Impeachment Hot Air


i think I’ve mentioned before that ever since 2017 I’ve grown to hate this pencil-necked baldy. And his head looks like a balloon, befitting the hot air contained therein. Image from CSPAN.

What if I told you that during the Obama Administration, a whistleblower tied to the Republicans came forward and claimed Obama did something corrupt. The whistleblower made a specious complaint that was only accepted because of rule changes made possibly days before he filed the complaint. Then the Republican-controlled House held secret hearings to impeach Obama, where Democrats had limited power, could not even call witnesses to refute the claims of the Republican-approved witnesses!

Sounds like those evil racist Republicans and their helpers in the Intel Community really wanted to get Obama out, doesn’t it! Well guess what liberal, replace “Obama” with “Trump” and “Republican” with “Democrat”, and you have what your people are doing right now.

Before I start my tirade which may have some lack of clarity, let me just give a quick summary of the matter in chronological order.

  • 2000– President Clinton asked EXPLICITLY for a political favor from UK PM Tony Blair, asking him to directly influence some dispute because it would help Al Gore win. There is no controversy in a President asking a foreign leader to interfere in a matter to help him politically (remember these words for when you see what Pelosi says September 24 2019)
  • January 2016 – Barack Obama’s Administration requests that Ukrainian prosecutors investigate a member of the Trump Campaign, claiming he is corrupt. Obama’s Admin also requests that Ukrainians drop the Burisma corruption probe (Burisma is the company Joe Biden’s son worked for).
  • March 2016– Joe Biden withholds aid allegedly to fight corruption in Ukraine, saying they won’t get the aid until a prosecutor is fired, and further saying there was international support for firing the prosecutor. This prosecutor happens to be investigating Biden’s son’s company, the investigation Obama asked Ukraine to drop 2 months prior, and lawyers for Burisma admitted that the prosecutor was merely smeared as corrupt by American politicians and apologized for it. Furthermore, a top diplomat testified that the prosecutor was fired solely because of the U.S. applying pressure, NOT because of the international community. Also, the new prosecutor was as corrupt as the original one allegedly was, but the Obama Administration deemed him fit enough after the Burisma matter was dropped, with Biden himself saying he approved this new corrupt prosecutor.
  • January 20 2017– Washington Post reports that Democrats began trying to impeach Trump while Obama is still President.
  • Early 2018– Ukraine begins investigating Joe Biden’s son’s company again, prompted by Joe Biden’s remarks in January of that year about withholding aid to get the original prosecutor fired.
  • May 2018– Democratic Senators demand Ukraine help Robert Mueller’s partisan witch hunt investigation into Trump’s corruption. If Democrats apply Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) interpretation of the partial transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President to the letter their own Senators wrote (which more or less said the same thing that Trump said), it was clearly a “mafia-like shakedown“.
  • February-March 2019– The United States government is aware that Ukraine is investigating Joe Biden’s son’s company (Burisma) again.
  • May 5– Rep. Al Green (D-AL) warns Democrats- in light of a poll showing that 66% of the public did not want impeachment- that if they fail to impeach Trump, he will get re-elected, and he’ll justify it by saying Democrats couldn’t find anything wrong with him despite spending his entire term investigating him.
  • Sometime before July 18– Trump decides to withhold aid from Ukraine partly because Europe isn’t doing its fair share, and partly because of concerns over corruption there, and how the corrupt officials might line their pockets with it. Investigating what Ukraine did to help Democrats in 2016 is part of his idea of corruption in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are NOT made aware that the aid is withheld, let alone the reason for it, until August 28 or 29.
  • July 25– Trump chats with the Ukrainian President. Trump says Europe isn’t doing its share. Trump asks Ukrainian President to look into what was going on there in 2016 as it relates to our elections. Ukrainian President starts talking about corruption in his country. Trump says that as part of that corruption crackdown, the Ukrainian President should look into what happened with Joe Biden’s son. No mention was made of aid being withheld.
  • August– Whistleblower rules for the Democrat Swamp loyalist intel community are changed so that hearsay is accepted. The Ukraine Whistleblower submits his complaint in this month. Also in this month, one of the whistleblower’s Intel Community co-workers from the White House is hired by Adam Schiff to be part of his staff. The Ukraine Whistleblower worked with Adam Schiff’s staff to put through his complaint. Schiff himself is made aware of the complaint and its contents to an extent.
  • August 28 or 29– Ukraine learns aid is being withheld.
  • Before September 10– Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) threatens Ukraine, telling them that there will be consequences if they help Trump find dirt on Biden.
  • September 12– Prior to this date, Trump had decided to release the aid to Ukraine afterall, as emails obtained from this date show instructions to diplomats about the money’s release.
  • September 19– Anonymous sources tell the Washington Post that there is a whistleblower, saying this person heard other people talking about Trump’s Ukraine call, saying these people said that Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated Joe Biden and his son. A “quid pro quo” arrangement. This Ukraine Whistleblower had strong ties to Adam Schiff’s office, and ties to Joe Biden.
  • September 24– Nancy Pelosi announces that the House will begin an impeachment inquiry into Trump, claiming it’s because he tried to force a foreign government to do something that would help him politically. She does not note that what Trump allegedly asked Ukraine to do was already known by the U.S. to have been done 5 months before the call.
  • September 25– Ukraine President denies there was pressure, and Trump releases the partial transcript showing that nothing happened..
  • September 26– Adam Schiff is selected to lead the impeachment investigation over the Ukraine Whistleblower’s allegation. The investigation is based on the alleged “quid pro quo” arrangement, under the belief that it is an impeachable offense that Trump would use his office to get a foreign country to investigate a political opponent because it interferes in an upcoming election.
  • October 3– By now Trump, the Ukrainian President, Ambassador Volker, and the partial transcript of the call emphatically deny that any quid pro quo took place. Adam Schiff makes a “mafia-like shakedown” threat to Volker that he is “making this much more complicated than it has to be” with his refusal to tell Schiff what Schiff wants to hear: that Trump’s actions would have been perceived by Ukraine as forcing them to investigate Biden. Liar Adam Schiff’s secret hearings, such as this Volker one, involve attempts by him to block Republicans from asking questions and denial of witness’ right to counsel. Republicans are not allowed to call witnesses for any of the hearings. Also on this day- days after Adam Schiff said his colorful dramatization of Trump’s phone call was just a parody, Nancy Pelosi claims that Schiff was directly quoting and none of it was at all a parody.
  • October 8– White House gets it together and sends a letter explaining why they don’t have to cooperate with Democrats’ subpoena’s. Simply put- since Democrats are not making this a full impeachment investigation (in which case Republicans would also have subpoena power), then their subpoenas are invalid since they do not have the authority to send them, lacking an investigation for which the subpoena would relate to. And a bunch of other stuff, but unlawful use of subpoenas by Democrats is the biggest takeaway.
  • October 15– Joe Biden’s son says that he would not have been at Burisma in the first place if his father were not Vice President Joe Biden. Thus, confirming a bit about the Ukraine-Biden corruption narrative.
  • October 17– We learn that the alleged “quid pro quo” that by legal standards could never have actually happened because Ukraine never knew about the aid being withheld was actually tied to investigating what happened in 2016, not Joe Biden. Democrats declare that this is an admission of Trump’s guilt and he should be impeached, forgetting that they originally wanted to impeach because Trump was allegedly forcing an investigation into Biden, and forgetting that threatening Ukrainian aid over an investigation of things a political opponent did in 2016 is exactly what multiple Democrat Senators did in 2018. Forgetting that Obama asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election back in 2016. Forgetting that Joe Biden claimed his threat to withhold aid was related to corruption, just like what Trump said his reason for withholding aid was about.
  • PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE: Republicans won’t pester the Democrats about their hypocrisy, and if Trump is impeached Republicans won’t rightly demand Democrats be impeached for their similar behavior, and won’t rightly demand that Biden be disqualified for running for President for having done the same thing.

Got all that? Are you all up to speed? Time for my various screeds, written as news was breaking over the past three weeks.


Someone explain to me why Democrats don’t want this guy investigated anyway? Warren’s in the lead, the media loves her, and the candidates have already attacked Obama many times while Biden’s only standout qualification is that he was with Obama. Image from PJ Media

Democrats threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if they did not investigate the 2016 election. And apparently Trump’s thing with the Ukraine aid was ALSO over the 2016 election. Apparently it’s horrible when Trump does it but it’s laudable and brave when Democrats do it. Oh right- Democrats wanted to withhold aid because they thought Ukraine had dirt on Trump, whereas Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate something that helped Democrats. That makes all the difference in the world! You’re a hero if you withhold aid to help Democrats, but you’re impeached if you withhold aid to help Republicans. I’d also like to point out that there STILL was no “quid pro quo” because as Rep. Ratcliffe points out, the Ukrainians kinda needed to be AWARE that there was something going on for it to work! To quote Ratfliffe, it is “legally impossible” for their to be a quid pro quo if the other party has no freakin’ idea it’s happening!

How do you force someone to do your bidding if they don’t even know it?! They didn’t know their aid was missing. Seriously, how many kidnappers make the ransom demand without saying someone was kidnapped? Because that’s thematically what Democrats want us to believe Trump did.

Oh, and I’m getting ahead of myself by forgetting one small detail- TRUMP NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON TELLING UKRAINE THEY’D GET THE AID IF THEY COOPERATED. So now we have the kidnapper forgetting to even make the ransom demand!


I uh… I’m not comfortable with the way he’s looking at me… I think I might be on his hit list. Either a drone or my laptop would explain that strange buzzing I hear… Image from

Moreover, the investigations into 2016 that the media now cries “see? Quid pro quo even if it isn’t what we said it was!” over were actually linked to corruption in general in Ukraine- would the aid be used as it should or just to support a corrupt government? So Trump tethering the aid to fighting corruption is perfectly legitimate, because that’s what you say BIDEN did when he withheld aid to get Ukraine to fire the “corrupt” prosecutor and you say he was GREAT for doing that!!!! So again, liberal, your narrative has it the Democrats are wonderful people for doing what you want to IMPEACH Trump for doing! What next- will you demand Trump be impeached if he uses a drone to kill an American citizen without a trial or due process like Obama did?

The only difference between what Trump did and what Democrats did is that Trump’s actions hurt Democrats while Democrats’ actions helped Democrats. Thus, by your own measures, it seems simply being a Republican is an impeachable offense. That analysis is further validated by how the Washington Post reports you were plotting to impeach Trump since before he even took office. “Not a Democrat” is an impeachable offense.

Oh, but it gets even better! We also learn that “Not a Democrat” means you have no legal protections. Even House Democrats say they have an open impeachment inquiry and under House rules the Judiciary Committee has oversight over such matters, Adam Schiff prevented a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee from being involved because he was not on one of the three committees Schiff approved.

Worse, Democrats can hold these unlawful tribunals in secret where only Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, where Democrats can spread lies about what goes on behind closed doors to make it look damning to their enemy (can you really trust Schiff to be honest, he didn’t even have to lie about this but did anyway!), and where eventually they can close off their secret investigation by holding a secret impeachment vote, or perhaps hold a general vote to impeach claiming it was based on the fabricated lies from the secret hearing that the public believes are true thanks to the Left’s lies, before passing it on to the Senate. Trump will never face his accuser as you charge him with high crimes based on the secret whistleblower who was actually a Democrat operative, we now know, and who apparently lied about everything based on what we do know about the events. Schiff even tried to make it so that Republican members of the approved committees would not be allowed to ask questions! So… conducting the interrogation in secret, wanted to stop sympathetic people from asking questions, and didn’t allow a lawyer to be present. Does that really sound “Democratic”, liberal? This is what fascism looks like. But he’s supposed to be fighting it!


Mueller 2.0: This Time, He’s Handsomer (seriously- Schiff has a better face and better teeth, I’ll say that much for him).

I think it’s Mueller Probe 2.0 myself. An unstoppable investigation with unlimited funds and power, the deck clearly stacked in favor of Democrats who claimed going into it that there was ample evidence Trump colluded with Russia… and then nothing comes from the Mueller Probe. So now, Democrats are trying again. Only they get to call witnesses; the media only reports their side of what happened in the secret tribunals as the truth. They don’t even want Republicans to ask questions of the witnesses that ARE called. And yet, after over two weeks of these kinds of hearings, Democrats have NOTHING. Again.

A partisan liar claims something happened, a secret partisan witch hunt lies to the public without actually showing its proceedings, and finally they plan to impeach the legally elected President they promised to impeach pretty much the day he won the election. Does that sound “Democratic” to you? Is that the kind of people you want running your life, liberal? Look at the 2020 Democratic Debates- these are the people that want to run YOUR life. These are the people that will decide if YOU have too much wealth and pay too little in taxes. These are the limousine-riding, jet flying people YOU want telling YOU and poor minorities to starve in total darkness in order to reduce your carbon footprint. These are the people that want to send police door-to-door to YOUR homes confiscating your weapons. But as you know liberal, these are the same racist police who massacre blacks, so now you want the Party of secret tribunals and liars to be in a position to cover-up more police shootings as the officers implement their agenda. Think about that for a moment. Do you truly care about minority communities? I suppose not…

I’ve made mention of the media being in cahootz with Democrats above, how the media guarantees that only the Left’s narrative on impeachment will be heard. Well, aside from the usual “they’re all Democrats” factoid (and how some refuse to believe statements by people involved solely because those statements match what Trump says), here’s some more evidence. Parroting of Democrat talking points. The DNC issues a statement, and “trusted journalists” parrot the statement verbatim while pretending it’s their personal take on the situation. I guess when journalists say they’re trustworthy and fair and accurate, they only mean in relation to what the DNC tells them to say, that they hardly deviate from that script. In which case I concur- they are fair to the talking points, balanced to the talking points, and repeat accurately what the talking points say. They just lie about it being their own view and it being the truth.

It’s rather baffling at first, that House Speaker Pelosi would be shocked that Trump was rude to her. She spends all her time blasting him and encouraging an impeachment of him, then expects him to be nice to her and is surprised he isn’t. Yeah, right. That’s not the first time either that Pelosi lied about what happened in a meeting that she “stormed out of”. Now, for a real account of what happened, ask this guy.

I saw headlines from leftwing outlets saying that “whiny Republicans” were complaining about the Democrats violating impeachment process. Some outlets said that it was just tradition Democrats were violating, not the rules. Others say Republicans only complain about procedure because Trump is clearly guilty and they want to distract from that. If you’ve read up to here, you know that one’s way off! So Fox News analyzed how this is actually a politically good strategy for Dems, to not have an impeachment vote. That would make the hearings public, that would mean people had access to the unbiased narrative via CSPAN. People could fact check for themselves what was going on. Democrats want absolute control over the narrative.

I’ll speculate here- maybe that is the lesson they took from Mueller, that his silence and the lack of leaks from active members of his staff meant that Democrats lost the narrative war, so they decided to control everything now with the impeachment probe. Control, control, control. They plotted to overthrow Trump before he was in office, they are holding secret hearings where they control the narrative, their 2020 candidates talk about ways Democrats will control your life and your money. I suppose that’s why a majority of Democrats favor socialism- clearly they value the Stalin model, and are already implementing it with impeachment while their candidates promise more.


Amb. Volker, image from the State Department. I expect my Kurts to be bald.

Expanding on the October 3 Volker testimony: Volker kept saying that Schiff was mischaracterizing the situation. Schiff kept saying “if they learned aid was withheld, then would Trump’s investigation request get more significance” and Volker kept saying that is not what happened. Schiff kept pushing the hypothetical, because we know he’d use a “yes” for that to mean a “yes that’s what happened”. But Volker continued denying to the point where Adam Schiff, quote the man himself, gave a “mafia” type statement with “Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.” Funny, just two days before I heard someone say the same thing: it was an episode of Charlie’s Angels in which some mob guys were walking a blackmailer out into the desert. Hear from someone who witnessed Volker’s testimony- it cleared Trump… again. Despite everything clearing him, Democrats still rely on the third-hand Democrat whistleblower who heard things that other people told him they heard, even though all firsthand knowledge shows nothing happened.


They want a secret impeachment hearing, no votes held, and are known for lying about what they have and what they will find (collusion with Russia that Mueller debunked but they still claim otherwise, Democrats parroting NPR lie about Ukraine call transcript, Schiff lying about the whistleblower). And they want that before the 2020 election. Democrats don’t believe anyone in the primary field can beat Trump, so they figure just impeach him.

How about an anonymous source accusing someone of a crime, followed by not allowing the accused the right to defend themselves, while demanding the accused gets the death penalty. How about THAT for a threat to Democracy? Democrats don’t even want the whistleblower to appear to Congress, they just want “written testimony”. I’m starting to wonder if there even IS a whistleblower, if it’s not just Democrat lawyers in a backroom sending out letters pretending to be whistleblowers. If Democrats have such an open and shut case against Trump, why are they opposed to voting on impeachment, to having each one of them sign their name to the idea? Why are they opposed to letting Republicans mount any kind of defense or argument? If they’re on the right side of history and have all the facts, how can the Republicans possibly win in an impeachment hearing? The only time you need secret trials sentencing people to die is when you have NO evidence for it and just want to remove someone in your way. Trump is in their way.


Egad! He looks like someone ironed Mueller’s face! From Getty Images, obviously.

Don’t let the fact that I mocked Democrat views on Republicans by my remarks in the opening let you believe I’m not annoyed with Republicans. It sounds like the NeverTrumpers are having a field day right now. Everything they’re doing right now is why I voted for Trump in the first place- they’re letting Democrats and the media get away with bullying and lying about one of them. They have less spine than an invertebrate. Maybe they’re too scared or too stupid to realize, but if they let the Democrats get away with Kavanaughing Trump then Democrats will just do that to ANYONE they don’t like. They’ll know it’s a winning strategy. So those pathetic little gutless worms squirming about media scrutiny right now will easily be stomped out of existence by the Democrats in the next elections. Part of that though will just be due to the Republican base being too busy vomiting in disgust at their pathetic leadership.


It begs the question though- what do people like Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney think they gain? It’s a term that’s gone out of favor, but they’re basically Judas Goats. A “Judas Goat” is an animal that’s used to lead other animals to the slaughter, while the Judas Goat itself is not slaughtered. As you see by the media salivating over Mitt Romney, the same media that tried to Kavanaugh him back in 2012, Mitt Romney gets to survive if he leads his party to the slaughter. Same with Bill Kristol- he lost his magazine, but he still is warmly welcomed in MSNBC’s studios. When you see your alleged shepherds dining with the wolves, you should really reconsider who you are putting your faith in.

By the way, listen to a REAL whistleblower and listen how liberal heroes Robert Mueller and Peter Strzok attacked him, as did MSNBC and CNN who called him a “CIA Leaker” (whereas Fox News protected him). Moreover, the whistleblower is being represented by a CIA establishment lawyer, exactly the opposite of what would happen if he really was a whistleblower. And note that while Democrats protect their Ukraine “whistleblower”, they were nowhere to be found when this REAL one exposed CIA misdeeds under President Obama and was JAILED for 23 months!

On Sept. 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, saying, “This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella.”

We have mutual legal assistance agreements with Ukraine and Russia, so even if Dems think Russiagate and Bidengate are partisan, if Trump is legitimately concerned on these issues they warrant a legitimate investigation. Or are these things only legit when Dems have an accuser who no one can backup and has a story full of holes and contradictions, like Dr. Ford and their anonymous Ukraine Whistleblower?


Millenials think they’re too smart to have to listen to their elders anyway.

Democrats used secret testimony from anonymous individuals to impeach Trump, and are denying Republicans and Trump the ability to mount a legal defense, and they are and the media have been caught straight up lying about what happened, and when they aren’t lying they’re saying you’re an evil subversive if you challenge their narrative. For all of you good communists who don’t think your party will deny you a right to defend yourself, I remind you that Nikita Khrushchev once lamented out many good communists met with a similar fate. Secret trials, no legal defense, some committee makes a judgment and you’re dead. All you’re allowed to do is sign a confession admitting to the crimes, and right on cue to make this a perfect parallel Jimmy Carter told Trump to do exactly that.


You wonder what liberals mean when they claim the Supreme Court is too Conservative, you wonder why liberal Senators write to the court ordering them to rule the way Democrats want them to rule on a case, you wonder what kind of judges Democrats would stack the court with if they get power? Look at what they’re doing to Trump. Look at what they did to Kavanaugh, or even with their “no fly no buy” list where an anonymous accusation can prevent you from buying a gun or flying on an airplane and you would not be able to challenge it. They want the kind of Supreme Court judges who would overturn the whole idea of due process. They want Supreme Court Justices who’d uphold the determination of a secret meeting by Party officials that concluded someone needed to lose their position or die. If you let this happen but find you can’t keep up with their daily changes on what is and isn’t acceptable (remember- it was acceptable for Obama to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s 2016 campaign, and acceptable for Democrat Senators to order Ukraine to help investigate) then you too might end up being sentenced by one of these secret committees, knowing an appeal to the Supreme Court would be futile.

MSNBC speculated that impeachment of Trump would lead to impeachment of Pence for the same corruption, opening the path for Pelosi to be President. Hey, didn’t I say that last year?

Bye bye 6th amednment! So Dems want to violate Due Process, have laws violating 1st Amendment (NYC) and now are in the process of violating the 6th Amendment. Also raises a good point- why did no one care about the security of Clinton’s accuser when he was impeached? Why is it only now that people say Trump is threatening violence or whatever?

Shocking poll from USA Today shows that maybe all but 4% of Democrats support impeaching Trump. The poll shows that 44% of people surveyed support impeaching the President. Assuming Democrats would get the usual 48%ish support, that means that 4% of Democrats polled do not support impeachment. I suppose that’s the real story. But as you see in the article, the survey was kinda small and the details about the Ukraine issue that USA Today provided when talking about the poll were severely flawed. So even with a mildly doctored poll, USA Today STILL can’t show all Democrats backing impeachment.

I speculated in an earlier post that Trump might’ve used this whistleblower thing as a political gotcha. I forgot to take into account the blind partisanship of Democrats. I suppose I didn’t learn my lesson from the Mueller Report, because despite what it says Democrats STILL claim Trump colluded with Russia even after they spent two years telling us that Mueller would have the final word on collusion.

If under President Obama, the laughably partisan Intel Community changed guidelines on whistleblowers so that all you had to do was say you heard an anonymous source tell you something in order to become a whistleblower, and then a registered Republican whistleblower went to a Republican Congressman with his complaint, and then the Republicans there helped the Republican whistleblower file the complaint, and then a Republican or at least anti-Obama Inspector General said that the Republican whistleblower complaint was horrifying, and then the Republican Congressman whose office helped write the complaint subpoenaed the Obama Administration for it while claiming they never saw it, and then said the Obama Admin was obstructing justice by not turning over the complaint even though Intel Community guidelines STILL had it outside the ability of the Director of National Intelligence to turn over the complaint to Congress (because the complaint was about someone not in the Intel Community), what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if the Obama Admin released a transcript of the phone call the Republican whistleblower complained about and nothing he said about it was true?

The media would pounce on the Republicans. The media would say they’re not fit to be in office. They would say it was an assault on Democracy. There might even be demands to purge Republicans from the Intel Community, claiming they were too hyperpartisan and a threat to national security. Democrat ranks would grow from this blatant effort as Democrat politicians piled on Republicans and the media gave every last one of them a microphone and free airtime to attack Republicans.

The problem is- in that hypothetical above, it was the Trump Administration as the target, and Democrats doing the whistleblower stuff. So instead, Democrats say that what the whistleblower complained about was hidden in the transcript- you have to be as “smart” as a Democrat in order to read what was happening. And in case you weren’t that smart, Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff (CA) and Democrat propaganda outlets like NPR LIED about what the transcript said, lied about the actual wording by claiming that when Trump explicitly asked for a favor it was to investigate Biden when really the favor, as is clear in the text and word order of the transcript, was to investigate interference in the 2016 election. It wasn’t even easily misinterpreted, basically the transcript said “Do me a favor, investigate these guys involved in 2016. Ukraine Prez and Trump babble on and on and on and then Trump finally says oh yeah, you should look into Biden ordering one of your prosecutors fired.” That’s not what NPR or Adam Schiff said though. They lied.

And after the transcript that I had predicted would vindicate Trump came out, Democrats and the media started screaming even LOUDER. With Obama, it would’ve been open and shut, not even Republicans would’ve been saying impeachment anymore.

Speaking of Obama- the general premise has been that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate a 2020 election opponent is an impeachable offense. Well, Obama in January 2016 asked Ukraine to investigate the Trump Campaign. Why was that not impeachable? Democrats STILL say Obama led a “scandal free” administration, even though in their own words Obama committed an impeachable offense!


The guy on the left is Connecticut Resident Vince McMahon. The guy on the right is either Vince McMahon cosplaying as an early-stage Gwyllm Griffiths from “The Sixth Finger” or Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (D). I’m staying away from Connecticut. McMahon image from prowrestlingstories, Murphy image from gstatic.

As I mentioned, Democrats who aren’t lying about what the transcript says claim that just because Trump didn’t threaten action against Ukraine if they failed to investigate Biden, that doesn’t mean the threat wasn’t implicit. One such Democrat being Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). Murphy, who seemed to feel it was a startling revelation that mass shootings involved guns, so perhaps we can forgive him for not spotting what I’m explaining, is saying that Trump implicitly threatening Ukraine is horrific and we need to impeach him now. Except that (as I said earlier) Murphy EXPLICITLY threatened Ukraine. Murphy TOLD Ukraine that Democrats would stop supporting them if they helped Trump with investigating Biden.

Think of that- the Biden corruption matter is really an internal issue in Ukraine, where they may have let their officials be influence by the Obama Administration to the detriment of their own legal system. So Chris Murphy threatens their national security by saying Democrat support for things like military aid against Russia would disappear if Ukraine continued its internal corruption probes. Then Murphy says that Trump is evil for even implying that Ukraine might face any kind of consequence. And then Politifact lies to you and says Murphy didn’t really threaten anything, even though the statement was apparently explicit, and even IF it were implicit then by Democrat’s own standards Murphy would STILL have threatened Ukraine, yet the partisans at Politifact want you to believe them (and the partisans at Google who love to make Politifact the top search result).

So, Trump did nothing wrong. Democrats are currently and in the past doing everything they accused Trump of doing and MORE. Yet, this is not blowing up in their faces. Why? Because when CBS/ABC/NBC dedicate their morning and nightly news and talk programs to impeaching Trump, when CNN and MSNBC parrot Democrat talking points 24/7, when Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Daily Beast, Daily Kos, The Root, Salon, New Republic, New York Magazine, New Yorker, National Journal,  Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun and countless others spend their print and online issues spreading Democrat propaganda, when the majority of blogs are leftwing and seemingly the majority of forum and comment section users are leftwing, when the Right has no freely accessible TV channels and maybe like 4 actual news channels that you have to pay for and a minor blog presence and a pathetically small number of online and print news outlets, when Twitter bans people on the Right and when Google skews its searches to favor liberals and when Facebook makes sure only DNC-approved news stories are seen, well… you can see why it’s hopeless that the truth would come out in all this. Republicans need a lot more than the truth on their side. Remember: the Jews had the truth on their side too in Nazi Germany, fat lot of good it did them.

So with Democrats creating this partisan impeachment cloud, after already establishing that Trump and his supporters are racists responsible for mass shootings (bogus narrative debunked in my “of the gun” posts), do you think the truth will be of much help to you? And that’s why I should’ve realized that even though Trump is 100% clean in this latest fake scandal, it wouldn’t matter. One of the rare times I can agree with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Republicans have no defense, but not for the reasons that he thinks.

Why The Furor?

What a stupid question. They were mad they lost in 2016. They had money riding on Hillary winning- when Democrats win, their cronies win. Remember Solyndra? Siga Technologies? Remember the Clinton Foundation? But they also thought they had won the culture wars and won dominance; their heads were shoved far up their… uh, bubbles.

Also, it distracts from the Democratic candidates who want to tax everything whether or not the Constitution allows it- Guns, speech, travel. Their policies will keep the poor in the poor house and give them a hefty amount of middle class company down there (but socialism kinda calls for eliminating the middle class so…).

Since Democrats can’t stop the socialist wing of their party from taking over and ruining their chances at winning in 2020, they’re trying to take out Trump so that the public will have no choice but to vote for them. Or, to borrow the phrase they used to smear John McCain, “if you can’t paint yourself as someone to run towards then paint your opponent as someone to run from”.


Run.                        Image from


Wordtris (SNES, 1992)


I should note that the backwards “R” in the title is a Cyrillic letter, which is pronounced “yaw”. But I guess “Wordtyawis” isn’t as catchy as “Wordtris”.

Oh yeah, for the last two and a half months I kinda forgot that games are supposed to be covered in this blog. I was trying to keep up with the news cycles.


On the right it tells you there is a difficulty setting for children, on the left is a reason why children should not be playing this game. Or maybe kids no longer get nightmares when they see lions eating people. I’m not hip on modern trends, and have not been hip to them since a little after Pokemon came to the U.S. Believe it or not, I’m probably half the age this makes me sound.

So Wordtris is a puzzle game. Like Tetris or Dr. Mario, you have blocks dropping from the top of the screen that you have to lineup in a specific way in order to eliminate the blocks accumulating at the bottom… well, middle of the screen. There’s a red field that your block will land on when the screen is empty. It goes about 2/3 the way up the screen. Your first block in a column to land on there will just sit there, but any block you put on top of it will push the rest of the column down. Once the column stretches from the bottom of the screen to the top of the red field, the blocks are no longer pushed down. They just stack like normal.


The images can get a little Freudian.

These blocks have a letter on them. You have to arrange them so that when they land they form a word, either when read left-to-right on a row or top-to-bottom on a column. It starts out easy enough, the blocks descend at a leisurely pace so you can think of the word possibilities. But the longer you play, the faster things get, until eventually you don’t even have time to read what letter is coming down and just move it to the nearest open spot, hoping that it makes a word.

There are three blocks you might get aside from one of 26 letters. The question mark block allows you to scroll through letters, otherwise it will just pick a random letter when it lands. Bombs will destroy one block, whichever it lands on. Sticks of dynamite can destroy anywhere from three to five blocks from what I saw.

Why Are There Clowns?

Wordtris-SNES-ClownSo naturally the first thing you think of when you hear “Scrabble Meets Tetris” is “I hope there’s clowns”. It isn’t? Well, it was for somebody. As you saw in the pic of the title screen, this game involves a circus. The depressing red and brown colors of the play field I guess mimic a circus environment (my experience with circuses is limited). Your play area is on the left of the screen, while on the right is a circus-related picture. The music is composed of dreary, depressing tunes that you might’ve heard depicting a circus in the Victorian-era. Between the music and the colors, you almost welcome the promise of death brought to you by that clown.


Is that a mime or a clown? Or a clown mime?

I had to settle for a “Game Over” screen. There are only 10 play fields, labelled alphabetically AJ with “J” being the last and fastest. I didn’t make it there. By the time I got to “G” the letters were dropping too fast for my pathetic excuse for grey matter to keep up. Even in the “F” play field, the only reason I advanced was that random chance kept popping in to cause words to form where I had no awareness they would.

So… if you like an eventually-fast-paced dull and bleak word-game version of Tetris with a circus theme that makes the average rainy day seem like the perfect time to down a bottle of sleeping pills, this is the game for you. Fortunately, my day was saved by “The Flintstones” arriving on MeTV about 10 minutes after I was done with the game.


Every time you stop playing, they force a kitty to jump through a ring of fire.