So Far Left They’re On The Far Right

david_duke-politico

David Duke, one of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)’s supporters. Image from Politico.

I didn’t know forgot that the 2nd round of Democratic Debates was this week. Oh well, I might get to the Democratic debates next week once they’re all done, or the week after since I also need to address the Baltimore stuff (spoiler alert: I’ve been there; Trump is right).

Let me start with a recent item in the news: the DCCC got a new chief, the new chief brought in some white people, the U.S. population is 60% white, the DCCC’s staff after the changes was 51.85185185% white (they could replace two more people with whites and still be fine), so naturally Democrats complained that having a figure more diverse than the American public still made the DCCC too white so 6 white people “resigned” (hard to say it was a resignation when the alternative was being fired for being the wrong race and committing racism, because in liberal land they are racist for stopping a non-white from having that job), which means only 29.629% of the DCCC staff will be white, a figure less than half of what the actual white population in the country is.

Touching on some other points here before we get to the takeaway most relevant to this post, let’s start by looking at this attitude. When Democrats say they want diversity, this is what they mean. Now, with the actual white population being twice what liberals find tolerable, what does that say for the excess whites? Where do they go? Shall we bar them from jobs, fire them for being the wrong race as we saw with the DCCC? Refuse to hire them as we saw at the DNC? Moreover, for those who didn’t look, “DCCC” stands for “Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee”. That means the very body working to elect people that represent the population DO NOT believe that their people should be representative of that population (The Squad, in particular Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), would concur). Also, Democrats are speaking out in support of their chief in the wake of what can ONLY be interpreted (by their measure) as her racist actions.

White-Night-CNN-debate-July30

CNN’s first debate night, July 30, was a sea of white faces. Image from CNN

Now, let’s get to the relevant part: they claim the DCCC chief hired too many white people. Naturally the chair would’ve said she was totally not racist and just hired the most qualified people. Which means whites were more qualified than the non-white candidates, thus the DCCC chair believed whites were superior. No wonder all those minority groups complained! So why is the DCCC chief still there now that we know she has a pattern of hiring white people, a bias towards white people? She hired almost TWICE as many whites as were acceptable! My case gets even better if you say she was just hiring loyalists over other candidates, because it still meant she hired (and trusted) whites more than any other race.

Mask You A Question

We all agree that the FAAAAAAAAR Right/Alt-Right as the media labels it consists of Neo Nazis and Klansmen. Well, what do they believe?

  • hate Jews
  • hate Israel
  • hate Catholics
  • believe their race is the best
  • believe their religion is the best
  • want a totalitarian system of government
  • believe in segregation
  • believe everyone across different races can all be stereotyped
  • believe the entire LGBT community can be stereotyped
  • refer to non-whites as “colored people”
  • believe whites and men are superior
  • believe African Americans are unintelligent
  • believe in using minorities as slave labor

Now, let’s take a look at what the Far Left believes.

  • hate Jews
  • hate Israel
  • hate Catholics
  • believe their race is the best
  • believe their religion is the best (yes, atheism counts, and absence of criticism of Islam in the wake of anti-Christian and anti-Semitic attitudes counts as a preference)
  • want a totalitarian system of government
  • believe in segregation
  • believe everyone across different races can all be stereotyped
  • believe the entire LGBT community can be stereotyped
  • refer to non-whites as “people of color”
  • believe whites and men are superior*
  • believe African Americans are unintelligent
  • believe in using minorities as slave labor (the much ballyhooed liberal Kamala Harris did that apparently, in liberal California)
*That requires some explaining. TL;DR- how could whites/men possibly ever have reached the status of evil oppressor if the rest of the peoples are equal or superior? How does a mouse oppress a cat, or how does a winner arise from two perfectly equal cats? If all races are equal then why/how are all the non-whites ‘historically oppressed groups”? And if all genders are equal, then why/how are women a “historically oppressed group”? If all are equal, why do we need laws making sure enough women and minorities are hired? How did racism or sexism even start if all are equal? Afterall, white men are no different than black women or Asian men, right? So how did white men end up so dominant a force that laws were needed to protect the non-whites? By admitting that white men control the world to such a degree where racism and even systemic racism can exist, isn’t that an admission that anyone who isn’t a white male is inferior? Maybe not morally inferior, but certainly inferior where it counts otherwise white men never would’ve dominated the world as you claim- at between 3% and 11% of the global population (depending on what you think of as white- this is counting Hispanics too for the bigger numbers) white men would have been bested when encountering a force equal to them but greater in number. Heck, how come the women didn’t fight the sexism and overthrow the men/oppressive white men immediately since they are equal in every way and might even have a numerical advantage? And to say that whites or men or white men were better organized or really better at ANYTHING would be an admission that the other side was inferior. So, liberal, how do you get historical oppression without admitting whites and men and white men were able to oppress and thus superior? Your OWN belief system implies whites and men are superior. Can’t really call me a supremacist here liberal, it’s YOUR racist and sexist ideology that I’M complaining about!

Honestly, Ayanna, I thought it was racist to call them “brown” people and homophobic to call them “queers”.

Now you understand my title? You’ll also notice that while some are far-flung groups, most are mainstream voices. “The Squad” has crossed right on over to alt-right in the name of social justice without even noticing. Or perhaps the only difference between the Far Left and the Far Right is that the Far Left uses the word “socialist” instead of “fascist” and “non-whites” instead of “whites”. Because from someone like me who would’ve been considered a centrist not terribly long ago, there is very little difference between members of those two fringes except the labels. Like listening to “Der Kommissar” by Falco and “Der Kommissar” by After The Fire. Fitting I suppose, because the more they live the faster you will die.

Now is where a Leftist might argue that the Left just wants equality. Which is exactly why Pelosi said women deserve to be the only ones leading the world, the sole gender allowed to lead. Which is exactly why Ocasio-Cortez only wanted to put Latinos in leadership positions. Which is exactly why Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff worships a genuine Nazi as Cortez herself quotes someone who allowed Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann and monster Josef Mengele asylum in her country in exchange for wealth stolen from the murdered Jews. Which is exactly why whites need to shut up. Which is exactly why you fire and refuse to hire people based on them being white.

Which is exactly why a crowd of tolerant, sensitive Democrats laughed at Sen. Warren when she was talking about a friend with ALS. You know who else mocked the disabled as if they were untermensch? Do I really have to spell it out- it’s the same people AOC’s chief of staff’s hero mentioned above supported! (And let’s not forget the New York Times, which buried coverage of the Holocaust at the time, recently published support for that anti-Semitic BDS movement covered in links above, and recently published anti-Semitic cartoons).

Post-Debate Addendum: 32% of Democrats believe you are a racist if you are white and criticize a non-white lawmaker. With #KamalaHarrisDestroyed trending on twitter, that means according to a third of Democrats the majority of whites in their party are racist, especially since those racists support white Joe Biden who criticized Sen. Kamala Harris, thus making their party’s frontrunner a racist according to 32% of the party. And might I also point out that Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) is a white supremacist, since she believes only a white voice (hers) can raise awareness to issues of white privilege, otherwise she would NOT have told Sen. Harris and Sen. Booker that their voices were not enough, otherwise she wouldn’t even be running and would be backing one of them or Julian Castro. Instead, she is trying to become just another white president while saying her voice is absolutely needed because minority voices just aren’t enough to get the job done!
National Socialist Movement Holds Rally In Los Angeles

Let’s be honest- this guy could either be a Cheeto-chompin’ Antifa keyboard warrior wannabe Brown Shirt or a Neo Nazi. But probably not Sgt. Schultz ’cause he was a nice guy. And honestly- whether it’s a socialist sending you to die in Siberia or a Nazi sending you to die in Dachau, or a Nazi/Socialist fusion like Nazi supporter AOC, does it really matter to you who’s sending you off to die? (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

Testify Brother!

Deep-State-Robert-Mueller

Special Counsel Mueller, or John Kerry after a face-lift? You decide.

I’ll pretend that I delayed this week’s article simply because the Mueller hearings were happening Wednesday.

Mueller himself probably should have delayed appearing at the hearing. He did not have a very good performance. It seemed very much like he had no clue about the investigation and report which he became the sort of personification of. He didn’t check the political affiliations of the people he hired even though in this situation there’s a law saying he should have (Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) points it out in his questioning, though as we learned from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX)’s questioning Mueller also acted like DOJ policy was “guilty until proven innocent” (with Nadler (and later CBS and the rest of the media) agreeing that not being able to prove innocense meant Trump was guilty, and Mueller agreeing that even though they can’t charge Trump he isn’t cleared of committing a crime because somehow you are guilty if they can’t find enough evidence to show you committed a crime, at least under the Dems’ justice system. Just ask Kavanaugh.) when it came to the alleged obstruction of justice against Trump, so Mueller might just in general not be aware of the legal system he’s been working in, which makes a lot of sense given his earlier record as a prosecutor that I referenced in an earlier post, though there was a lot of “burying exculpatory evidence” going around at the DOJ apparently), there was a lot of stuff in the report itself that he had no clue about (a telling example is that the report cites Fusion GPS, but Mueller did not even know the name of the group his report cited, this group which created the Steele Dossier which the FBI was using to get FISA warrants, and in turn Mueller was using evidence gained from said warrants in his report), and in general he seemed absentminded and doddering during the hearing. Also, he outright refused to answer various questions, and in one case blamed the questioner in a correction to a statement he made (Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) asked Mueller if he didn’t indict Trump because of the OLC ruling, which Mueller said was the case. In the next hearing, Mueller said that Ted Lieu phrased the question poorly, basically saying that the “yes” Mueller provided was to a radically different question that was never Lieu’s intent to ask. A question Mueller must have heard in his mind and wanted Rep. Lieu to say so badly that Mueller corrected the record to say that Lieu was the one who misspoke, not Mueller himself.).

What Did We Learn?

After 10 months of the FBI investigating and 22 months of Mueller investigating, not much.

Mueller stated flatly that he did not charge President Trump with obstruction of justice because he did not find any evidence that a crime took place (Rep. Ted Lieu said Mueller made this denial because someone is threatening him, Lieu insists that Mueller outlined exactly what an obstruction of justice charge should consist of. Lieu was out defending Hillary when she was clearly guilty of gross negligence and Comey outlined how she was guilty and the FBI cleared her anyway, so I have no sympathy. Maybe I should have pity, because Lieu clearly didn’t reach that developmental milestone where you learn to understand how the other side feels, because now he’s on the other side and isn’t having a moment of reflection and realization.). Mueller also agreed with Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-TX) point that the actions Trump took which could be obstruction could also be the actions of an innocent man. Mueller also revealed that the Steele Dossier was being investigated by some other DOJ department.

pinchface_nickelodeon_youtube

Since I had nothing better to put here, have a picture of insanity. Image from Nickelodeon

We also learned Rachel Maddow is insane because she believes that all of the above items meant that Democrats had a victory at the hearing; Maddow even directly cited Mueller talking of other investigations, such as the one into the Steele Dossier, as evidence that Democrats won. Maybe Maddow was making one of those nuanced arguments the Left is so fond of. The ones they say are “nuanced” when, taken at face value, the person making them sounds like they survived that partial-birth abortion procedure where they vacuum out a newborn’s brain. I’ll say this for her- at least she has enough awareness of reality to see that Mueller probably didn’t do jack for the investigation.

As mentioned briefly before and in an earlier post, Mueller made poor hiring choices that violated a lot of rules. Mueller claimed these hirings were perfectly legitimate and did not affect the unbiased results of his team. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)’s questioning outlined the absolute partisanship which Mueller denies. Jordan named off a few people associated with Trump and Russia that were prosecuted, with the Trump officials being charged for lying to the FBI and noting that the Russians would never be in one of our courts, yet despite this eagerness to indict for lies and indict people who will never show up, Clinton Foundation supporter and originator of much of this conspiracy Joseph Mifsud who lied to the FBI three times was not charged. Mueller refused to answer why this was the case, but two obvious possibilities come to mind: Mueller knew Mifsud started it all and was scared he’d sue if they charged him and reveal that this was all a conspiracy staged by the DNC and Obama Administration to stop Trump, or Mueller’s team was so extremely partisan that they only went after the folks the DNC named as enemies: Trump, his allies, and Russia.

Jordan and Armstrong weren’t the only ones pointing it out. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also noted that Mueller was more than happy to prosecute Trump people, but let others go. Gaetz didn’t mention Mifsud, but he did note that while Mueller went after Trump allies for lying to the FBI, Mueller ignored Christopher Steele lying to the FBI. Mueller argued that looking into Steele or the reliability of the Steele Dossier was outside of what the investigation was supposed to look at, but A: Mueller’s report says otherwise as Gaetz points out and B: this means Mueller admits to knowingly citing an unreliable source in his report as if it were truth, that being the Steele Dossier which Mueller said was under investigation while his team was still working, thus bringing into question the reliability of other sources he used as well as bringing into question the judgment of anyone on the team involved in the decision to use the questionable sources.

Mueller’s report often did such things though, citing biased media coverage (an example that popped up just yesterday, CNN referred to Rep. Louie Gohmert’s questioning in a headline as “Lawmaker goes on angry tirade during Mueller questioning”, whereas CNN was totally onboard and supportive when Kamala Harris was objectively delivering an angry tirade instead of questioning a witness) as fact and using total gossip as footnotes to justify the accuracy of assertions in the report.

Democrat-Website-Screenshot

The same media that donates overwhelmingly for people who lie this blatantly (Democrats have only been doing all that civil rights stuff for 50 years) on their website and never holds them accountable is a reliable source according to Mueller’s team. Because they’re all Democrats too.

Rep. Steven Chabot (R-OH) noted that Mueller left out things helpful to Trump, like the bias of the Steele Dossier commissioned by Fusion GPS, which the Mueller Report cites as if that debunked garbage were reliable evidence. In fact, Mueller says many times that he didn’t even investigate this source, apparently just taking it at face value despite as I said knowing it was being investigated. Andrea Mitchell complained that Republicans were smearing the reliability of Mueller and his team, but Mueller did a pretty good job of that all by himself.

The Democrat Response

Some liberal outlets labelled the hearing a disaster. His doddering performance and total unfamiliarity with the case certainly didn’t help. While Nadler thought there was enough for impeachment, Pelosi shot down that idea. I say go for impeachment. Show the public that under Democrats, a person is guilty, period. Let’s have another Kavanaugh situation. Mueller made it clear already in his report that according to him and his Democratic working group a person is guilty of a crime if you can’t find evidence that they committed one and can’t find evidence they didn’t commit one. Nadler reinforced this idea that no evidence for a crime means you are guilty. By Nadler’s own logic he is a pedophile who has raped and murdered 432 Democrat women including potential candidates and judges- there’s no evidence he did, but as Nadler and Mueller agreed on the question is “is there evidence that he didn’t?”, and sure enough there is no evidence that he didn’t do what I just claimed he did, so according to both Nadler and Mueller he MUST have done it.

Then you have others like Vox who believe Trump committed crimes saying that it’s a conspiracy theory to believe that biased FBI agents who we have the biased text messages of and a team of Democrat lawyers indicate that this was a partisan attack. Because y’know, when high-ranking Obama-era DOJ officials attack Trump and when a board of Democrat attorneys is assembled to dig for any sign Trump is a criminal, it’s merely a crazy Fox News conspiracy theory to think there might be some kind of bias there, especially when you have evidence that some people in question were conspiring against Trump. So Vox’s partisan screed is basically a flat earther telling us that it’s a conspiracy to believe the earth is roundish (the Earth might look like a sphere, but really it’s more like an egg with the equator stretching out a little, like if you sat on a beach ball and it went from sphere to ovoid).

I suppose another point to make is one I made before: when Democrats (or any partisan in government I guess) say something ought to be enough, it isn’t. After hyping that the “historic” Mueller hearing would lead to Trump’s impeachment, now that they didn’t hear what they want they’re demanding more hearings so they can hear from everyone on Mueller’s team. They probably should have done that to begin with: it’s much more likely that someone like Andrew Weissman who was at Hillary Clinton’s election night party would want to impeach Trump than it is for Mueller to come out and say “impeachment” when he’s avoided the bait so far.

Why Does The Report Have Mueller’s Name?

Chris Wallace summarizes it pretty good, how Mueller seemed totally out of it. As if the earlier clip montage didn’t do that already. Mueller was not at all knowledgeable about some aspects of his report, and for others he outright refused to answer, and it’s hard to believe that there wasn’t at least one “I don’t want to answer” that wasn’t tied to a “I don’t have an idea”. Either that or the real Mueller died and they just grabbed a lookalike off the street, handed him some index cards with remarks to direct at Republicans and Democrats, and then went forward with the hearings.

Robert_Mueller-accuracy_in_media

In Mueller’s head he’s delivering a 5 star performance and knows his report and investigation like the back of his hand. In reality he is babbling to the end table about being a tree wizard. Image from Accuracy In Media.

It’s also worth noting Mueller’s distance from the report manifested right in front of the public months ago. When he gave his public speech on the report, he wasn’t the one who wrote the remarks he delivered. That likely explains the wording and issues with them (like when Mueller said at a press conference AND to Ted Lieu that the OLC ruling meant that they couldn’t prosecute Trump so they didn’t bother mentioning any crimes, but then later corrected to say they simply didn’t find enough evidence). Moreover, I’ll say it’s safe to assume that the letter Mueller issued where the Left said the letter contradicted AG Barr’s summary of the investigation was written by someone other than Mueller. That explains why Mueller said something totally different over the phone to AG Barr than what was in the letter, as Barr testified to under oath.

To me, Mueller seemed to be interchangeable with any one of the many clueless figureheads I saw during the Obama Administration testifying before Congress in the wake of their agency’s incompetence.

 

 

A Liberal Environment

Anima_River-Before_and_after-EPA-spill-USAToday

Since teenagers support groups like the socialist Democrats who caused this disaster, does this mean it’s a… teenage wasteland?

As you’ll read soon, a liberal environment consists of rampant wildfires, deliberately polluted rivers, and deliberate Chernobyls. Deliberately done by liberals, mind you.

I could go on and on about Democrats and their little dispute over which faction is the most racist: Pelosi’s moderates who don’t like the socialist Progressives that happen to be largely minorities, or the socialist Progressives who want to replace black Democrats (after my earlier post, are you surprised that the group led by a Latino Supremacist would target blacks?) with much to the chagrin of the Congressional Black Caucus. But I have another topic to get to, though I’ll note here that the CBC should realize catering to blacks is sooooo 2008. Remember: the Democrat position is “open borders” now, that’s what their Presidential candidates are demanding, and that’s what Barack Obama in 2006 warned in his Grammy-winning audiobook would devastate black communities. Since the Democratic Party is willing to exterminate the Black community to gain the support of the Hispanic community, I’m pretty sure the CBC’s complaints are falling on deaf ears.

ouroboros-dictionary

Om nom nom nom! Image from Dictionary.com

Anyway, that lead-in does tangentially reference a figure that I’ll use to mention another figure that I’ll use to segue into today’s post. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the folks caught in the Left’s racism ouroboros. Well, it’s not her specifically that I want to talk about but rather her chief of staff/leader of what evolved into the Justice Democrats (and lover of a Nazi collaborator as you see at the end of this article, so is it ok to punch him too, or at least milkshake him?). Remember that Green New Deal that Ocasio-Cortez marketed as being needed to save the Earth in 12 years? Turns out she knew that was garbage, and that the Green New Deal was not originally designed with the intent to fight climate change. The Green New Deal was designed to convert the U.S. economy into a socialist system where the government controls everything and everyone, down to your day-to-day decisions. Micromanaging the entire public. Their plan was to scare you into socialism, saying the world would end if you didn’t obey their commands, and they ADMIT that their plan was more about controlling you than saving the environment.

Stewards Of The Environment

I suppose it’s a good thing that the Left didn’t really plan to save the environment. They’ve been pretty bad at it. Their Green plans keep burning Mother Nature and killing people. Let’s look at some, including the most alarming (which is why I am writing this now, instead of writing about the Democrats calling each other racist… well, that and it’s 2:41am and it would take me way longer to sort through my notes on that one).

  • The liberal EPA under President Obama deliberately polluted a major river just to steal some land, as mentioned previously.
  • The Left’s mismanagement of our forests in the name of being Green has actually caused more death and wildfires. And of course they tout their self-made disaster as an example of climate change that we need MORE of their policies to stop.
  • Here’s a big one, the real kicker for getting this post out. It was brought to my attention after the recent earthquake in California that there is a nuclear power plant sitting near some major fault lines. This plant is in very crappy shape. Like, right now it’s pretty much “Fukushima the day after the tsunami hit” crappy. Note that this environmental hazard is in California, the land where they spent $12 Billion trying to build a light rail to Go Green and where they talk of banning the sale of gas-powered cars by 2040 because they want to Go Green.
PG&E_Wildfire-forbes

Presumably, this is one of PG&E’s fires, based on the article, though I won’t say for certain in case they put together what little money they have to sue me. Image from Forbes.

Now, in the most environmentally conscious state in the country, why would they allow that nuclear plant to exist? I don’t know, but it gets worse (if you read the first article I linked to in the above bullet point, you pretty much know where this is all going). Do you know who our liberal betters who are going to save the Earth put in charge of this rotting power plant? A power company that went bankrupt because of all the lawsuits against it. You see, that power company’s infrastructure was badly maintained and kept causing wildfires, resulting in death and millions of dollars in damage. So naturally, our Go Green superiors on the Left, the intellectual and moral and environmental saviors, put this bankrupt company in charge of the already hazardous nuclear plant.

There’s still more to this. In 2014, the scandal-free Obama Administration sent an inspector from Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The inspector saw how bad off that nuclear plant was. Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission hid the report and transferred the inspector to Tennessee, and the inspector left the agency.

Remember: Obama was the environmental Jesus. He was going to stop the seas from rising as you saw in an earlier link (maybe by boiling them away with nuclear reactors melting down and creating Hiroshima-sized explosions?)! Obama’s Paris Climate Accord was going to end all pollution and all hurricanes forever (actually, it was going to destroy the U.S. economy while allowing literally every country with the capability to build as many coal-powered powerplants as they possibly could, and for those slogan socialists Khrushchev warned us about, coal-powered powerplants are the ones that deliver the most pollution). Yet, here we have Obama’s NRC burying evidence that a reactor was in serious danger, that we were going to have a Chernobyl in the United States. But it was also Obama’s EPA that caused an ecologic disaster just because they wanted some land for themselves, so I guess this is to be expected.

Grable-15_Kiloton-nuclear-explosion-pinterest

This is a 15-kiloton nuclear explosion, which the article warned California’s mismanaged powerplant could cause an effect similar to.  You will note that the author of the article I largely reference for this bit about the powerplant is absolutely a leftist. Image from Pinterest.

Given how Liberal environmental policies and the fearmongering over the climate which put liberals into power have led to lethal wildfires, an ecologic disaster, and will lead to another Chernobyl (quite literally, because the socialists in the USSR were warned about it too and tried to hide and ignore it, just like the socialists in California and the Obama Administration were warned about this and tried to hide and ignore it), are we really so surprised to learn that the Green New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the environment? Are we really surprised that liberal utopias like the Soviet Union polluted more than the supposedly unregulated capitalist smogholes like the U.S.? And do you at all trust liberals when they demand you give them control over your life in exchange for them saving the environment?

Addendum

With the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission coming up, I thought I should plug this in. Besides, it wouldn’t be a post on climate without smearing scientists and the media. Another bit of evidence of the New York Times’ agenda-driven reporting came to my attention. It’s an interesting timeline. In 1920, fake news NYT smeared Dr. Robert Goddard. Why? Because he thought rockets could fly in space. Now, you’ll notice the NYT did NOT smear the Soviet space program, and did not declare Sputnik fake news, and did not retract its attacks on American Dr. Goddard during its articles praising the Soviets for Sputnik. It wasn’t until the Apollo 11 mission that the NYT finally retracted its anti-science attack on Goddard.

It’s easy to tie the NYT with a pro-Soviet position during this time- only 17 years after smearing Goddard with the NYT’s settled science that rockets can’t fly in a vacuum, the “newspaper of record” was covering up the mass death under Stalin’s watch. And now, the NYT is covering-up for Stalin again, while promoting socialism, because scientists say socialism will cure global warming and that fits the NYT’s agenda. Probably the same breed of “world’s top scientists” that attacked Goddard. Yet anyone opposed to what the NYT reports is anti-science, just as they said a hundred years ago about anyone who believed a rocket could fly in space.

You see the pattern though, right? They smear American scientists that disagree, they promote Soviet ideas, now they promote socialism in general under the guise of science. How are we supposed to believe the NYT’s position on “settled science” when they historically have shown a lack of understanding of it, when in the present day their fearmongering predictions turn out to be lies (as shown by the false predictions they and their climate allies are caught in), when at all points in their advocacy of science denialism they’ve acted like the Catholic Church, prosecuting heretics the way the Church went after Galileo, and when their science denialism is currently aligned with their attempt to convince Americans that socialism is ok? Did the NYT decide that anyone working for them must be an advocate for Stalinism and that’s just an unspoken corporate policy for 90 years? Much like the GND was about socialism according to AOC’s chief of staff, the NYT’s position on science historically and presently has been more about advocating their personal views and socialism than about facts. And the Left sees them as the “newspaper of record”, and sees you as and evil earth destroyer for daring to oppose their facts du jour (because as you saw in this last post, their facts change pretty regularly). How trustworthy can any of them be?

Nicktoons Racing (Game Boy Color, 2000)

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-titleI never thought I’d ever actually play this game; I bought it off a friend 3 years ago. There were versions of it released for PlayStation, Game Boy Advance, Windows, and even Arcades, so naturally I went with the most reduced version out there. This also happened to be one of the first versions released, alongside the Windows copy that I don’t have access to.

Some versions of the game have a plot, maybe this one does too but that would have to have been written in the manual since there’s nothing about it in the game. As far as you can tell, the game is much like Super Mario Kart where you just have a few random racers driving across random tracks to win trophies.

Gameplay

We start the game with the game’s logo and the appropriate jingle, and once the menu starts we hear another track… the theme to “Rugrats”. This plays until you’ve gone through the options and finally started a race. The only other long composition that plays in the entire game is heard when you’re actually racing. I don’t know what it’s from, or if it’s from anything. And that’s it, just 3 tracks.

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-daggett_norbertt

The more astute observers in our audience might notice that they didn’t even bother to get the names of those pointy weasels right.

The esteemed roster of racers here includes: Arnold from “Hey Arnold!”, Norbert and Dagget from “The Angry Beavers”, CatDog from “CatDog”, Spongebob from “Spongebob”, Tommy from “Rugrats”, and Eliza from “The Wild Thornberrys”. Plankton is not present, like in other versions. I like the way the racers are drawn here- at this small scale they look almost 3D, like how Donkey Kong Country used sprites made from 3D renders.

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-multiplayer

At least it lets you have separate names for multiplayer.

You would think that a racing game would have multiplayer capability where you race side-by-side, but you would be wrong. Wikipedia says this game is totally bereft of multiplayer support (my brother has the link cable and I have only one copy of the game, so I can’t test that), but that is just another lie from Wikipedia. This game gives a pseudo-multiplayer experience in that you can have up to four people play the same game, by swapping back and forth when prompted. When other people are engaged in play, the number of laps you need to complete to beat a course drops from 4 to 2, and once you complete a course you hand the Game Boy over to the other party(parties) involved.

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-rugrats_track

The token landmark for the Rugrats course, Tommy’s house. The Spongebob track saw 5 buildings repeated over and over: Squidward’s house, Patrick’s house, Spongebob’s house, Mr. Krabs’ house, and a generic building.

The courses are standard racing fare, but the backgrounds are bland. The same small image repeated indefinitely, with a unique one around where the finish line/start line is. As best as I could assume, you need to play all 20 race tracks to unlock the game’s ending. And the password you have to remember is an absurd beast. 24 characters to enter and remember, just like with Metroid on the NES, but fortunately I learned during my attempt to play Zero Tolerance that my phone’s camera copies such passwords with much more speed and accuracy than my puny primate paw. Watching someone who used 41 minutes of their time to play this full game revealed that after 20 grueling tracks you’re rewarded with a congratulatory message.

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-turns

Some tracks loop over themselves. If you don’t obey the arrow, it won’t count you as finishing a lap until you follow the right path. But don’t worry if you go astray- the other racers apparently stop if you are too far behind.

The racers handle ok. You can move North, North North West, Northwest, West Northwest, West, etc. In other words, 16 directions. The animation of your rotation is remarkably smooth. Your racer naturally moves faster than the others on a straight track, but at the curves the other racers catch up to you almost immediately. There are powerups laying about the track, which at least in my experience appeared in later laps (you have 4 laps to get through, usually in 3 or 4 a powerup might appear, or lap 2 if you are doing multiplayer). I couldn’t tell what one of them does, but one speeds you up and the third one stops all the other racers.

Conclusion

The music is short, the courses are bland, you can only have 4 racers per race and they flicker in and out of existence like the ghosts in Pac Man on the Atari 2600. In short- not much of a racing game, just some shovelware to remove $20-$40 from your wallet when

Nicktoons_Racing-GBC-password

How many people in this game’s target audience can even count high enough to figure out how many characters are in the password?

it first came out. I understand some technical limitations on the GBC account for the sprite flicker, but after playing Donkey Kong Country (and Pokemon Yellow, and Mega Man Xtreme, and Mega Man Xtreme 2, and Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, and Perfect Dark) I’m aware that the Game Boy Color has much more capability than you see in this game. So like this article, it’s a quota quickie (because I picked a Tuesday night to travel and I try to get these all done Wednesdays).

You know what would’ve saved this game? Novelty. Let’s see a version where you race as Nickelodeon mascots, racing through their promos (tell me this one isn’t right out of The Exorcist… that might not be the scene I was thinking of, or might just be part of it, it’s been 10 years but you get the point).

pinchface_nickelodeon_youtube

Totally worth it to race through nightmares.

What Were They Debating?

Tim_And_Eric-Its_freeFree stuff! Free Stuff! FREE STUFF! For the low admission fee of your vote, the Democrats are giving away EVERYTHING for free!

  • Free Healthcare for all citizens!

  • Free Healthcare for all noncitizens!

  • Free money for not being white!

  • Free $12,000 annually for everyone!

  • Free College!

  • Free Elimination of Pre-Existing Student Debt!

So cast your vote NOW! Political operators are standing by.

In Reality

Interesting stat– Democrats said “free” 683 times, but “America” only was uttered twice.

Another interesting thing- Democrats say they will fund their programs by stealing from the profits of companies, but they spent the whole evening badmouthing profit as if they wanted to stop it. So they want to stop the one thing they keep saying they’ll use to fund their programs, which means they either WON’T fund them anymore or WILL start stealing money from people who DON’T profit. People like me with $7,500 of credit card debt they can’t pay.

Democrats really have no freakin’ clue how to pay for their plans. Even lefty groups tell us that plans we’ve heard from the candidates for how to fund their programs won’t work, without more people than just the rich paying for it. And that’s just for the stuff they’ve told us their plans for paying!

Speaking of reality, when questioned on how they’d deal with very real Republican opposition, Democratic candidates suggested mob rule- they wanted to have mobs of people go after anyone opposed. Like we’ve seen with Antifa (which Democrats defend, as it’s part of their new fascism- that is, fascism disguised with the trappings of socialism… honestly, socialism and fascism both involve the government controlling every aspect of your life so to the person being stomped on it makes no difference what color the boot is) and Maxine Waters ordering her followers to chase Republicans out of public spaces, and even the New York Times demanding border patrol agents be assaulted in public (what NYT calls for matches the legal definition of assault, as does what Waters calls for). Alleged frontrunner Kamala Harris outright suggested a dictatorship.

Hmmm… a dictatorship where the leader does whatever they want with no opposition while mobs of people attack you if you disagree or if the government tells them to. What country are these candidates trying to lead again? Do any of them have funny-looking mustaches? I know a lot of liberals are frustrated artists (or art majors or “artists” in the musician sense, but you get the idea), so that’s another step in this direction.

Another reality is that the country is not as far Left as the candidates. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough got it right in his scathing criticism, whereas CNN tried to deny that the candidates were talking open borders or universal healthcare while at the same time saying that such positions were mainstream among Americans (they aren’t).

992 Arguments

Democratic-debates-candidates-nytjpg

Image from New York Times

The candidates did not do a good job of showing a unified front. The aforementioned Scarborough even went so far as to say that anyone watching who hated Trump’s style would be turned off by the Democrats’ similar belligerence towards one another. NBC outright declared Trump as the winner of the debates. And what were they arguing over? How far Left they can go on issues that most Americans already think are extremist.

One argument which exemplifies arguing over far-left positions was the one between Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro. Castro was arguing for decriminalizing all border crossings, while O’Rourke was trying to say that Castro was focusing on a narrow population of immigrants. The thing is- as Obama’s DHS Secretary said– Castro was basically arguing for open borders, despite Castro telling us back in April that nobody on the Democratic stage or in their party wanted open borders. I guess not, because as we saw in both nights they didn’t talk about “open borders”, they only talked about making it legal to enter anytime you want and providing free health insurance to anyone who comes in. Perhaps the phrase “open borders” was not uttered, so on a technicality maybe Castro was right.

This didn’t happen at the debate but it goes towards that whole “unity” thing and touches on issues brought up in the debates: it’s worth noting here that candidate Cory Booker believes that Bernie Sanders is a literal Nazi (and as you see later, Bernie Sanders is also a racist, so in a party where BERNIE FREAKIN’ SANDERS is a Nazi and a racist, with widespread support for that belief based on how much support Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have despite their views I outline, do you think there’s room for tolerance or diversity of thought?), and also believes that Fareed Zakaria is a literal Nazi, based on Booker’s claim that denying asylum to ANYONE makes us Nazis. If Bernie is now a Nazi based on rhetoric from other Democrat candidates, and the party apparently supporting this by virtue of the fact that Booker made it to the first two debates, and has been one of what Time refers to as “soaring politicians”.

Harrisment

Then you have Kamala Harris attacking Joe Biden over busing. For those who don’t know, busing was the practice of taking kids from one school district and having them attend schools in another district to encourage integration. But it wasn’t popular, and wasn’t even legal. Not many parents liked the idea (Joe Scarborough and Joe Biden referenced this) of their kid attending a school just as good as their own that was an hour away (as good or better, black-only schools ended up being largely inferior to their white counterparts, but as we see with Democrats opposing vouchers for poor black kids to attend private schools, school quality is not relevant- also note that they don’t want poor black kids attending the private schools they themselves attended). Now, imagine the impact on working-class families who can’t afford to take time off to drive that hefty distance if their kid needs an emergency pickup or has a school function that needs a parents’ support, or imagine the impact on the 7 year old who is now more isolated than they’ve ever been in their lives, with the closest person they trust being hours away. Heck, with our hair-trigger CPS taking kids from parents who just let kids play in the front yard unsupervised, it’s hard to imagine busing even being considered today!

Here’s a Bidenism on the topic-

"you take people who aren't racist, people who are good citizens, 
who believe in equal education and opportunity, 
and you stunt their children's intellectual growth by 
busing them to an inferior school…and you're going to 
fill them with hatred."

Much like Kamala Harris. Being a vicious (her people lied and cheated to put innocent people in prison, and Harris fought hard to KEEP those innocent people in prison) prosecutor (who unseated a real progressive by promising to put more people in jail) like her takes a lot of hatred (I wonder if her marrying a white guy is a Freudian thing- promising to lock up more blacks, marrying a white person, in general being fierce, am I seeing signs of resentment against her black parents for abandoning her to the buses? And, she supported legislation that would put kids who skipped school in jail, something else that makes one wonder about her childhood.), and if you’ve watched her in the Senate you know she’s filled to the brim with hatred. So Joe predicted that someone like Harris would come from busing.

And here’s something else Joe said-

"That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with. 
What it says is, 'In order for your child with curly black hair, 
brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, 
he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.' 
That's racist! Who the hell do we think we are, 
that the only way a black man or woman can learn is 
if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

That’s a pretty damn woke argument for someone in the 70s, but hate-filled Kamala cares more about exploiting differences in order to win so naturally she’d characterize opposition Biden’s woke opposition as racist.

Kamala Harris turned any opposition to busing into an issue of race. You’re not just a bad parent if you want to send your child away, alone and helpless, you’re a racist! According to Harris, being a good parent and caring about kids is now racist. Harris openly said she wanted the federal government to force family separation (ironically, she opposes the real thing for illegal immigrants, so she’s fine splitting American families but thinks it’s a humanitarian disaster to do that to people that come here illegally- and yes, forcing a child to travel hours away from home, hours away from help, hours from security, is family separation! Just ask the kids and parents… except Harris, because as described above she seems to have been damaged by it all so she’d never admit it was wrong) Scarborough didn’t get into this much detail, but he was right with criticizing what many consider to be one of Harris’ crowning moments that evening.

And if you ask me, Kamala’s tale of being one of the kids bused explains a lot. As a prosecutor she made a career out of separating black families, ripping kids from parents, just like what happened to her.

Here’s a recent Bernie Sanders quote on busing:

"Does anybody think it's a good idea to put a kid on a bus, 
travel an hour to another school and to another neighborhood 
that he or she doesn't know? That's not the optimal. 
What is the optimal is to have great community 
schools which are integrated"

Kamala does not seem to agree, because by her stated measures in the debate all opposition to busing puts you on the racist wrong side of history. She did not allow for any nuance or reasons, it was a very rigid totalitarian “with me or against me”, the same attitude seen in her zealous prosecutions and the same attitude seen in her advocating for a dictatorship. Kamala’s surge in polls after the debate shows that the Democratic Party is ready for an absolutist dictator who’s ready to tell you you’re a racist even if she’s referencing a very unpopular policy.

Rigged System

Some candidates say their mics weren’t even on, and it’s clear Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the favorite of the debate hosts when planning for that first night. Echoes of 2016, when we learned the DNC was actively trying to squash non-Hillary candidates. Other candidates were out complaining that the rules to get onto the debate stage were too exclusive.

Conclusion?

adam_west-ez_link-commercial

Will voters read the fine print? Image from EZ Link, an obvious model for the modern DNC (and if you really want to get into it, their renaming of socialism to social justice and Green living match EZ Link being renamed to Global Link just to fool a new set of people).

Harris came off as a racist fascist, all candidates seemed like they wanted an army of brown shirts attacking anyone opposed (afterwards, Mayor Buttigieg who can’t even handle race relations in his own city warned blacks that if the police weren’t abolished (I assume that’s what he meant by eliminate racist institutions, since liberals tell us the police are racist) and blacks didn’t get money for being black (reparations would not discriminate between blacks who arrived after slavery or blacks who had white slaveholder ancestors) then there’d be a new civil war which clearly violates laws about calling for insurrection), and they all (except Hickenlooper, who belongs on that stage as much in 2019 as Jim Webb belonged their in 2015- ie people I might actually vote for do not belong on the Democratic stage!) want to import millions of voters with open borders policies and then give them all free healthcare and free education without having any idea how to pay for it, in fact they actively trashed the one way they repeatedly cite for paying for it, so if they had their way and funded their programs by stealing profits they’d run out of money anyway by destroying that whole idea of profit.

In answer to the titular question of this post, they were debating how far Left each of them were. In other words, they were debating where they would fall on my convenient chart. For those looking for a chart like the one I’ve used earlier, that’s located under the convenient chart. Because it is very inconvenient. These charts are more about the victimhood points the candidates can claim as well as some of their positions. It doesn’t reflect how loud they can yell or how much media support they have.

dem presidential desirabilty in short

 

 

dem presidential desirabilty