game itself is like Dr. Mario or Tetris or any other of those stacking games really, but your goal depends on which mode you pick. As you can see there are three. I think the bottom one is versus, but since I’m a lonely old man in a 30 year old’s body I don’t have a second player to test with. I also don’t have two working versions of the same CD-I controller to play with, though I do have four different controllers for it.

Pac-Attack_CD-I_Game-Mode-1The first mode you come to basically has you eliminate boxes and ghosts until your pile gets so high that a new piece lands with part of itself sticking up out of the play area. There are three regular pieces- ghosts, boxes, and Pac Mans. Boxes act like blocks in Tetris- complete a row and they vanish. Ghosts block you from completing rows, and Pac Man eats the ghosts to clear a path for the boxes to land. Of course my wording implies an irregular item falls- a fairy. Apparently you have a fairy meter that I paid no attention to (I didn’t read the manual) that fills up to drop a fairy, which I thought was a stick or a poor attempt to draw a cherry (an element from the arcade games). The fairy wipes out all the ghosts when it lands.

Pac-Attack_CD-I_Game-Mode-1-failThe longer you last, the faster the pieces fall. Pac Man also sometimes goes the wrong way, away from where the other ghosts are. He’ll only move downward and left or right, so if you have 4 ghosts arranged in a square the most he’ll eat is three. However if you have a row of ghosts, with empty blocks to the side, and you drop Pac Man on top of the ghost that’s on the end next to the empty space, sometimes Pac Man will eat the one ghost then go into the empty space instead of following the row of ghosts. I don’t know why.

You can rotate the pieces of course, by pressing one of the buttons on the controller (one of the buttons surrounding the thumbstick on the pictured controller). You can also call up a menu for exiting the game by pressing both buttons simultaneously (there are four buttons in the picture, but two of them are redundant).

Pac-Attack_CD-I_Game-Mode-2The other game mode I was able to try has a different goal- you have 5 chances to eat all of the ghosts in the field of play, so you have to place the pieces that fall to facilitate the expeditious consumption of said supernatural specters. New pieces falling can still contain boxes, ghosts, or Pac Mans (whether you’re ready for one or not).

That’s It?

That’s what I thought. It’s a Pac Man game. Where is the Pac Man action?

I suck at these games. However, this was kind of fun at my first try, though next time I’ll probably use the CD-I controller that actually looks like a video game controller. I found some of my reflexes slowed a little because I was doing everything with one thumb.


I’m sure the game’s main menu would have been more intuitive if I had read the instructions.

Hacking Away At Collusion


Did playing as Che Guevara to liberate Cuba on behalf of Soviet-backed communists count as Russian Collusion? I might have a problem here…

So we have CNN complaining that President Trump is trying to de-legitimize the 2020 election. (We also have CNN complaining that Trump is a Luddite for his commentary on planes at the same time CNN supports banning most forms of transportation including planes so go figure. And since I have no better place for it I’ll address it here- Cortez wanted Modern Monetary Theory to explain where we get $90 Trillion for her stuff, but the problem is even MMT believes in hyperinflation if money is printed too fast, which is PRECISELY what the Green New Deal calls for. As for those of you who think it’s ok for money to not be tethered to any physical measure like GDP or gold or whatever, let me tell you the tale of woe that is Bitcoin. It’s no coincidence that the Green New Deal is supported mostly by people who hate the United States.. Also, this little nugget from 2015 where we are told that MMT is the only solution to the economic malaise under Obama kind of aged poorly thanks to our 4% growth without it.) Basically, CNN believes that because Trump and his team are out there saying there’s no legitimate way Democrats can win, that means Trump and his team are convincing their voters that Democrats will rig the system. CNN goes on to talk about how Trump said much the same thing in 2016. They are rather critical of the President.

The only problem is… this is CNN criticizing Republicans for doing exactly what CNN (and Hillary Clinton as you read in the link above) has been doing since the second Hillary lost in 2016. 99% of CNN’s viewers have been convinced by the network that Trump is lying about colluding with Russia to cheat Hillary Clinton out of her victory (vs. 76% of MSNBC viewers). In other words, CNN has de-legitimized the 2016 election in the eyes of 99% of its viewers. Well, makes sense I guess, Fake News CNN prefers a lie to the truth so naturally they’d lie to themselves about being hypocrites too.


In CNN’s defense, in 2016 we learned what it looks like when Democrats can’t accept defeat, so unless they want to change their name to “The History Channel” they kinda haveta speculate on what a Trump loss would look like. Images of “sad” Hillary supporters from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora

And now CNN is also asking what will happen if Trump doesn’t accept defeat in 2020… like CNN and Hillary in 2016 (even Washington Post called her out for lying about voter suppression… at an event commemorating the Civil Rights movement no less!). I touched on how such conspiracies came up from the far right under Obama and the far Left under Bush and how now they’re gaining legitimacy in mainstream outlets. It also is worth noting that CNN never asked “what would happen if Hillary/we did not accept defeat” in 2016, though it’s academic at this point because we’ve seen exactly what they’d do: pretend that someone stole the election and de-legitimize it, which CNN believes right now in 2019 would be bad for Trump to do. But ok for them to do, I guess like how Blacks can say the n-word but I can’t.

Endless Investigations

The venerable founder of this blog has expressed before how the notion of Russia hacking the DNC was probably a lie, and here wwfr0ce have someone else lay out a similar case. As for Mueller’s indictments of hacking: they never have to show evidence for their claims because the accused Russians will never stand trial, and even if they did it’s not like breaching the DNC was particularly hard to do so it still could’ve been anybody who actually leaked the stuff- that is, even IF I concede Russia was in there when Democrats say they were (impossible to know since Democrats got the same shady law firm behind the Steele Dossier to cover-up the server troubles, and the FBI never examined the servers to see who got in- Democrats REFUSED to let them! Democrats destroyed the servers before any investigation could happen. “A burglar broke into my house, so I burned it down after he left, but this guy that my friend bribed said it was totally a Russian working on behalf of this neighbor I hate” is basically what Democrats are saying.)

And as the Mueller Probe comes to a close almost certainly without finding any links between Trump and Russia (because there are none otherwise billionaires/millionaires/anti-Trump celebrities and their billion followers/media companies/journalists/Democrats/Democrat staffers/millions of anti-Trump fanatics would’ve found something by now) we see Democrats in Congress taking the torch from Mueller like this was a relay. The Democrat-controlled House is now starting its own endless investigations, like the ones they always hated Republicans for doing against Hillary Clinton and said Republicans were evil for doing. In defense of Republican investigations, so far Trump hasn’t been accused of letting American diplomats and soldiers die, so really Democrats are working with less here because they’re the ones who paid lawyers to create the collusion narrative in the first place after destroying any evidence that could’ve proved it one way or the other.


I read Premiere Khrushchev’s memoirs and War and Peace… does that mean Mueller will be sending me a subpoena… crap, I’m 17% Russian too! I’ll be the one deportation Democrats are in favor of…

Think about it- Democrats come out and say they have evidence of collusion, all this evidence of stuff, yet after 2 years there hasn’t been an indictment of anyone in the Trump Campaign for colluding with Russia. They might’ve been able to get something conclusive from the DNC server breach, but Democrats destroyed some of the very evidence they claim is so important, before anyone outside of people they bribed could’ve looked at it!

You know who else they should investigate, since we haven’t had an AOC hate minute yet (GND and AOC are separate entities)… she ran a PAC for her campaign. The issue with that being that is totally illegal- a candidate can have hidden back alley ties to a PAC helping their campaign, but they can’t actually have their name listed as a board member. Unlike AOC, who if she were any one of the proletariat she claims to represent would be in prison by now. But she has privilege, despite any rantings to the contrary.

Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Investigation

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is leading a charge in the House. I used to be sort of ok with him, not bad for a Democrat, but then I saw an 8 minute interview on CNN. Off the top of my head I was able to dissect it thus (sources were added later):

  • Nadledick (laws beyond partisanship demanded that this name be given; bullies probably used it on him in school) stated that Trump is launching”attacks on the norms to maintain a democratic government”, which apparently includes propaganda organs like CNN so biased that 99% of their audience believes Trump lied about colluding with Russia, while 78% of Democrats (who watch this stuff, mind you) believe the Russians altered vote counts in the computer systems to make Trump win.
  • Nadler complained that Trump has been attacking the core functions of our democracy, yet Democrats have HR1 which is designed to limit funding to third parties (even the lefty Green Party hates it), limit the number of non-government entities that can speak about the government, and makes sure many more Democrat voters are legally able to vote (rapists and illegal immigrants are among the demographic Democrats would be courting with this). And of course Democrats in the House are working on exterminating the electoral college.
  • Nadler stated that Congress is supposed to hold the White House accountable, whining about the “dictatorial authority” of Trump… yet he was pretty quiet under Obama’s excesses.
  • This exchange, right here- CNN host: “Why is that not what you’re doing?” Nadler: “Because it’s not!”. Wow.
  • Nadler said Trump is launching a sustained attack against his critics like the biased liberal media and the Mueller Probe as if that’s a bad thing. So what? You’re allowed to speak out if the courts are looking at you. Besides,how many times was Obama speaking of active investigations or disappointed in law enforcement or condemning bad court decisions or attacking (and spying on) Fox News?
  • Nadler mentions “all [Trump’s] interference in the Mueller investigation”. WHAT interference? When Trump got a lawyer like any citizen is entitled to? Because other than badmouthing the Mueller team, that’s all Trump’s done. The probe is still going, it still has funding, Trump hasn’t pressured anyone to stop it, so WHAT interference? And where was Nadler when Obama cleared Hillary of any charges, with the FBI using his exact same phrasing despite Obama issuing his proclamation in the middle of the FBI’s investigation?
    if badmouthing law enforcement is obstruction of justice, then Obama certainly “acted stupidly”
  • And I will note that Nadler says that they need more than the obvious obstruction on Mueller to impeach Trump- NO YOU DON’T. He says obstruction is an impeachable crime, he says it is obvious to anyone that Trump obstructed Mueller, YOU DON’T NEED TO FIND MORE PROOF IF IT”S SO OBVIOUS! “Oh we know that Jeffrey Dahmer ate someone, but we have to find some other people he ate before we can charge him with cannibalism and murder.” That is exactly what Nadler, A LAWYER, said!
  • in other words, he has no evidence of obstruction of justice and is telling a convenient lie, maybe to get votes, maybe just to shut up the protesters that Erin Burnett mentioned.
  • Nadler wants to protect the government from being used for personal enrichment. Uhhhh… he’s a little late on that! How much money has HE made off the government? Look at how much the Clintons made from peddling influence. Look at Nancy Pelosi! How many prominent and powerful politicians are poor? Why is DC the richest area of the country? Yeah, a LOT of people are getting rich off the government. Based on how the general DC area is also largely Democrat, I wonder which party is really enriching itself from government.

Here’s another interview Nadler did, for ABC. The day before. I like how on ABC he had a list of 60 people, but a day later on CNN it was at 81. He should find a way to keep his numbers straight. Note the gem in that clip, where Nadler states again that the government’s role is to protect the press… of course, what it considers press and worthy of protection is subject to change. Democrats, as Obama’s Communications Director told us, believe Fox is not a legitimate news organization. Democrats believe that the aforementioned biased CNN, with 99% of its viewers convinced that Trump is a colluder as opposed to 76% for MSNBC, is the press. Whereas Fox News with a paltry 12% is not. In other words, the DNC-ran media is the press that deserves protection, and spying on even supposedly neutral outlets like the AP is acceptable. But if CNN gets attacked according to Nadler, then the government has to step in to protect the press!

As To Collusion Itself…


Quick reminder: DEMOCRATS were the ones waving Russian flags in 2016… old school ones, but still Russian. Image from talkmedianews

Let me see if I have their argument straight… the Clintons pay Fusion GPS who pays Chris Steele who pays Russian oligarchs (do you really believe they’d just give him info for free?) for information. These Russian oligarchs are Putin loyalists, otherwise they wouldn’t BE oligarchs. So Putin loyalists give information to the Clinton Campaign that the DNC and Obama’s Administration ultimately obtain. So the Democrats, and the Obama Administration, used information from PUTIN to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and the MEDIA used information from PUTIN to smear Trump. Then they turn around and say TRUMP is the one that was working for Russia?

Moreover, the same Democrats and media repeating Putin’s talking points for free are also trying to cripple our economy, leave our borders unguarded, and cripple our military while dividing us by race and gender against each other, and the rise of socialism basically ensures America will be a Soviet puppet state. So… who is really working for the Russians here? The President who ordered 200 Russians murdered in airstrikes, or the Democrats who are repeating Russian talking points and causing so much harm to our country that Russia by default is elevated above us as the new dominant superpower?

For The Sake Of Fairness…

I’ll go ahead and say I’m not too bothered by Democrats and their investigations. Republicans laid into the IRS and Hillary Clinton big time while Democrats protested every document request. And apparently all we got out of Benghazi was Hillary lying to Congress about her emails, and let’s be honest she probably told the same lie to the FBI too. Under the Flynn precedent they should have pursued her in court until she went bankrupt, so that right there is indication enough of how sleazy DOJ became under Obama. Remember: if you think it’s bad under Trump, your side started it and Trump would be an idiot not to continue with it. An idiot like Republicans in the Senate who won’t get rid of the filibuster, almost like they WANT to help Democrats with their agenda and lose the Senate in 2020. In other words, everyone is after the other side of the aisle.


We’re all about fairness, right Mr. Millionaire 3-house Bernie who tells us how terrible capitalism is? Khrushchev noted that true socialists like totally do not have more than one house. Image from Buzzfeed



Well it’s uhm… it’s green.

I thought i’d just create a consistent reference for why spending $100 Trillion over 10 years with only 2 years- if we’re to meet Ocasio-Cortez’s “world’s gonna end in 12 years” deadline- of planning for building cross-country high-speed railways and tearing down every building in the country and maintaining our current level of electricity access despite losing 83% of our power supply is a bad idea. (You want wind and solar farms? Forget it, they’re horrible for the environment even with as few of them as we have, now you want that damage to be multiplied no less than 5 times? It gets worse if you build them in the wrong place. I wonder if when they took into account the Green New Deal’s price tag, did they also count the subsidies that wind and solar energy companies need? Or does Cortez plan to wage a classist war on the poor by making electricity unaffordable?) According to liberals, most Americans believe this is in fact a wonderful idea. Maybe the average American is getting the facts from Politifact, who for a fact claimed that the Green New Deal literally does not say what it says.


Boy, if I had a nickle for every apocalypse I lived through! Totally been there before. Minus the part about strangling a 14 year old girl (though with all the women talking down to me in 2016 and beyond I just might snap next time). Image from the movie “End of Evangelion”.

First of all, I’ll dispute that 12 year timeline like I have earlier with alarmist memes. In 1989 we had 10 years to act before irreversible damage with dire consequences 30 years in the future would happen. It’s 2019, and we’ve seen no such thing. Wildfires in California are from liberal policies, California droughts are from liberal idiocy, and even the anti-Capitalists on the UN’s climate panel can’t prove hurricanes are impacted in the slightest by global warming (despite an NBC reporter telling us that the Paris Climate Accord was designed to end hurricanes, because according to NBC decreasing the rate of temperature increase by half a degree Celsius, not even stopping the temperature increase but merely slowing it down, will end all hurricanes- and read Ron Allen’s words, don’t look at the coverage because some outlets try to say he was only talking about superstorms when his words clearly show he was talking hurricanes in general).  And once again we have claims that not giving into one person’s demand that they alone (she is the boss, and was inaugurated, and her racist Green New Deal solely puts Latinos like her in charge, rather than say a black man or an Asian woman, and you’re a sexist if you dispute her attempts to control you) control where you work/how you live/what you eat/what you’re allowed to say will doom us all. I’m beginning to suspect that Cortez here, with her claim that men are scared of her because she’s as powerful as a man, has contracted toxic masculinity, more precisely she’s sick like Stalin.

Also, she is the future of the Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates are taking their cues from her, and then the media complains that male conservatives are obsessing too much over her. You guys obsess over Trump because he’s our leader, we obsess over Cortez because she’s your leader. Fair is fair. The real question is why are you trying to pretend that she isn’t? Are you also scared that a woman has the same power as a man? Afterall- in 2008 you voted in your primaries to stop a woman from becoming President, then voted again later that year to stop a woman from becoming Vice President, in 2012 you voted for a boy’s club that didn’t pay women equally, and in 2016 you voted for someone who does not believe all women should be believed when they claim sexual assault (apparently feminists too in the 1990s shared Hillary’s belief in disbelief).

The Numbers


Didn’t really know what else to put here for numbers, but hey look the Patriots had more apple turnovers than the Cowboys! Yummy!

The Green New Deal’s FAQ states “The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction”. The Presidential contenders on the Democratic side are increasingly embracing this notion that cost and funding does not matter. Try telling that to the IRS next time you owe taxes, or the court next time they fine you, or the bank next time you need to take out a loan to keep your roof over your head!

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) complained that the price tag of over $90 Trillion came from “lazy assumptions”, but in the deal itself they don’t even bother putting in the effort to make a lazy assumption! If Ocasio-Cortez is correct in her statement that she has total moral authority and a moral imperative to act since no one else is, then certainly in the absence of any Green New Dealer making a financial assessment of it we thus have the same indisputable moral authority and moral imperative when we take action and determine that it costs over $90 Trillion. Unless you want to say that acting rashly and stupidly doesn’t mean you’re acting rightly, but you’ll never admit that.

So since our number is right by virtue of us being the only ones to have a number, again according to Cortez’s logic so to dispute us is to dispute her and that would be sexist of you, we’ll run with the $90 Trillion figure. Tax revenue for the 10 year period of 2008-2018 was 27.18 Trillion dollars. Wee need to triple that in order to get anywhere near affording the Green New Deal. Our total GDP for that same 10 year period was $164.9 Trillion. No problem, just seize more than half the GDP and you’ll fund the Green New Deal! Except that will SHRINK the GDP and you’ll run out of money pretty quick.

If your small business is making $2,000 per day and suddenly you lose more than half of that, plus you have to pay for new electric cars and new green-compliant stuff, what do you think that will do to your productivity and sales? You won’t be able to spend money on quality items or the right quantity of items to keep yourself in business. And if we go to a Socialist system where no one is in private business, where the government forces everyone to work… that still doesn’t work. The Soviet Union was indisputably socialist, yet they collapsed because they ran out of money, just like we would with the Green New Deal. Maybe that’s the point?

Tax The Rich!


Image of a cool song from wikimedia

Speaking of socialists- they say tax the billionaires? Take every cent they got! When we’re talking tens of trillions, how far does a few billion go? When you need your full cup of Starbucks, liberal, do you really think a tiny sip is enough? Besides, don’t you need to tax the rich to pay for medicare-for-all, free college, and all that other free gifts you promise to bribe people to vote for you?

Moreover, let’s look at those billionaires- the One Percenters. Until you get to the top 0.001%, you’re earning less than $59.4 million. MILLION. Not even a hundred million! How far is THAT going to go even for Ocasio-Cortez’s medicare-for-all which will cost $40 Trillion over 10 years? And to Sen. Markey’s point about lazy assumptions- if medicare-for-all is $40 Triilion over 10 years, how cheap does he think the much larger Green New Deal’s spending will be? The more enlightened ivy leaguers and Presidential candidates endorsing this stuff seem to have forgotten what numbers are.

The average top 0.001% person makes $152 million per year. Let’s make a lazy assumption and assume that out of a population of 325,000,000 we can say that 325,000 people are in the top 0.001%, and so we can milk them for $49.4 Trillion each year. So we just take a fifth of their money every year for 10 years and Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is fully funded. In fantasyland.

That top 0.001% already pays 3.25% of total taxes collected in this country. And as it turns out, only 1,412 taxable groups (households, individuals, etc) are in that category. So 1,412 entities with an average wealth of $152 million per year means that if we took EVERYTHING they had for 10 years, we’d only get a about $2.15 Trillion. So… like 2% of what Ocasio-Cortez wants to do. So much for taxing the billionaires! And by the way- we already get 23.93% of their annual income anyway.

So let’s expand to the whole One Percent, who are already giving us 27.1% of their income (well, 99.9% of them give 27.1%). Let’s up it so we kill them like this was any other Leftwing revolution and the government takes every cent that they’d be getting if they were still alive. To be in the top 1%, you need an income of just $422,000. On average, One Percenters earn an average of $1.32 million each. Let’s do another “lazy assumption” and take One Percenter literally. One Percent of the population, 3.25 million people, make on average $1.32 million each. That means killing them and having the government be the sole recipient of their earnings each year gives the government… $4.29 Trillion. Huh. Well, at least then we’d be able to fund Ocasio-Cortez’s medicare-for-all (all except the deceased top 1%). By the way- Salon (in their deliberately unlinked piece “1 percent of households are $2.5 million richer in the past year”, unlinked but it was either this or a Quora discussion that gives how many households are in the 1% so here we all are) states that there are 1.26 million households in the One Percent, not that wonderful 3.25 million figure. For those of you who can do math (ie no one who supports the Green New Deal), I don’t have to tell you that it means we don’t even get to fund Medicare-For-All.

Where Will The Money Come From?

47% of American households pay no money to the federal government. Either Cortez plans on ravaging the poor (let’s be honest: the poor who aren’t Latino), or she plans on simply robbing everyone so that we all fall into that “too poor to pay taxes” category, in which case at least income inequality will have been solved! Though I doubt Cortez will give up her $174k per year, her crooked campaign chief of staff that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, and her gasguzzling-high-polluting lifestyle. While she gets to tweet all she wants about how wonderful life is, you’ll only be able to see them when you’re using your allotted ration of electricity for the day.


To paraphrase the man above, Ocasio-Cortez is The Stylin’, profilin’, limousine riding, gas-guzzling, high-polluting, wheelin’ n’ dealin’ child of wealth! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!