Commando (Various, 1985-1989. Residual of the War Games series)

CommandoYou guys remember this series, right? From before the midterms. Well, the Left has been at it again this past month or so. Let’s take a look at Commando, some comments I had originally planned, and of course the principle topic at hand- Iran.

The Game


From the Atari 7800 version

It’s basically the same on every system: a vertically-scrolling shooter that is very hard to play, like all arcade games- remember, these aren’t designed for you to beat, these are designed to eat your quarters by killing you early and killing you often.

It’s much like Guerrilla War, except Guerrilla War came second and it was fun because I didn’t have to worry about running out of lives. Dying every 5 seconds, meaning a total of 15 seconds of gameplay, isn’t conducive to a good time. As I mentioned in Guerrilla War, these games about wars of attrition were designed to bankrupt you through attrition- depleting your supply of money until you had none, never letting you actually win. When translating this from arcade to video game system, the developers decided that they’d just give us a ludicrously tiny amount of lives to get through the game since we can’t pop quarters into our console. So while in the arcade you might’ve been able to beat the game after spending $50 worth of quarters to get 200 lives or whatever, at home you have 3 or so. Now you see the problem?

Maybe that’s a lie for the Atari 2600 release- this looks like a desert. This is  almost the same scene as shown above in the Atari 7800 release, just scrolled a little farther up.

Anyway, the story of the game is that you’re a soldier in a jungle shooting enemies and rescuing your allies. That’s about it. I guess it’s a video game adaptation of Rambo: First Blood Part II, except you weren’t sent on this mission by one of the space hippies from “The Way To Eden“.

I can’t really say much more than that, because I am not a skilled enough player to make it to the end without a code for more lives. I do not know how a mortal human would be able to do that, on any release of this game.

The Jungle

When I was first writing this pre-2018 midterms, I had a vague idea about mentioning the Left loosing Vietnam for us 50 years ago, and then demanding we fight another war that they’ll make us lose- with Russia this time. Democratic Presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell made it clear last month that they still view what Russia did as an act of war, at the very time Swalwell’s fellow House Democrats wanted to cut defense spending, a move which fellow Democratic Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders supports (the cutting part, not necessarily what to do with it).

Now you may ask yourself– why would a political party want to cut military spending while demanding a war, so that we are assured a loss? The real reason probably is due to the following:

  • Democrats usually are all about cutting the military.
  • The Democrats talked themselves into a warmongering corner when trying to stir hatred against Russia as a scapegoat for Hillary’s pathetic 2016 performance (she lost again to a first-timer, a much-maligned first-timer, in fact more people voted for the Republican and Libertarian candidates than the Leftwing ones).
  • The “America is evil” Progressive Caucus is running the show, and they’re the totally oblivious (I am starting to want to go easy on Omar, because I’m wondering if her rampant anti-Semitism really is just stupidity) sloganeering socialists that Nikita Khrushchev warned us about, so they don’t even pay attention to what their moves are doing in relation to policy overall or the rest of the party (or they do, and they hope we lose a war). Seriously, they think that causing economic turmoil and then printing an infinite amount of money is the best way to pay for their big spending plans, so either they have less understanding of the economy than Homer Simpson or they are looking to sabotage it (which if true could mean they also are onboard with the idea of forcing the U.S. to fight a war that their legislation ensured we’d lose).

This is from the PS2 release, as part of a collection of other arcade ports. I suppose it’s “arcade perfect”.

Of course the most likely reasons are no fun. Let’s run with the speculative reasons- let’s assume that the Progressive Caucus is smart and trying to destroy the country to make way for globalization or Latino Supremacy or to create a socialist paradise or whatever, and their beliefs are what Democrats themselves believe as a whole, but which the party sweeps under the rug when it comes time to woo independents for elections (kind of like when they promised (over 50 on the campaign trail, yet only 15 didn’t vote for her) on the campaign trail not to elect Pelosi as House Speaker). Remember- Vietnam was only unwinnable in the eyes of the media (I assume Lefty Cronkite lied about the Tet Offensive, rather than merely getting it wrong) and Democrats in Congress, who stabbed our South Vietnam allies in the back with specially-made punji sticks of betrayal. Also, remember that it reeeeallllly looks like the Left sank our economy just to win the 2008 elections. Making us lose a war so that their communist buddies look more appealing on the world stage, sinking capitalism leading to the rise of socialism amongst millennials: like I said, it’s fun to speculate, and it sure looks right (unless you’re a real Leftist, because I’ve talked to one who’s active in the community and it was reported to me that Bernie and AOC are too far to the Right and thus not true Leftists).


The Desert


The NES version. The ground at the top is darker than it should be; it should be the same color as the ground at the bottom. I may have mentioned before that my HD screen does this when I take pictures of it while using it as a TV.

Checked off Russia and Vietnam and wildly factual speculation, so now we move on to something thematically similar: Iran. Democrats figure that Trump is evil for backing out of glorious Obama’s deal to pay Iran $1.7 Billion up front and a few billion down the road in sanctions relief and corporate opportunities in exchange for Iran building a nuclear weapon around 2028 instead of in 2016. We’re told that the Iran deal was working even though some people on the Left (I just assume offhand The Atlantic is Left, based on stuff I’ve seen from them, and Alan Dershowitz is on the Left- he voted for Obama and Clinton) are saying it wasn’t.


On the Iran question, Democrats want to remove Presidential powers in the area of armed conflict, to prevent Trump from going to war without consulting Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made an extremely wrong statement about Congress’ role. He said that Congress wants legislation passed so that the President has to consult with them, and states that such a thing would have prevented us from getting into the Iraq War. Several issues came to mind off the top of my head:

  1. Congress was all-in on the Iraq War, so even with more power then we’d still have seen Senator Chuck Schumer vote to support it as he did in 2002.
  2. New York Times and Washington Post both reported that Iraq actually had WMDs, and an Obama Administration official thought that it’s possible that the Syrian chemical weapons Obama/the world/Obama again (depending on when you asked Obama) set a red line about were the missing ones from Iraq.
  3. Why is Schumer taking a stand now? Obama and Clinton misled us into a war with Libya, without Congress. Why wasn’t Schumer so hot on repealing Presidential powers then?
  4. Why was Schumer quiet when Obama talked about striking Syria without Congressional approval?

Obviously Schumer’s views are shared by his Democratic colleagues, otherwise they wouldn’t have made him their leader.

What Do You Think?


Here’s the bridge in the Atari 7800 version. Either I didn’t get to it in the 2600 version or I couldn’t find the pictures.

Uhhhhh… yeah, I can’t really do the usual response this category of post ended with. The Left is too confused on what it wants. It wants the U.S. to disarm and stop with these imperialist wars, so it backs warmongering liars who supported said imperialist wars, but then oppose a war in Iran even though it’d be the same as the Syria and Libya strikes they loved under Obama. Is their aim to have endless (Democrat-caused) wars? Is their aim to disarm us so we can’t fight wars? Is their aim to disarm us so that we’re conquered during one of the wars they start? Maybe they don’t have any aims, maybe they’re just saying the first thing they think of that sounds good. Or maybe the party is fractured and only acts unified when it comes time to win elections.

Nah, it isn’t that last one. The House has been pretty unified when it comes to measures aimed at destroying America, like their bill that forces taxpayers to fund Democrat campaigns (and Republican campaigns allegedly, but since when have liberal bureaucrats applied the rules equally?) whether they want to or not (and do a bunch of other stuff, like more easily send mobs after people that donate to the wrong organization). It reminds me of something Khrushchev said, about how candidates for elections weren’t chosen by the people, but rather by the secret police. And we all know how liberals love Stalinism.


I forgot to get the “Game Over” picture, and I spent 45 minutes going through my picture folders earlier trying to find all the ones for these games. I don’t have the ability to do that now, so please settle for this image of the government guy that was ordering Rambo around and then abandoned him in First Blood II. Image from Memory Alpha.

Google Search Algorithms 2


At least it helped me plan the best vacation ever.

Six months on, and it’s time to check-in with Google.

You may recall last time I raised a fuss about Google’s results appearing to be biased a certain way. That will be the general theme of this piece. I will start with the issues I had, before working into news about the doings of our lively little tech megacorp right out of an 80s anticorporate movie.

  1. Guess how little “raul castro butcher” gave me about Raul Castro’s crimes. A few items from mainstream sources that touch on it, a few virtually unknown sources, and some Raul Castro love of course. Should I ever need similar info about the Bush family, I found that typing “george bush butcher” led to more useful results from Google than what I got from looking up Raul, and less love.
  2. “”bernie sanders” crisis at border” —Bernie stated on CBS Face The Nation, March 31 2019, that there was a humanitarian crisis at the border. Google apparently does not believe this as I did not find such a result. Set your results so that only stuff before June 9 shows up, because he said it again then and the media picked up on it. I guess because by that point the Left’s narrative had changed from total denial to acceptance.
  3. Trying to find anything on Lefties who said that Peter Thiel was not truly a gay man because he is Republican. Before my neurons failed to fire properly to access my memory that the exact quote was “not a gay man”, I wasted quite some time trying to locate the story. And even then I’m not too sure I got the right one, since what I originally saw was a Breitbart article covering the Leftist-sect of the LGBT community rejecting Peter Thiel’s homosexuality.
  4. In 1971, John Kerry came before the Senate to talk about how war is still war regardless of how people are killed, specifically mentioning killing “by remote control”, while in 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry tried to say that killing Syrians by remote control did not constitute a war. I know the 2013 source was Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s YouTube account, but Google did not seem to concur. Or maybe Paul for some reason deleted the video… sure. Also, I spent like half an hour trying to find something on this before I guess I stopped looking because I didn’t see it when I skimmed over my earlier posts nor searching the website via Google, but for this post I was ready because I found my original notes from 6 years ago that had Kerry’s contrasting positions.
  5. There is a movement among the most radical elements of the Left where people want to ban having birth. That is, all unapproved pregnancies would end in abortion. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) alluded to this by questioning the morality of having a child, but as you saw in an earlier post there’s mainstream Leftists with more extreme views.
  6. “obamacare supreme court ruling 2015 made up law” – what I wanted was Scalia’s dissenting opinion for King V Burwell, but I did not know how to phrase it so eloquently. The first page was entirely liberal results. Page 2 or 3 finally had one non-liberal result, from Forbes, but that didn’t have exactly what I was looking for.
  7. “cnn threatened trump supporter” – Remember when CNN threatened to dox the Trump supporter who published the picture of Trump attacking someone with “CNN” pasted over their head? Well, Google didn’t. In fact, the only results I got were ones talking about how CNN is being threatened by Trump and his supporters.
  8. “media threatens trump supporter” – same as above, except the first result was good. The rest weren’t.
  9. “”new york times” misquotes trump” – I was doing pretty good with “”new york times” misquotes”, but then when I added Trump the results shifted horribly. The result had nothing to do with misquotes at all, it was an NYT piece about Trump insulting people. The second result was also an NYT piece, this time attacking Trump’s claims that he was misquoted on something. Only two results actually related to NYT misquoting anything related to Trump, and both of those dealt with an incident in 2016 where the NYT misquoted a model who knew him.
  10. “democrat congressman threatens trump” – One result was about a Maine House Democrat, a video result from some random source. The rest of the results were about Trump threatening Democrats, at least on the first page of them.
  11. “democrats who have threatened trump” – This time, all results were about Trump threatening Democrats
  12. “democrats who have threatened violence against trump” finally had a mix of responses with the first two even being relevant, but still a lot of results that shouldn’t have been there for such a search; results showing the precise opposite of what I had typed a query for.
  13. “backlash against black republicans” gave me all kinds of stuff about how Republicans are racist and nothing about the racism liberals inflict upon members of the African American community who happen to be Republican, as mentioned in this post.
  14. “1920s democrat voter suppression” lead with a Washington Post article, but the rest on the page was irrelevant with one page even attacking the GOP for alleged voter suppression.
  15. “obama refused compromise” – Page One contained mostly liberal thought pieces about Republicans refusing to compromise with Obama. There was one blog entry and one statement from a Congressman that had anything to do with what I obviously was looking for. This happened only a week after I posted the first entry in this Google series. “obama refused to compromise” was better, though it ranked the result from reddit above National Review.
  16. “liberal twitter attack bush”, “liberal george bush twitter attack”, and “liberal george bush twitter reaction” – a similar search for Scalia got me an instant result, but these weren’t working. Obviously I was looking for liberals attacking George H.W. Bush after his passing, and Google was making the Left appear civilized by omitting the desired results.
  17. “liberal reaction mccain death” – same as above. But remember: Bush and McCain had their images extensively rehabilitated post-mortem by the Left. So it stands to reason either they marched lock-step or Google buried contrary results.
  18. I typed “are black fathers more likely to vote republican” and the first result was “Memo to black men: Stop voting Republican – The Boston Globe” and the third result down was “Kanye West Shows Why Black Conservatives Are Not Black … – NPR”, and then we have “The Diversity Of Black Political Views | FiveThirtyEight” (which is easily disproven given how I was able to predict with 72% accuracy that the Virginia Beach shooter voted for Obama twice, Hillary once, and voted Democrat in the 2018 midterms. If their views are so diverse, why is their ballot box performance so predictably homogeneous?). As you can see, none of the results I saw had any relevance to what I was looking for.
  19. This came up while I was writing this piece- for a section later where I condemn Google for legitimizing pedophilia as part of the LGBT movement, I tried to find information about the German Society for Human Rights (what it was renamed to, originally it had the name “Community of Free Spirits”) being the first group to characterize homosexuality as a human right. Google, who believes Pride started in 1969, has expunged this historic achievement, with only two rightwing books condemning homosexuality showing up in search results. (Yes, this group is related to Henry Gerber’s landmark group founded in 1924, but depending on your source it’s possible he and other group members were arrested for sexually abusing a minor, and my whole point was that there are non-pedo role models in the LGBT movement. To call me a bigot for trying to find non-pedo role models and things that aren’t linked to pedophiles would be saying that pedophilia is part of homosexuality, and you don’t want to be that bigoted do you? You would attack a rightwinger for trying to bring tolerance and understanding, and throw the LGBTQ community under the bus by accusing them all of being pedos, just to score points against me?). Those two books are the only sources I saw recognizing this group for seeing homosexuality as a human right. I took out all references to this group though because as you see in the Washington Post article I linked, they were a bit racist and misogynist. And the future leader of Hitler’s Brown Shirts was a member.

Liberals after Trump was elected, or me dealing with computers that don’t do what I tell them to? You decide. Images from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora

The preceding probably do not reflect the entirety of the issues I had with Google over the last 6 months; really it just shows what I bothered writing down. Mostly when I can’t get a search engine, or anything else electronic, to work correctly despite what I believe to be correct inputs, I am too busy screaming and cussing  and throwing things like a liberal the night Trump was elected to write something down.


Google’s Pattern

Some items that didn’t happen to me or are unrelated to searching:

  • On the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Google (possibly in a move to support the kind folks in China that they tried selling-out to) decided to celebrate the founding of the Pride movement in 1969 instead. They couldn’t celebrate unimpeachable milestones like the first gay rights organization, formed in 1860 by the real pioneer of the modern gay rights movement. They couldn’t memorialize the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy. Nope, they picked that time when pedophile-lover Harry Hay worked with some kindred spirits to start a movement full of pedophile-related missteps that probably added 30 years to the LGBT community’s struggle, missteps that almost certainly fueled homophobia/transphobia and backlash against inspiring victories for the LGBT community. Here is a piece by a trans activist talking about how this very thing would happen if pedos associate with the movement, while Google celebrates the moment those particular horses left long before the activist was even aware the barn door was broken.
  • Google labelled the Mueller Report as fiction, probably because it vindicates Trump.
  • A study caught Google suppressing rightwing news outlets (thus letting leftwing ones thrive). In fact, the study found that Google relied on CNN more than any other news source.
  • Google apparently buried results on Greenpeace’s co-founder after he spoke out against the green movement.
  • Google employees believe that it is homophobic to use the word “family” to refer to a unit of humans containing a parent or parents with children. Do you really think these people could or would make an unbiased search algorithm, or that such people would tell the truth if they did?

Bad Tree, Bad Fruit

Google owns YouTube, so I’ll note a few things about what they’ve been up to lately.

  • YouTube employees admit they manipulate search results to promote liberal values.
  • Just before a pro-life march, YouTube decided that a video showing Planned Parenthood employees ready to help pimps abuse little girls was removed and cited it as “hate speech”. Because exposing an organization as a promoter of pedophilia is hate speech. Hey… this kinda goes along with Google promoting that Pride pedo stuff I mentioned earlier, doesn’t it. All sorts of videos of hate speech Google could take down, but they take down one showing Lefties supporting pedophiles. All sorts of positive gay rights achievements Google can celebrate, and they pick the one that supports pedophiles. Huh. Should I invoke the Mueller precedent of “guilty until proven innocent” here?
  • YouTube demonetized a rightwinger for no legitimate reason according to YouTube’s own user guidelines. In other words, they decided that even though the rightwinger didn’t break any of their rules they could penalize him anyway. Didn’t I warn y’all that the Left was trying to do this with our legal system, with their activist judges?


A “cultural policy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War period following World War II, calling for stricter government control of art and promoting an extreme anti-Western bias.” No wonder Google allies like the NYT are out promoting the Soviet Union. Google is certainly doing a cultural purge. So is just about every part of the Left. covers what the news and Hollywood and tech corporations are up to if you want a one-stop source for all things zhdanovshchina. I merely provided in this post my own glimpse into Google’s participation, and will be back in 6 months with some more gems unearthed as I seek content and sources for what I post.


Democrats with a Soviet flag outside the DNC in 2016. Image from talkmedianews


Up In Arms About Impeachment


“We had enough time for Obamacare but not enough time for gun control and it wasn’t important anyway 10 years ago, and we’re not thinking of impeachment now… or maybe we are… or maybe we aren’t… what did the last poll say people wanted? Is Hamas still a humanitarian organization?” Image from wikimedia commons

“Arms” as in “guns”, it was a gun pun.

I guess I don’t have to really say anything about gun control after the Virginia Beach shooting afterall. Even though it was only a week and a half ago, it’s out of the news cycle unless you carefully watched CNN for this gem where we’re told it doesn’t matter if the gun control we’re told would stop shootings doesn’t actually do that. Anyway, recently there have been police shootings of blacks (The Root, who I won’t bother linking, made it a race issue of course and left out that it was a Hispanic officer in their coverage that I saw, and the angry Twitter crowd they cited left that out too), many shootings in Chicago, but instead the Left prefers to shoot off at the mouth about impeachment.

Or maybe it’s because this wasn’t a white mass shooter (race matters- Salon published an article titled “Mass shooters: Part of a larger epidemic of white male rage” despite how faulty the implied assertion that only whites do the violence is, an assertion fellow Leftwing outlet Slate debunked with its piece “Mass Shooters Aren’t Disproportionately White”). This was a black man, meaning there’s a 96% chance he voted for Obama in 2008, 94% chance he voted for Obama in 2012, 90.24% chance he voted for Obama both times, 89% chance he voted for Hillary, 80.3136% chance he voted twice for Obama and once for Hillary, and a 90% chance he voted Democrat in the midterm elections (thus a 72.33624% chance he voted Democrat for all four elections mentioned above). He passed a background check, legally obtained his guns, and had no history of mental illness.

So, to pursue a gun control narrative here, Democrats would have to admit that a black man who voted for them was insane when he bought the guns, insane when he used them, and therefore insane when he voted Democrat. Further, he was a government employee, so the Left would have to admit that its heroes in government, those bureaucrats liberals want to keep employed and create jobs for by expanding government, those solid citizens who earn most of the $100k per head that cities like Seattle spend on homeless people per year, are or can become insane.

Liberals faced this same problem when Leftwing YouTube HQ was shot up for not being Leftwing enough, shot up by a woman of color. That story vanished faster than if Flight 19 and the USS Proteus went searching for the USS Eldridge. And much like the Philadelphia Experiment, the media’s coverage of how gung-ho gun controller France has more mass shootings per person than we do is non-existent (since their gun control clearly does not work I suppose you’ll want to ban guns altogether, sort of like London… who now are banning knives because people use them instead of guns… and who think buying a hammer means you’re a criminal because people are using them instead of knives), just like their coverage of how the percentage of mass shootings the U.S. contributes to the worldwide stats is dropping.

Anyway, I’ll give this a bit of coverage many nationwide Leftwing media outlets left out and post a link to a page that talks about how to help the victims.

Back To The Main Course

The Democrats and their propaganda arm made the agenda clear enough- touch on gun control fast but impeachment is where it’s at. Hell, let’s look at what the media coverage was on the big Sunday Morning news shows just 48 hours after the shooting:

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on ABC’s This Week talking about impeaching Trump and attacking the Attorney General because he’s not a Democrat or something, followed by a roundtable discussion talking about everything BUT the shooting, subjects like “what’s Trump doing wrong” and “which Democrat will win against Trump”.
  • CBS’ Face The Nation’s roundtable discussion focusing on Mueller Vs. Attorney General Barr.
  • NBC’s Meet The Press talking about ex-Special Counsel Mueller talking, and opening with talk of impeachment.
  • And for a bonus- Barely an hour after the shooting, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) was on MSNBC joking that the only way he could get on TV was to talk about impeachment.
  • Bonus Bonus: when googling “virginia beach mass shooting”, the top 3 news items were all dated 1 week ago (placing them June 5), and just about all search results from sources outside Virginia Beach were from June 4 or before.

I didn’t mention Fox News since they’re biased and evil and not liberal and thus not relevant to this conversation, which is about how the Left who tells us they’re concerned about gun control (despite a 5 year lapse I might have mentioned before in which many people died from mass shootings while Democrats sat on their thumbs) and then ignore it in favor of impeachment, how impeachment is the one driving force of the Democratic Party right now. Their reaction to the shooting was most illustrative of that.

So, it’ll also be the driving force behind this post.


This is John Dean sitting before the House Judiciary Committee, but he looked a lot older in the video I saw of his testimony there. I guess it was just the lighting. Image from Huffington Post

On Monday we were treated to an interesting sight. John Dean, who was White House Counsel for Richard Nixon, who went to jail for his role in Watergate, was treated as a friend by the modern Democrats. Kind of odd since they wanted blood with Lt. Gen. Flynn (even going so far as having “fact checker” Politifact lie. Comey, head of the FBI, said that agents didn’t think Flynn was lying, so Politifact is either lying or playing fast and loose with semantics in its title and in reaching its verdict of false, something they fault Trump for doing) and all he did was seemingly not remember something that wasn’t even a crime, whereas Dean helped cover-up illegal activities by a Republican targeting Democrats. Dean wasn’t treated as an enemy though, since as  Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) pointed out he makes a career out of yelling that (Republican) Presidents are all reincarnations of Nixon. Democrats love that.

Gaetz also pointed out that while Dean couldn’t contribute anything about the Mueller Report, he was testifying at a hearing titled “Lessons From Mueller Report”. The only two lessons he seemed to have were that Trump was like Nixon, and that Special Counsel Mueller clearly wants Congress to impeach Trump. As Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) pointed out in his opening statement, that’s something we could’ve heard Dean say on TV, certainly not something to waste Congress’ time with.

Saying those things that the Democrat majority likes to hear is also why Dean will get away with lying to Congress. You may have noticed that during his answers to Gaetz he stated that he was not willingly out in public comparing Trump to Nixon, that he was forced to, that it was beyond his control. Yet on CNN that very night he says he’s out doing it because he wants to. Dean was disbarred and did jail time, so he has a record of being crooked, so I really can’t judge if he was lying just so CNN heard what they wanted to hear, or lying to Congress.

I can summarize the witness testimony for you, to save you four and a half hours: “impeach Trump!”. Gaetz hit the nail on the head- Democrats brought in Watergate man and all these federal attorneys to make it look like an impeachment hearing since they can’t actually do it yet. It’d fail in the Senate since not everyone is a Justin Amash Republican, it’d be a political mess, so they just want to keep the narrative alive.

They Need A Punching Bag

Someone to unleash their fury on, until impeachment happens. Hostility towards the President is what they figure will get them re-elected. And they’re right, as Gaetz said 70% of Democrats want Trump impeached so if their elected representatives don’t represent on that then they’re out of the job.

Attorney General Barr is the immediate punching bag. He and the DOJ finally came to an agreement with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on how to legally provide the full Mueller Report. I may have mentioned last week that certain legal complications were barring Barr from doing that. Well, this week after the agreement to provide the full report was announced House Dems voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress anyway because he did not break the law when they ordered him to. While they were busy inventing powers for themselves, case in point the power to order an Executive Branch official to break the law, Democrats in Congress had a lawsuit dismissed in part because they weren’t bothering to use the powers they already have to resolve the issue.


#HesWithHer Image from NBC

This seems to be a habit of Democrats. Give an inch and they take a yard… or rather, give a branch and they take the government (“Congress isn’t just a co-equal branch. We’re first among equals.” according to a Democrat, who said nothing of the kind when Obama was President and Republicans were fighting his unconstitutional activity). They only have control of the House, yet they act like they run the whole government (starting pretty much when they took office, with Pelosi cancelling the President’s State of the Union, obviously lying that it was due to a lack of funds for security since she was about to use said funds to fly across the ocean) with either Pelosi or Schumer as President (Pelosi I guess since she’s a woman, third in line for the Presidency, and is the one I see in the media a lot, and runs the only part of the government elected Democrats control). You’ll recall that with Obama in the White House, he ran the whole government too despite Republicans running the Legislative Branch. Aside from his recess appointments that the Supreme Court struck down as being unconstitutional because Obama was stealing powers from Congress, Obama also enacted “treaties that weren’t treaties” (that is, they were treated and referred to as being binding (no, it wasn’t illegal to withdraw from the JCPOA) like any treaty would be except they weren’t called treaties because that’s something Congress would need to be involved with, so I guess we can call them “Pen And Phone Treaties”- they were a semantic exercise so that Obama could get out of being accused of doing something illegal, similar to that semantic exercise where the FBI exchanged the crime “gross negligence” for legal synonyms “extreme carelessness” to get Hillary off the hook).

And If They Do Impeach?

They might be overplaying their hand, since the Mueller Report didn’t definitively give anything to impeach on. So far Democrats just said “see? It’s impeachable! Let’s do it!” in regards to Mueller alleging Trump obstructed justice. But, Trump was innocent, so there was no crime he was hiding, so he wasn’t obstructing anything. Trump can easily go out and say that all of his activity that an innocent man defending himself would engage in (some was mentioned last week) is what Democrats think is a crime. It might backfire entirely if he presses home that Democrats believe innocent people do not have a right to defend themselves. So really, he just has to cite this and Kavanaugh as repeated examples of Democrats trying to destroy innocent people and deny a right to a defense (well, this and that unconstitutional “no fly no buy” thing), and say “next time it could be YOU”, and that would certainly rally some Republicans like the Kavanaugh thing apparently did (that’s supposedly why Republicans kept the Senate in 2018). Take it a step up and refer to Democrat congressmen as fascist tribunals. Or say that Pelosi, Schumer, and the Democratic Presidential Candidate will form an American troika if they’re elected. Because, as we’ve seen, they will.


We all know what John Dean thinks of the Mueller Report, but what does JIMMY Dean think of it? As Rep. Gaetz might note, Jimmy’s opinion is just as relevant as Johnny’s. Image from the James Bond Wiki

The Emperor’s New Report


He looks creepy.

A little late, but revelations last week that begin casting doubt on the Mueller Report made it worth the wait. Plus, Mueller’s speech last week brought it back into the headlines anyway (I had considered running into gun control instead because of the Virginia Beach mass shooting, but the police didn’t release a motive yet so I’d like to wait, plus this story is older).

Kind of working from recent to earliest, I’ll start with what we learned Friday: Special Counsel Mueller edited a transcript in his report so that it would hint at obstruction of justice, instead of showing that it was merely a lawyer doing lawyer stuff with other lawyers who lawyer. Mueller seems to be of the “kill all the lawyers” school of thought, because he characterizes normal defense activity as “obstruction of justice”. Heaven forbid the legal system protect someone from the Left’s show trials and purges!

And Mueller certainly is all-in on the show trial thing. Remember- he told us that “If [he] had had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, [he] would have said so”. Which comes out to “guilty until proven innocent”, which is not the role of a prosecutor or special counsel or anyone in the DOJ. Democrats pounced on it as meaning “guilty”. Taking a look at the manifest of the Mueller Team, it’s no surprise he’d make such a political conclusion about what happened, nor is it a surprise that his report would edit the facts. Mueller loaded his team with Democrats, and found nothing, so this was the best he could say. Basically saying that if there is no evidence of a crime then it probably happened, a tactic employed by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid against Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. A tactic employed against Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats were very upset when the shoe was on the other foot re: Pizzagate, but they never did make the claim of being able to take what they dish out.


Not pictured- A Native American. Image from Vox

One of the rare occasions where I can say this, but Elizabeth Warren is absolutely right. If President Trump were the average citizen, did not have the protections that being President afforded him, then the Democrats’ witch hunt would’ve left him as being just another of Mueller’s falsely accused victims. This wasn’t Mueller’s first rodeo when it comes to burying exculpatory evidence (he even hired someone who withheld such evidence- for those who don’t know, you’re not supposed to do that, basically it means you’re withholding evidence that someone is innocent), and it should surprise no one if the Mueller Report is full of it.

But We Don’t Have The Full Report!

Pelosi is full of it, she can probably read the redacted parts if she wants to (she, Nadler mentioned below, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had access to a version of the Mueller Report where only the grand jury testimony- the stuff Attorney General Barr has no ability to disclose- was redacted. All the classified stuff was in it. None of these parties even bothered to view it, no Democrat on the approved list looked at it, but five of the six permitted Republicans did view it. All that was censored in this version was two full lines of text and parts of 7 other lines, that’s it, unless the lines read “this is all a lie, Trump is a Russian spy” then there’s no way there’s anything in it that Democrats would need to know to dispute Mueller’s conclusions outlined elsewhere in the report, and certainly not anything big on obstruction unless the lines read “Disregard our conclusion construction, because Trump is guilty of justice obstruction”). And by the way, Mueller wanted less of the report to be public! Attorney General Barr, accused of being just a Trump crony by concealing parts of the report, released MORE of it than Mueller himself had asked be released!


Rep. Adam Schiff left, Rep. Devin Nunes right, image from NY Post.

As for the redacted portions that everyone is complaining  about, let me first make the point that Democrats used to be very serious about redacting things. Remember when House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) chided Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) because his memo showing how fake the Russian investigation’s origins were “risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose”? (Ironically, that same memo involved Schiff trying to expose sensitive sources and methods simply to counter Nunes, something that’s not as legitimate as Nunes exposing wrongdoing by the government.) Here we have the DOJ- NOT Attorney General Barr, but Justice Department lawyers- telling them that the redacted portions can’t be revealed because of ongoing cases. Democrats now care as much about security threats or threats to ongoing court cases as they did when Hillary was passing classified info through her unsecured server (that may have been hacked, if Mueller’s statement about not having evidence means collusion took place then the FBI’s response that they have “not found any evidence the servers were compromised” certainly MUST also mean that Hillary’s servers WERE compromised.). In other words- they don’t care at all.

Speaking of things that Democrats don’t care about- as had been made apparent by Kavanaugh and even the attempt to use the “Do Not Fly” list to determine who gets to own a gun- we come to rule of law. Laws only matter if they help Democrats. It’s only the “law of the land” if it comes from a Democrat Administration. Remember all the times we heard how Obamacare was now “law of the land”? If they don’t like a “law of the land”, this suddenly unbreakable moral absolute is smeared and fought rabidly in court, usually the 9th Circuit where they’re guaranteed a favorable ruling, and still disobey when they lose as we see with anything immigration. And in some cases, they work to deprive others of its protections. I mentioned their efforts to destroy due process, now we have Democrats ordering AG Barr to break the law.

AG Barr does not have the authority to unredact the parts of the Mueller Report that Democrats want him to, as you saw in an earlier USA Today link. If he did unredact the items as requested (the grand jury items), he’d be breaking the law. Democrats legally cannot subpoena AG Barr to force him to break the law by handing over this material. So since AG Barr won’t break the law, Democrats will hold him in contempt of Congress. They’ve even talked of fining him, or imprisoning him. Why? Because he won’t break the law. Like Elizabeth Warren said- if Trump weren’t President, thanks to Democrats like her he’d be in jail. Probably for refusing to break the law, or for daring to have a lawyer since as mentioned before a lawyer doing legal lawyer stuff is now criminal and obstruction of justice.

It’s not the first time that Democrats tried to criminalize abiding by the law. Remember the Stormy Daniels thing, how Democrats said Trump should be impeached or arrested or whatever because he did not report the payoff as a campaign expense? Well, legally it WASN’T a campaign expense, it’s against the law to report hush money as a campaign expense, so Trump would’ve committed a crime if he had done what Democrats say he’s a criminal for NOT doing. Again, as Warren said, thanks to Democrats if Trump weren’t President he’d be in jail, for obeying the law.

Where The Title Comes From


_I was tempted to illustrate the idea of a naked man with a sexy image of Cloud given a joint appreciation the venerable originator of this blog and I have of his form, but that would be crossing the line so instead have a picture of Nikita Khrushchev from the back cover of Khrushchev Remembers.

“The Emperor’s New Cloak”- a fable about how some despot told a garment maker that he must sew the most beautiful cloak ever, so he faked it and said only the enlightened could see it, which led to the despot walking around naked and all the “wise” people claiming that they could see the beautiful non-existent cloak.

This cloak has been around for some time with Democrats- their “nuanced” arguments. Whenever a politician says it’s a nuanced argument (aside from some cases where they’re right, like when saying that their position is too nuanced to cover in 240 characters on Twitter or in a 30sec clip) they mean that they’re right and you’re too stupid to understand. Like when the Left tells us that the reason for ISIS is that not enough people in the Middle East have jobs (fun fact- medical workers and many others who had jobs in England and other parts of the world joined ISIS, hardly fitting for that “they have no jobs in the Middle East” explanation). If you don’t think unemployment and slight reduction in crop output is enough to cause folks to ground up children and feed them to their starving parents or behead people or set people on fire then you’re just an idiot and should surrender all control of your life to your elitist liberal betters! So goes the Left’s argument anyway, their “nuanced” argument about the origins of Islamic terrorism.

Regardless of if ISIS says they are Islamic or regardless of if ISIS says they’re at war with the U.S., they aren’t simply because our State Department under Obama decreed that they weren’t (as you see at this link– I was advised against using Breitbart because some of you all don’t like it, but this is a direct quote and I couldn’t find it anywhere else on a Google search and it is 4:41am and I have to work in 4 hours and I don’t have time to scour CSPAN for this!). As the Obama Administration said, it doesn’t matter what ISIS says or does, it just matters what they tell you about it. Afterall, the media overhypes terrorist attacks, said Obama, and a year later he decided to attend a baseball game with notorious butcher Raul Castro in the wake of an Islamic terror attack on an American ally. Imagine if Trump attended the Bolshoi Ballet with Putin after Brussels got bombed? It’s ok when Obama does such a thing, he’s a hero, but Trump is evil. Period.

But it’s fine. Terror is a-ok! Just ask AOC who defended Ilhan Omar. Omar is on the record about terrorism- she believes it’s a joke and laughs at how Americans are concerned about it after the attempted and successful attacks on us. She thinks it’s maybe xenophobia because we don’t like strange words, or maybe Islamophobia, or just racism. Certainly nothing to do with the many people killed by the terrorists that she joked about- afterall, she was recorded as saying that her worldview is that the American military is equal to terrorists who kill 200 civilians in a shopping mall. Omar believes al Qaeda has just as much a right to violence as any other country and we shouldn’t be criticizing them. I’m not spinning anything, that’s WHAT SHE SAID! And Democrats backed her 100%.

The people in her district that voted for her, her friends in Congress, her leaders in Congress and the Democratic Party who fight every effort opposed to her, and liberals like Stephen Colbert who invited Omar onto his program, all of them are obviously smarter than us by virtue of being Democrats, so surely they are aware of Omar’s views, and by trying to downplay or hide them they clearly A: believe in these views and B: KNOW they are wrong otherwise they’d be just like her and telling anyone within earshot what they really think, instead of burying it as best as they can.


Also, they spy on YOU.

Now, isn’t it fair to say that a political party that knowingly is aiding terrorism (supporting pro-terrorist Omar, refusing to combat Islamic extremism while attacking people who do, giving Iran billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear bomb to send to its terrorist allies) while obstructing the functions of the elected President of the United States and the Judicial Branch is a party of traitors? Or is there a nuanced argument to make in support of them? Because even if their is, murderers are still profiting by Democrats’ actions that Democrats MUST KNOW are aiding murderers (afterall, the Left is smarter!) so we still have thousands of cases of manslaughter against them.

“Nuanced” Report

That was a bit of a digression, but the nuances that Democrats see around the report all amount to one thing- they don’t believe the Mueller Report says what it says.

It’s interesting that folks like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who can see almost all of the report, refuse to even look at the lightly redacted version and then say that there was collusion with Russia. The Mueller Report states:

  • “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government”
  • “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation”- the IRA being Russia’s Internet Research Agency
  • At various other points Mueller’s report confirms that there was no link, to the point that some items parroted as fact by the media was entirely fake (such as claims that George Papadopolous and Carter Page were indicted for their ties to Russia and claims about meetings that didn’t happen).

Yet Nadler insists the report DID show there was collusion, in total contrast to what MUELLER said as you can read in the first bullet point above! Nadler outright says that no collusion is impeachable if proven true, or maybe he’s saying it’s impeachable if it’s proven true that Mueller had nothing for obstruction of justice. It’s hard to tell, Democrats think law-abiding behavior is impeachable, based on what we saw with AG Barr.

This is where the “nuanced” arguments come in. You have to be smart in order to understand that “did not establish” means “soooo much evidence for it happening that Trump should be shot”. Just ask Blumenthal who very clearly read the report and has high reading comprehension. Mueller said they could not establish that it took place, he doesn’t say that it DIDN’T take place, and the Left was clinging to lifelines like that, clinging desperately to the Left’s cherished idea of “a person is guilty if we say so”, until Mueller threw them a life vest last week.

Legally Bound

Mueller’s statements last week raised another question. He claimed that the DOJ rules would not allow him to prosecute Trump (fun fact- the attorney general says Mueller could’ve at least reached a conclusion on whether there was a crime if there was evidence for one) so he didn’t really try to find any crimes. If that is the case, didn’t he just waste a lot of time and money? If the conclusion Democrats took from this is accurate, that Mueller didn’t find evidence and didn’t bother investigating because he couldn’t charge, then that means Mueller’s investigation shouldn’t have even started unless Democrats like the idea of wasting $20 million just to keep a few ex-Clintonites employed.

Moreover, we were told in February of 2018 by lawyers who worked with Mueller’s team that Mueller could indict Trump. Other legal scholars said Mueller could indict. Pelosi said Trump could be indicted. MSNBC said that Mueller might ask the attorney general to indict Trump. That sure is a lot of people who thought Mueller had the power to indict, quite a few of whom would KNOW if Mueller could. Did they lie? Or did Mueller?

And, didn’t CNN already declare that Mueller’s Report cleared Trump so much that it was a “gift to the government of Russia”?


Anyone remember when Dems said Rod Rosenstein was a patriotic hero? Yet here he is saying there was no collusion and no obstruction while Dems ignore their hero’s words.

Democrats never stopped saying they have obvious indictable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Even though Mueller- with $25 million, 40 FBI agents, 18 Democrat attorneys, and 2 years- couldn’t show anything happened despite how thoroughly they examined everything right down to who tweeted what, Democrats have always been saying there was enough evidence of crimes taking place. The best they can do is say there’s a nuanced argument. Nixon was out on his ass. Clinton was impeached by the House. But the best Democrats these days have is a nuanced argument that only pundits can see, despite all of this evidence that should have indicted Trump cleanly.

And even though Mueller didn’t say in his remarks last week that he wanted impeachment, the media looked for more of these “nuanced” messages. To be fair we’ve established that Mueller probably does hate Trump and want him impeached so perhaps the Left’s attempts to parse his words have some basis in reality. Mueller, who likes hiding evidence so that innocent people are convicted, who was friend to antiTrump scoundrel Comey, and hired many partisan hacks to his team of investigators, certainly would be someone who’d want Trump out of office. Especially if Trump were to hurt his corrupt DOJ cronies, or any sweet deals Mueller has from his tenure.


Rep. Nadler, image from wikimedia commons

Of course, as mentioned with Nadler, Democrat politicians don’t even bother making a “nuanced” argument. They just outright lie about what the Mueller Report or speak like it doesn’t exist.. The narrative is so vital that they’re at the point of just saying that it happened and hoping you believe it. Between the press and Democrat politicians, billionaires, activists, etc. the Left has had a thousand times what Mueller brought to bear and still in two years found nothing, or are hiding their findings from Mueller. I mean, if they’re so confident it happened and say they have irrefutable evidence despite Mueller saying otherwise, they MUST be hiding evidence from the Mueller Probe, which ironically means that Democrats MUST be the ones obstructing justice. If we are to believe them, we must conclude they have evidence Mueller doesn’t have, thus we must conclude that they are obstructing justice by hiding it.

Of course, maybe sensing this argument, Mueller and Democrats came up with the previously mentioned “Mueller didn’t have the power to prosecute” line. Except he at least had the power to declare that crimes happened, and he wouldn’t have said he had no evidence of a crime if he had evidence of it, if he had the same evidence Adam Schiff must be hiding. To Mueller’s point about lacking the power to prosecute you definitely can’t prosecute someone if there is no evidence of a crime, unless you’re a Democrat. And Mueller said he had zero evidence to act on.

Mueller had no evidence of collusion, and only hints at obstruction of justice, at least as Mueller describes it. There can be no obstruction of justice if there is no crime. Mueller found no evidence of a crime thus justice could not have been obstructed. And for those of you saying that Trump’s obstruction succeeded in stopping Mueller from finding a crime- read the damn report. He says nothing of the kind. He does not link obstruction with not finding a crime. Or is that one of those nuanced argument bread crumb things we’re supposed to read into?

Misc. Annoyances

  • Nadler saying that asking AG Barr to break the law to give them the unredacted Mueller Report was a “good-faith” effort by Democrats to get the report.
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) is a twit, or he just proved that the FBI had a partisan grudge. Blumenthal said that the investigation into Trump began with “credible” accusations about Russia spying on behalf of Trump. The FBI warned the DNC in 2015 that Russia was going to hack them, and Russia did hack them in March of 2016. Trump wasn’t even a certainty for the nomination until April of 2016 when Sen. Cruz dropped out. So, according to Blumenthal, the first thing the FBI did when they learned their warning from 2015 came to pass was to investigate Trump who wasn’t even a certainty to be the candidate during all of this? Or is Blumenthal saying that Russia was helping Trump all along, as far back as 2015 when we didn’t even know he’d be a contender?
  • Also, Blumenthal claims in the above link that investigating the origins of the probe that faked evidence (Comey himself said the evidence, the fake dossier, was unverified but told the FISA court judge it was verified, and that’s the least damning problem about it) to get a warrant and was full of biased operators is a distraction from the findings of the probe… that Trump colluded and obstructed (which is a total lie, it said no such thing, at best the Mueller Report left it open-ended on obstruction but was definite on collusion).
  • Let’s do some reading of our own. According to the logic of CNN’s Chris Cilliza, he admits freely that President Obama is to blame for Hillary Clinton not facing charges and for the fabrication of evidence against Trump to start an investigation. Or does the Left believe that “setting the tone” only works when a Republican does it? If so, the Left is admitting its leaders are very weak.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that Trump engaged in a cover-up, totally contrary to the Mueller Report’s conclusions, and then was offended that Trump didn’t want to meet with her immediately after she lied about him. And while lying about the report, Pelosi accused Attorney General Barr of lying because he just said what Mueller said, rather than the lie Pelosi wants to hear. That’s right- Pelosi, in addition to holding Barr in contempt for NOT breaking the law, wants to punish Barr because he told the truth. This from the party of science and truth and justice… maybe this is what “social justice” looks like, what it looks like when everyone has their own truth. Also, does anyone else remember Pelosi demanding Hillary be punished for lying to Congress? Because if you remember that, you’re as much a liar as Pelosi.
  • I also want to point something else out. For all those talking of collusion (who were quiet when Bill Clinton repaid Chinese investors in his campaign by giving them ICBMs) as if it were fact and for those who say “well even if Trump is innocent, based on Mueller’s indictments he surrounded himself with bad people”, I’d like to point out that this is the closest look we’ve had at a Presidential campaign. If anyone else’s campaign were investigated, its members held to scrutiny, we’d find some pretty horrible things. Heck, even at the Congressional level we have Democrats hiding sexual assault by their staffers, so imagine what a Mueller-type investigation of them would show.

Lots of gripes here, but the long and short is Democrats are lying. They started the narrative, when nothing came of it they decided to keep it going. Why? Look at the massive Democratic field. Their front-runner has to hide himself, and the rest are only electable in the “glass of water” districts Pelosi spoke of. To paraphrase Obama when he was attacking Republicans- if you can’t paint yourself as someone to run towards, paint your enemy as someone to run from. So despite Mueller’s report, collusion still happened. Obstruction must have happened. The only bright light is that a few people seem not to be buying into this, based on the ratings plummeting for various liberal programs who dealt in this farce.


And despite giving away ICBMs, I still kinda like 90s Bill Clinton. Shows what a good personality can do I guess, or maybe I’m just a battered husband at heart. Image taken from, but I assume it’s originally from whatever that writing in the lower right-hand corner says.