It’s Miller Time!


Stephen Miller- he looks like a weenie. Image from Washington Post

The Atlantic is publishing articles about how to talk to Trump supporters on Thanksgiving. Not one article on how Trump supporters can talk to insane liars like the people on the Left who report lies about stuff they see with their own eyes, rather it’s how the insane liars on the Left can talk to Trump supporters as if supporting the President is the problem, as if Trump supporters are the ones living in a different reality despite how the hard evidence proves otherwise. We don’t believe their spin, so we’re evil and ignorant. Nazis and terrorists.

No, the problem is condescending partisan hacks like you who believe so much that anyone opposed to you is an untermensch that must be patronized simply because they find your lies despicable and insulting to their intelligence. Yes I acknowledge Trump has flaws, yes I know there could be problems with Stephen Miller, but they’re nowhere near what you’re making them to be and if you weren’t such an arrogant lying asshole to begin with then we’d never be at this stage of partisanship where Republicans have to defend flawed fighters like that lest they back a limp-wristed ninny like Jeb who’d never win against the Left’s war machine! If it weren’t for your media and your partisanship and your bubbles pushing you away from us (I can verify that it’s YOU who are moving farther from the center- remember in 2008 when you voted for the anti-illegal immigration candidate? Remember how that’s now far-right white nationalist thought, the very thing you voted for only 11 years ago? Barack Obama, whom you voted for, is a white nationalist according to you. Whereas with George W. from 19 years ago the biggest criticisms the Right have is what they always had- not a fighter but tolerable. So who moved, the guys who could get along with themselves 19 years ago, or you who’d be punching your Nazi self from 11 years ago?) we’d have Jeb Bush as President and it’d be civil business as usual, the kind of civility we saw under Eisenhower and Kennedy. Or you guys would’ve picked Jim Webb instead of crooked Hillary, whom you’d have ruled out for covering for her husband’s misdeeds and for the strong whiff of scandal and rigged systems that follows her around.

But nope, that’s not what happened, you want a damn civil war because you think people who don’t believe your propaganda are “Lebensunwertes Leben”, not even the same species, so you create fake studies (and you have fake news purveyors Washington Post saying conservatives that don’t read their lies are more likely to believe fake news than liberals) and write articles like the one that started this rant which all serve to objectify your political enemy as an inferior form of life despite the untruth of that idea, making it easier to hate this “other” and segregate yourselves from them. Because the worst thing a liberal might do is question the liberal orthodoxy. Funny I should mention that, as it turns out that you guys with your authoritarianism and intolerance are actually psychopaths, according to the people behind a study you used to love citing that said conservatives were the psychos.


I ask where your brains are at. Nevermind, I found them. Brains Strauman. Image from WWE

Tell me something smart guy- if you’re so smart how’d Trump win over all the Obama folks? How come your Mueller fellow came up short? How come you have to lie all the time? How come you have to ban people from arguing against you? How come you always resort to insults and even mob violence rather than arguing your point? If you’re so damn smart, why do you act like a savage? How come you’ve had solid evidence of criminal impeachable offenses by Trump for two and a half years according to your geniuses, yet right now two of your own smart guys defected to join Republicans because they think impeachment is a loser and all your smart guys on Mueller’s team put together with millions of dollars couldn’t oust Trump? And if you’re so smart, why do you unconditionally believe everyone who lied to you about blue waves and Mueller impeachment and now Ukraine impeachment? How come you believe the people who can’t even tell the truth about their economic plans? How come you yourself aren’t smart enough to do some rudimentary math and figure out that there’s no way to pay for what the smart people want you to pay for? If you’re so smart, why don’t you like taxing the rich liberal donor class especially if you are rich yourself? Also, if you are so smart, why did you support a (by your standard as linked later) white nationalist named Obama in 2008 and a (by your standards of #BelieveAllWomen) rapist-enabler named Hillary in 2016? Well? Show me your brains!

Maybe it’s your measure of intelligence that’s flawed. You think ivy-league degrees in coloring coloring books or petting puppies mean you’re intelligent. You think being able to parrot the latest talking points from your favorite candidate, uncritically, makes you into a smart person. You think shouting down the opposition, punching them even, and calling them every bad name you can think of makes you smart. You think blind obedience to your own party makes you intelligent. You get lost when people aren’t telling you what/how to think. You also don’t believe minorities are intelligent, you white supremacist. No wonder you voted for xenophobe Obama in 2008.


It’s been over a year now, I really need to finish that book…

See, you view free thought as the enemy. That’s why you write elitist garbage like that piece from The Atlantic that I’ve seen over and over from many other liberal outlets over the years (also want to point out this study, which shows that people who love economic freedom tend to be quite intelligent too, and basically says someone who loves economic freedom and is socially liberal would be the brightest crayon in the box, meaning the socialists aren’t terribly bright). Funny too how they all just brief your readers on the liberal talking points of the day, as if your readers aren’t able to think on their own or able to create their own arguments. Isn’t that a measure of intelligence? Or do you view “intelligent” as “able to memorize liberal talking points” and don’t really care about understanding them? Some socialist you are, socialist leader Khrushchev thought people like that were idiots.

I don’t read rightwing talking points I don’t read rightwing stuff like that if there is any, does that mean I have superior mental agility to the Left since you guys apparently need to be told what to think and how to interpret things and view anyone that doesn’t see reality as you do as an “other” that must be destroyed because you don’t understand and can’t tolerate them?

You might also notice that I don’t directly quote stuff that supports my point from the links, I kind of expect anyone reading this to be intelligent enough to look through it and figure out for themselves how my point is supported. I don’t believe in insulting people’s intelligence, unlike you liberal who think conservatives and minorities alike are idiots as linked above.

You know, this was the original first paragraph here, but then I became annoyed. Anyway what had started this post was how President Trump’s longtime adviser Stephen Miller, a Jew, is being accused of white nationalism by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal group who sees white nationalists under their bed, like their partners in crime the Anti-Defamation League who thinks the “ok” hand gesture is racist and who think The Beatles with their bowl cuts are white supremacists. ADL should be taken seriously, people are getting fired over their partisan garbage. SPLC merely goaded Chik-Fil-A into abandoning the LGBT community in order to support SPLC.

Smearing The Accuser

SPLC spends most of their time drafting charges of hate against Republicans, and then Democrats refer to this arm of the DNC as an independent institute dedicated to fighting racism. Basically, imagine if Donald Trump created a think tank called the Trump Institute and whenever he wanted a policy change he cited studies from the Trump Institute supporting it. That’s the SPLC’s relation to the Democratic Party right now. They have all the credibility of Snopes or CNN– meaning they’re a buncha partisan liars and you should pay as much attention to them as you would to Farrakhan

Actually, there is a certain irony in this story, speaking of Farrakhan. You see, the Congressional Black Caucus is following SPLC’s lead in attacking Stephen Miller. The CBC goes right on along with all of SPLC’s accusations against the Right. The trouble is that back when SPLC was sort of legitimate, they put Farrakhan on their naughty list. The CBC is composed of Farrakhanites as I’ve mentioned before. So, by legitimizing SPLC’s claims against anybody, CBC is making itself look like a bunch of racists. Or at least they would be if Democrats had any sense of decency. But they don’t, as evidenced by their perversion of SPLC into a partisan group whose sole contribution to society today is to call anyone opposed to the Democratic Party a racist, while letting Democrats get away with genuine racism.


Surely you remember the guy in the middle and the guy on the right, they’re two of only four white people I know who are allowed to wear blackface according to the SPLC.

Where is SPLC on Hillary Clinton saying Gandhi worked at a gas station, or Biden working with segregationists (incidentally, liberal, didn’t you say all the Dixiecrats had become Republicans by the time Biden was in the Senate?), or Kamala Harris taking white cash to put blacks in jail, or AOC’s racist Green New Deal that’ll obliterate minority communities and minority voting districts by forcing them out of their homes and businesses, or Ayanna Pressley’s bigoted statement that all people MUST conform to the stereotypes she lays out for them, or Ana Navarro’s racist stereotyping the black community (she’s the one who was filing her nails to make the point that she did not care about Latinos dying, a vile disgusting creature who gets fat off ignoring or encouraging the suffering of others), or Rashida Tlaib’s anti-Semitism, or Ilhan Omar’s antiSemitism, or CAIR’s anti-Semitism, or the racism of New York Times’ Sarah Jeong, or Jimmy Kimmel wearing blackface to mock a black athlete, or Ralph Northam wearing blackface, or Mark Herring wearing blackface? They don’t care when their OWN side does it, if Democrats put blacks back into slavery tomorrow SPLC would label it as a heroic step to solve the problems of housing and unemployment.

I’d say that about wraps up their case, but don’t take my word for it. They had to pay a $3.4 million settlement after wrongfully accusing a Muslim activist of being anti-Islam, because the activist resisted anti-Semitism and resisted terror-linked groups like CAIR. SPLC was supporting anti-American terrorists and anti-Semites and radical Muslims. Yet supporting people who love Female Genital Mutilation and acid attacks against women somehow isn’t bigotry, according to SPLC.

The only reason the Left, like all those people quoted by NPR, decided to start caring about illegal immigration is because they know it means votes, it means flipping districts, it means POWER. That’s why their solution is to force illegal immigrants on a death march to this country, force many of them to leave their loved ones dead in the desert on the way here, leave a trail of bodies stretching to central America, and endure all kinds of abuse and rape just to get here. Do you hear the Left saying “hey, if they need to flee these countries why don’t we cut aid to them or go and fix them ourselves?” No, that is NOT the Left’s solution (well, Julian Castro had an idea like that, but he’s polling so low that you wonder if only his campaign staff support him). The Left’s solution is to drain them of anyone who’d affect change in those countries, and bring such people here to vote Democrat. Revolutions happen when people can’t tolerate the social conditions and have no way out. Democrats are deliberately giving them a way out, to prevent revolution and to ensure they have a never-ending stream of future Democrat voters. The Democratic Party is profiting off human suffering, and works to perpetuate it so that they may continue profiting from it. And the people they force to endure this suffering, the people whose countries they ensure are unstable hellholes, all happen to be nonwhites. Democrats are deliberately making nonwhite people suffer, to profit off them. Isn’t that one of the big problems we had with slavery? Well, historically (and presently) Democrats were the guys who supported that institutionalized human suffering, and as a teacher of mine used to say “a leopard doesn’t change its spots”.

Defending Miller’s Sources

I’ll start by saying that for some of these sources, we don’t really know how Stephen Miller came to be aware of them. Does he regularly Google subjects that these sources support so they keep showing up? I mean, my Google results always include links to the Washington Post but I hate them and don’t actively seek out their lies, unless there’s relevance to what I’m writing. So is it like that, with these results just constantly appearing because they’re the only ones talking about what Miller is looking for? Or does he actually check these sources routinely? Or did some guy he knows forward them to him? That is not made apparent by SPLC, either because they don’t know or because the answer would hurt their narrative.


What do they have on Stephen Miller? According to The Hill, the most scandalous stuff is that he coordinated coverage with Breitbart, and The Hill cites stories from VDare as being examples of white nationalism. (Sigh) I have to defend THEM now? Look, their tone is crude, and they pick on immigrants of all kinds by reporting negative info on them, but you know what? SOMEONE has to. If it were up to the Left, you’d think everyone with white skin was a Nazi trying to kill people and that everyone without white skin had a spark of divinity. You hear them saying MS-13 are angels, but never white people. Always on the attack against white people. So if THAT’S not racist, then surely pointing out legitimate flaws in people coming into this country, whites included since VDare wants ALL immigration to stop, isn’t racist.

Oh wait, the guys saying everything a white person does is racist are the ones who follow SPLC. Nevermind. Remember: the people saying VDare is racist, saying Miller is racist, saying SPLC should be obeyed, they’re the same ones who not only excuse racism in their own party, but also believe that criticizing a non-white lawmaker for ANY reason, legitimate or not, is an act of racism. According to them, if you attacked Kamala Harris’ record on putting blacks in jail, you’re a racist. BUT, according to them, if you attack Dr. Ben Carson and call him an idiot you’re NOT a racist.

Do you understand NOW who these people are saying these things are racist? If they weren’t out silencing facts and silencing dissenting opinions and silencing debate by saying everyone who disagreed with them was a bigot, if they were neutrally reporting facts on non-whites and immigrants of all kinds legal and otherwise, then we wouldn’t NEED a buncha crude people to get together and form sites like VDare that, while delivering hard evidence on these matters, comes off with such a harsh tone and no finesse. If the truth was already being reported, if the truth were not being suppressed, if you weren’t called a racist for believing truths that Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Party believed a mere 13 years ago, then people would be way less motivated to come up with sites like VDare, so really it’s a creation borne of the Left’s relentless inquisitions. When you suppress knowledge, people hunger for it, and will listen to anyone telling the truth, even if they have a lousy delivery.


According to The Hill, another problematic organization was the Center for Immigration Studies. I shouldn’t even have to defend them, they’re not far-right and the only reason you’d call them a racist is if you supported open borders and thought that somehow America’s welfare system can sustain 7 Billion people. I know them quite well.


American Renaissance is another group I guess I have to defend (spoiler alert: I can’t. Though sometimes they make legitimate, data-backed points, their framing is often repugnant- they are Don Lemmoning it. So rather than defend them I’m going to wonder at why you aren’t defending them because you’re as much a racist as they are.), so let’s twist it up and use the Left’s own rhetoric to defend it. NPR (I almost laughed when a popup asking me to donate to support NPR’s “independent journalism” came up. It’s funded by the government thus beholden to Democrats that believe in expanding money for it, and most if not all of their reporting seems like a reprint of DNC talking points) says AmRen’s big racist issue is that it acknowledges races are different. That’s how NPR frames it anyway. They could have just quoted the site, they aren’t shy about thinking whites are superior and have a bunch of stats backing it up. But instead, NPR says the idea that having too much testosterone makes you more aggressive has been debunked. So NPR basically said anyone complaining about toxic masculinity is a liar. They also say it’s a problem to think races are different, even though that’s the entire thrust of why the Left says whites can’t comment on black or Latino issues. Oh well.

But if viewing one race as superior is a problem, then why is it that only Black Lives Matter, not Latino Lives or All Lives? Why did Ocasio-Cortez favor Latinos with her Latino Supremacist Green New Deal? Why do Asians face hardship getting into college that others don’t? Why do Latinos get to flout the laws with sanctuary cities that release murderers while American citizen murderers are kept in prison? Also, how can it be wrong to view races as being different when liberals will tell you all the time how evil white people are. White people are a race too, y’know!

So clearly the problem the Left has with AmRen isn’t that they acknowledge races are different, or even that they believe one race is better than another, it’s just that AmRen backed whites over the others. And remember in the opening how I mentioned liberals see their opponents as an inferior “other” that must be exterminated? AmRen might see other races as inferior but they don’t advocate concentration camps. The Left on the other hand

As to my own thoughts on American Renaissance, this one is more problematic as it does openly favor whites. But at the same time they show favoritism towards anybody that wants to be part of American culture, at least as the site defines it. By the way- they support Democratic Presidential Candidate Julian Castro’s plan to help Central American countries fix themselves, which I ranted about earlier since Democrats don’t want that. So… since Julian Castro has the backing of a white nationalist group, does that make him racist too?

Anyway, AmRen actually is kinda racist (I can say “kinda” because of all the examples of racism I’ve mentioned regarding liberals that liberals have no problem with, which are much more egregious than here, for example unlike Rashida Tlaib and CAIR, AmRen does not advocate or support people who advocate exterminating entire races. AmRen is perfectly willing to co-exist with likeminded races from what I read, but with the idea that whites are better, and from what I’ve heard in black entertainment awards ceremonies about blacks being superior I think we can let AmRen get by with this relatively harmless if not narcissistic variant of white supremacy) though some stuff AmRen publishes might make legitimate points, tainted as they may be by the site’s underlying ideology. Afterall, the Nazis proved that cigarettes kill you, does the fact that they were Nazis mean they were wrong about cigarettes and they’re actually good for you? Consider that- racists actually can make good points. As mentioned in other posts I’ve linked to, liberal, you’d agree on that point because you and David Duke both support Ilhan Omar.

Some French Novel No One Heard Of (not the one that started Planet of the Apes)


A TV show based on a movie series based on a movie based on a book based on a planet where apes evolved from men? Image from

Both NPR and The Hill agree that part of the problem is Miller liking some French fictional story about immigrants destroying civilization or whatever. But isn’t that EXACTLY what the Left says happened? To the Native Americans, by white people? Isn’t that why they want to get rid of Columbus Day and Thanksgiving Day? For the very reason that those days celebrate white immigrants destroying the culture and civilization of the natives? But now that’s RACIST to say?! I’d ask if we needed a playbill to keep up, but there is a very easy formula to the Left’s ideas in case you hadn’t noticed: “white people bad, nonwhite good”. That makes this little fragment of hypocrisy make sense: the French novel is bad because it depicts the destruction of white civilization as a bad thing but it’s actually GOOD and what the Left WANTS, but the destruction of nonwhite civilization by whites is bad so ban Thanksgiving and ban Columbus Day.

Defending Miller

I like how NPR says the reaction on the Right is “muted”. Fake news, from where I sit. I’m on the Right and I’m ready to make the nearest Lefty spit teeth. I’d make this entire post full of caps and exclamation points and swearing, but none of that is conducive to readability. But I’ve also been at this too long, so my nerves are shot and tolerance is at zero- I was paying attention since 2008 when the Left said you were a racist because you did NOT vote for the candidate who said illegal immigrants hurt our country, as I hammered home in previous posts linked previously in this post.

The Hill points out an email from Miller emphasizing the race of a shooter, where Miller wanted that angle played up in reporting, as if that were racist. Well, guess what, if that’s racist then linking all these other shooters to white nationalism and saying white people have a problem with producing mass shooters as the media loves to do is racist too. I covered and debunked that garbage already, at length, somewhere in all these posts (pssssst: by the way, this is where all the “Obama is a white nationalist” arguments are). But somehow, Miller trying to counter the narrative that all white people are mentally unhinged mass shooters is an act of racism.

According to the article in The Hill I cited above, SPLC’s big beef seems to be with rolling back TPS protections. TPS = Temporary Protected Status. Meaning someone can come into the country with that, then get lost somewhere and never leave. Just another way to cheat the system. See, I KNOW a non-white immigrant who has been trying to get into this country the RIGHT way for years now. When Obama was giving amnesty, this person was being denied by Obama’s immigration judges. It’s like liberals want to punish you for trying to come here legally. And oh how they praise those who do come here illegally! How many stories do you see celebrating ILLEGAL immigrants who cheated the system and whose entrance into this country was memorialized by giving our laws, law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding noncitizens the finger? Now how many times does the Left celebrate in their “news’ media people coming here legitimately? Crickets. NOW, how many times has the Left conflated “illegal immigration” with “immigration” to make it look like hating the criminal one was the same as hating the legal one?


I suppose it would be Pelosi of all people to say MS-13 was composed of angels. Her city believes the NRA is a terror group and criminals should be called the “justice-involved”.

There you go. The Left rewards lawbreakers, at the same time they’re trying to impeach Trump for allegedly breaking the law. Why does the immigrant class of lawbreaker get protection while citizen lawbreakers don’t? That is blatantly unconstitutional, as it has something called the “equal protection clause” which says outright the law won’t favor one group over another. But that’s not what the Left is about, but you saw that earlier when I tore into SPLC.

What’s Your Conclusion?

One legitimately racist source, the rest are ok despite the Left’s lies. I really didn’t even want to believe AmRen was racist because statistically it was just the Left crying wolf again, but unlike liberals I actually looked at the problem and found yeah they are. Not in the “exterminate everyone” way, but in the narcissist “we’re just better” way. And that’s it, that’s the best they have on accusing Jewish Stephen Miller of being a Nazi. They don’t even know how he got to that site or if he’s seen the problematic posts by them. Was he just following links sent by a friend? Did Google direct him there? Who knows, but if it’s something you can make a big deal about then do it! Turn this into a Steven Scalise situation.

Whereas on the other side, you have people that think The Beatles and Barack Obama are racists saying Stephen Miller needs to be fired for acknowledging the problems with immigration in general, illegal immigration in particular, our immigration system overall, and challenging the anti-White narratives the media deals in.

At best, neither side is right and neither side is fit to comment on the racism of the other. Maybe they cancel out and that’s how equality happens, though Miller would need to do a heck of a lot more to match the modern Left’s racism.


Veterans Of The Democratic Party


Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) Image from wikimedia commons

I was reading earlier today about a Congresswoman from Virginia named Luria who supports impeaching Trump. She is a veteran of the Navy, and tried to hide her partisanship behind her Navy uniform. She claims she is serving a higher calling, protecting the Constitution, saying she swore 7 times to protect it. She picked Veterans Day as the day to release this message. Turns out she must have had her fingers crossed all 7 times. We’ll look at this impeachment she is supporting, and the allies that she chose to join because they share her values. And how she basically punched every veteran in the face with her partisanship and support of the America haters.

A Few Words On Impeachment

She’s not the only veteran in Congress and the Democratic Party who supports impeaching Trump. I made a timeline earlier of how the impeachment thing played out so far, at least the current thrust centered on the Ukraine. That was a few weeks ago so let’s look at some updates from that front. Spoiler alert: they don’t support the Democrats unless you’re on the same Trump Derangement Syndrome-induced fever trip that they’re on.

  • The “whistleblower” colluded with Ukraine in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton win.
  • The Obama Administration colluded with Ukraine to help Hillary Clinton win.
  • The “whistleblower” is tied in tight with anti-Trump Intel Community liars like John Brennan and America haters like LTC Vindman, in addition to liars like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) as discussed in the last post.
  • We can finally see some of the transcripts for testimony in the impeachment hearings, and… they say nothing supportive. Overall either the witness says they heard things from other people, or they said “in my anti-American partisan opinion, it might mean this”.
  • The leader of the impeachment committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), told witnesses not to answer questions from Republicans (after trying to stop Republicans from asking questions at all, as I mentioned earlier).

And now we have a veteran say that serving this farce is protecting the Constitution. Maybe she didn’t read it. There’s a bunch of stuff in there related to something she may never have heard of- it’s called “due process”. They’re some weird concepts about being allowed to face your accuser, a bunch of stuff in there about due process, a bunch of stuff about being allowed to cross-examine witnesses. Trump has been denied all of that, and the Democrats threaten to continue denying it to him. Instead of lawyers for the defendant, a few Republican congressmen are allowed to be present at the hearings, but they are NOT allowed to call witnesses and in some cases can’t even ask the questions they want to ask.

Now yes, the President in an impeachment hearing isn’t really entitled to any rights like due process since it’s not really a criminal proceeding, but yes Democrats- the party that Luria chose to join because she agrees with their values- believed Bill Clinton SHOULD have had due process rights applied when he was impeached and with the accusations of sexual assault against him, yet right now Democrats are giving Trump fewer rights than Republicans gave Bill Clinton while claiming this is fairness! But keep in mind that Democrats tried to do this with Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing, and were accusing him of a very serious crime similar to Bill’s. In other words- Democrats only believe their own side should have rights. The old saying goes “you practice how you play”. So how will liberals like Luria play when it comes to real trials?

  • Another practice swing- Democrats worked to deny college students due process rights, though granted they really just worked to make it easier for colleges to circumvent criminal courts where due process and the need for evidence would come into play and attack students baselessly accused of crimes on their own. In light of the following, it makes you wonder if they were training kids for the “new norm” as they’re so fond of saying.
  • Now they’re at bat: the Democrats told the Supreme Court that if they don’t judge cases the way Democrats want them judged, then Democrats will alter the Supreme Court so that it will give results that the Party finds acceptable.
  • There’s the old chestnut where Democrats tried to attack Constitutionally-protected things the 2nd Amendment and due process rights at the same time.
  • Once Obama came into office, the Democrats expanded President Bush’s anti-due-process-anti-terror rules.
  • President Obama’s military commissions for civilians, instead of courts (ostensibly for terrorists in a warzone, but according to San Francisco that means any NRA member)
  • President Obama skipping the military commission and ordering the execution of an American citizen without giving him any form of due process or trial, at least trial as we understand them. Several times.
  • Worth mentioning is Obama’s bailout of Chrysler was in defiance of due process. So first Democrats defied due process to payoff some big business millionaire friends, and then they defy due process to murder someone.
  • Obama’s “rocket docket” idea defied due process.

And due process isn’t the only Constitutional right (under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) that the present crop of Democrats like Luria have worked to deny you, Democrats who cosplay as members of the military and tell the equally-as-big lie that they are protecting your rights. They’ve gone after the First Amendment, Second Amendment, the sixth amendment, and the recess appointments clause. Is this what veterans like Luria believe they took an oath to protect- the Democratic Party and its agenda instead of the Constitution? Did they take the Chinese oath to serve?

Stolen Valor

So, do the veterans in the Democratic Party like Luria (picking on her because, like I said with AOC a while ago, it helps if you can point to a specific face rather than generalize the evils of a group overall) believe that a citizen is NOT allowed a fair trial and that the prosecutors get to decide what witnesses they can call and what evidence they’re allowed to use and who the defendant is allowed to cross-examine, if the prosecutors even allow the defendant to be present at the trial? Well, they backed it for Obama and for Schiff’s impeachment and they back Democrats demanding the Supreme Court tailor its decisions to Democrat Party values so…

Does Luria believe that she fought to protect the right of the government to have a partisan who works with liars come forward and make an unsupportable accusation in secret followed by secret hearings to in order to convict someone of a crime? Because that’s what Democrats support. They don’t just support ending due process for Trumps or Kavanaughs either, we see this going on with liberals at the local level. And THIS is the totalitarian system of government, the unconstitutional system of government, about which people like Luria say “I’m a Navy veteran and I support this evil, so you should too.” Maybe I just didn’t do my research on her- maybe she was a zampolit in the Soviet Navy. Or not, because some of them actually were honorable.


Image of liberal Jane Fonda mocking American soldiers  to entertain North Vietnamese butchers. She is still a favored liberal/Democrat personality. The veterans in the Democratic Party know this is who they are supporting. Image from Patriotpost

As you saw from the reference to Lt. Col. Vindman, just because someone wears a uniform it does not make them pure and good. Why, even you liberal would agree with that, remember Lt. Col. Oliver North? Besides, liberal, the rest of your party hates the military anyway, hated them for a while, thinks they’re the same as terrorists or worse. So even YOU don’t believe it. And note that THESE anti-military people who hate America are the ones that Rep. Luria and other Democrat veterans side with. They weren’t forced, they VOLUNTARILY became Democrats because these Democrats who hate this country SHARE their values. These dishonorable veterans BELIEVE in the same cause that the anti-American crowd who spits on veterans believes in. And how do these anti-veteran anti-military anti-American veterans sell themselves to the public? They don the uniforms that their party hates, and claim it makes them credible somehow.

Liberals are supposed to be smarter, studies have been done to show that, so I don’t believe for one second, and neither should you, that these liberals somehow aren’t aware of the beliefs they’re promoting, somehow not aware of the despicable anti-veteran causes they now serve.



A Historic Oppression


Pope Sixtus IV, after whom the Nintendo 64 was named. He’s the guy who authorized Catholic monarchs to begin the inquisitions. Image from Wikimedia Commons

Reality is just the same event happening over and over. Or as L.Q. “Sonny” Clemonds once said “it’s the same dance, it’s just a different tune.”

I present to you some history: the so-called dark ages came about because the Catholic Church was losing power and didn’t know what to do. They weren’t strong enough to fight their geopolitical foe, the Muslims. Their first crusade was a success, but the next three failed. They were cutoff from the rest of the world, with Europe surrounded at sea and on land by Muslim forces, with Spain and Italy being invaded outright and the Christian bulwark of Constantinople being sacked.

(Irrelevant to the rest of this post, but this story ends with the Europeans eventually overtaking the Islamic forces. I suppose we could say the final nail in the coffin was World War I. It’s also worth noting that the first overseas engagement of the United States military, that wasn’t related to fighting the British, was against these Islamic forces- the Barbary Wars. So when you hear that Muslims played an important role in U.S. history, they surely did, they gave our military one of its first victories on the world stage after this country was founded, a victory remembered in the Marines’ Hymn by the line “to the shores of Tripoli”. Islamic leaders believed that since Americans were not Muslims, then the Koran made it ok for them to enslave Americans and steal our property, until we sent our military in to beat them up. Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same.)

Anyway, I redirect your attention to that early iteration of Islam vs the West. In particular, how the West reacted. The Catholic Church was the big power at the time, pretty much a government on its own. They reacted with what the Left likes to call the “dark ages”, an age of repression and intolerance and where no progress was made, as the narrative goes. But why did this come about? Well, the Catholic Church saw their power being challenged abroad and domestically, so they came down hard to maintain it. Inquisitions, heretics under every bed, all that sort. Intense paranoia and brutal oppression.

The Left likes to scold and mock Christians over that, ignoring how if the narrative holds (it’s been challenged, but that’s something I probably won’t ever cover because it’s irrelevant, though I will note this interesting idea here about how the Catholic Church’s policies made Europe way different than the rest of the world in a positive way) then Catholics were just reacting in an all too human way. The way liberals are today.

The Trumpish Inquisition


Grand Inquisitor Adam Schiff (D-CA) tells Amb. Volker that things would go easier for him if he cooperates. Image from Encyclopedia Britannica

Look at their primary race. The weaker moderates are being jettisoned, with Biden only having any staying power because he’s a darn cockroach and you should at least respect everything he’s gone through in his life even if he himself has terrible policy ideas and a weird gropiness about him. They don’t want anyone anything close to Trump. Heck, look at how they’re trying to take down Rep. Gabbard now: they’re trying to say she’s evil and unelectable because she allegedly was up for a position in the Trump Administration. They’re going all Spanish Inquisition up in here. Moderates are purged if they don’t bow to the far Left, who are running the show now much like the Catholic extremists during the Inquisition.

Look at all the people who have had to apologize for ever saying anything even remotely different from the party line. Pretty much the only thing protecting Biden is his relative electability as perceived by the establishment, and his ability to pretend to be for some leftwing ideals though from what I saw in the debates he had limits, limits that might win the needed independents.

Aside from purging their own party, look at the fifth and seventh crusades the Left have launched against President Trump. Impeachment over the Mueller Report until it was a dud, now impeachment over Ukraine which I’ve gone over twice as being a dud.

And when did this all start? When they lost power in 2016. Like the inquisitions of the Christians, the Left’s inquisition began when they lost their political power. They were riding high on the age of Obama, they could do no wrong. They thought it’d be an easy election and they’d keep their power and influence, and most importantly control over lots more money- the American taxpayer’s. But then disaster struck. Like when the Muslims sacked Jerusalem and Constantinople, Trump won in 2016. And like the Catholic Church eventually did, Democrats reacted with inquisitions. Aside from those against Trump and the ones mentioned earlier, we had #MeToo which tore apart several moderate Democrats and moderate Democrat donors. The inquisition for ideological purity continues- Former President Obama commented on it quite recently.

But it was only a natural, and quite human, reaction. They went from top of the world to facing a real challenge, and they turned to fear and paranoia to face it. And now we see the Left ushering in a dark age.


No more free speech. Oh sure, you say now that it’s a moral imperative to fight “hate speech”, but who defines what “hate speech” is? You? Or the people in power making the laws. Remember, liberal, folks like Bernie Sanders were once oppressed by the party that you’re trying to put in office. If they had the power, they’d have said in 2015 that all speech supporting him was “hate speech”, citing sexism perhaps, so as to make sure Hillary Clinton had a smooth ride to the top. You saw how corrupt they were. Now you want these same people to decide what “hate speech” is?

What happens if you turn out to be a bit too much of a Bernie Sanders for the Elizabeth Warren that controls what defines “hate speech”? You want to face jail time or worse because you’re the wrong kind of socialist? Don’t laugh, because that’s how Leon Trotsky met his end. That’s how China and the USSR split. All were communists, but they disagreed on what kind of communists. Do you want your brand of communism to be defined as hate speech if your rival does a better job at convincing people they’re right? No, I didn’t think so. That’s why speech of all kinds is protected- because it’s so subjective that anyone could find any kind of speech to be “hate speech”, and with enough Twitter followers they can make it look like everyone agrees with them. Remember- a small Twitter mob can force the New York Times to change headlines. What could a mob with that much power do to you if you were the wrong kind of socialist, with the backing of your laws banning hate speech?

And speaking of oppression, anyone get a look at who runs the internet? I’ve gone after Google before, and Facebook and Twitter aren’t any better. Microsoft and Apple are ran by some of the Inquisitionites too. So how about that speech, eh? Shadow bans, bans, repressed search results, all directed against political opponents. Physical mobs storming heretics. Physical mobs attacking heretics. The same kind of oppression you saw during the “dark ages”, that same rejection of what we’d later call “Enlightenment Values”.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out the academic issues, namely suppression, that the Left engages in. ANYTHING that counters ANY PART of their narratives, no matter how factually correct, is suppressed. Students are self-censoring. Try stating a neutral, nonjudgmental sentence about being trans on YouTube- you get censored for hate speech. Or try publishing studies that counter the narratives of trans activists vying for political power- it gets suppressed by an angry mob.

So who are the real liberals- the ones oppressing you like the Catholic Church in the dark ages? Well, that seems to be what you liberals believe.


The requisite pitchforks and torches were traded in for… well, I don’t see any pitchforks at least. Images of Liberal Inquisitionites from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora