Spirit Of The Gun


New and improved post, now with 400% more links to videos with Bee Gees songs.

It’s Saturday night and I’m finally finalizing this week’s post. No, the delay is not because I had a fever (as a rebuttal to the Bee Gees’ assertion: I should NOT be dancing, yeah). You must think I’m lazy and have no life. Yes to both, but the biggest reasons for this delay have been A: processing my reaction to this week’s news and B: assisting the venerable founder of this blog with some external activities.

Jumping right into it, I have to ask the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominees: why do they think saying 40-60% of the country is racist and likely to murder three or more people with a gun is a winning strategy (They’re saying whites are racist, this country is racist, Trump supporters are racist, and the shootings come from that racism, they even blamed the Dayton shooting on white extremism, thus they’re saying whites are likely to commit mass shootings. CNN seems to believe that’s where ratings come from, while MSNBC goes so far as to badly photoshop some lies together and say whites are evil simply for their skin color (though I wonder if according to this speaker Muslims will have to be set free from what their fellows in the Middle East are up to, or if blacks like the person speaking need to be set free from what blacks are doing worldwide from Africa to Chicago))? Why do they think singling-out whites as the most violent race in history, the only violent race apparently (contradicted by the fact that statistically speaking a black male is twice as likely to be a mass shooter as a white male- African Americans do about 25% of the mass shootings which is twice their share of the population while whites do 50-60% of mass shootings which is on par with their share of the population. So far in 2019, 51% of mass shootings were done by African Americans and only 29% by whites, meaning that African Americans this year are FOUR times more likely to be a mass shooter than a white person), will let them win against Trump?

For that matter, why do liberals believe hating one particular race and telling them they are evil for even being born is the path to ending mass shootings? The Left loves to say about inner-city youth (black kids) that they shoot each other and generally engage in higher rates of criminal activity than the rest of the population because we are racist towards them; they decide that there must just be something wrong with being a non-white. They see this and feel angry inside, and vent that anger in negative ways since they have no other recourse.


Anyone else see the problem with this ragtag group of politicians saying all whites are racists? Image from CNN

So what does the media think happens when a white guy sees Presidential hopefuls Joe Biden and perpetual spellcheck error Pete Buttigieg declare that all whites are racists (and sexists according to Biden, because the context of his remarks kinda revealed he was saying whites are the only race in history who ever treated women unfairly… so I guess he thinks various women deserved acid in their faces and thinks FGM is perfectly fine. And ignores statistics showing Black and Hispanic men two or three times more likely than white men to be violent towards women, and ignores rap music in general), that they should be persecuted solely by the color of their skin? Does the media believe the white person seeing this, and feeling powerless because if he dares speak out he’ll be banished from society as some combination of sexist/racist/whatever-ist monster (Ostracizing/firing/whatever has happened and been threatened), doesn’t get angry at the lies being spread and his helplessness about it? Does the Left think whites don’t have the same emotions as blacks? So, why wouldn’t a white person react the same way a black person would? Why does the Left believe that their racism towards and oppression of whites (not even allowing them jobs  (sorry that the link for “them” is to a forum discussing an article, but the article itself was taken down)) wouldn’t create anger and violence anymore than such things do in the black community?

If we are to take the Left’s claim of intelligence at face value, then the logical conclusion is they know damn well that whites feel the same way as any other race. This is a deliberate ploy at dividing America. While black communities are in shambles, they are success stories as far as Democrats are concerned. Just look at their reaction to Trump’s Baltimore tweets as an example- they think crime-ridden Baltimore is a success I guess because it has high amounts of welfare recipients and has consistently voted Democrat for 50 years. Since they know their model of hating blacks into submission worked in the 20th century, and since whites have cost them elections in the past, they appear to be working on hating whites into submission for the 21st century. Bonus points for making sure each race hates the other so that they’ll never unite against the Democrats dividing them. Naturally Democrats will ignore their own words and claim Republicans are the real dividers, and their vast propaganda arms turn an impossibly weak deflection into a rock-hard defense.

By bringing up their propaganda arm I accidentally swerved my opening into some stuff I had written earlier in the week, so I shall take advantage of that situation and present ir to you.


If Trump actually said X, it would be a different story. You’d be reading about a crazed overweight dude charging into Area 51 through a hail of bullets to steal an android. Image from MMKB

Scenario A: Trump says x. The Left decides he meant y. The Left says he is racist for saying y. The Left says he is supporting people who believe in y. Someone who really does believe in y feels emboldened by what the Left is saying about Trump and goes to shoot people based on y. The media blames the shooting on Trump, who never said y to begin with.

Scenario B: A liberal says x. The Left decides they meant x. The Left says they are wonderful for believing x. The Left says they are supporting people who believe in x. Someone who really does believe in x feels emboldened by what the Left is saying about x and goes to shoot people based on x. The media blames the shooting on Republicans and Trump and whites, and the Left says you are despicable for daring to say their rhetoric about x was even remotely related to the shooting… and then says more people needed to die and one of the people already shot deserved it.

When both scenarios kind of (El Paso wasn’t entirely a white nationalist thing, barely at all actually if you bother to read the manifesto as examined later) happen in the same weekend, the Left focuses on Scenario A and ignores Scenario B and even seems to ignore the victims of Scenario B. In fact, according to Karl Rove they seem to triple-down on Scenario A.

So let me ask you liberal who says Trump wants mass shootings to happen: who was out fundraising after the Dayton and El Paso shootings? Not Trump. Who, according to your own narrative about the El Paso shooter’s motives which he and I both dispute (as examined later), lied about what Trump has said until someone believed you and launched a hate crime? Not Trump. Which 2020 candidate was fundraising off of a massacre that her own supporter caused? Not Trump. Seems a lot like the Democrats are the ones enjoying the shootings.

This Was A Mess

I have A LOT I want to say. A lot of it, the stuff about Democrats, would get me into legal trouble. Basically, this past week I’ve been seeing different statements and reading different articles and typing out rebuttals of each because I was so furious after seeing them I couldn’t really do much else. That naturally led to a bit of a mess- now I have a bunch of rants that say the same thing but they debunk different sources and different people. So what do I do? I’m out of time this week to sort through them all, compress them, etc. So I’ll just do the lazy ol’ bulletpoint format that I used in the Google search posts.

To get the ball rolling, have some headlines about mass shootings in general.

  • “Why are white men carrying out more mass shootings?” -UK’s Sky News
  • “Mass Shootings: Guns, White Men, And Mental Health” – Medium
  • “Opinion | We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem” – New York Times
  • “#WhiteSupremacistTerrorism: Hashtag Takes Over Twitter After Latest Pair of Mass Shootings” – The Root
  • “We Have a Gun Problem, and We Have a White Supremacist Terrorism Problem” – Washington Monthly
  • “Gun Culture Has Always Been About White Supremacy” – New Republic (I wonder what they think of rap music and blacks in Chicago shooting each other…)
  • “Our Country Isn’t Fixing The Gun Problem Because It’s White Men Who Love Guns” – Bustle (maybe they and New Republic should get together and take a look at the latest rap hits and Chicago shootings)
  • “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group” – Newsweek
  • “Majority of mass shootings carried out by white men” – Philadelphia Tribune

Notice a pattern? How they blame whites for it all? How they make it look like only white people do mass shootings? I also noticed when hunting for these headlines that early reporting on the Dayton shooting also said that the socialist anti-gun Warren supporter was a white nationalist.

Here’s the thing- whites aren’t actually doing ALL the mass shootings as the headlines would have you believe. It is mostly male, true. But when it comes to race, as you saw way earlier in this post whites do about 50-60% as would be consistent with the white share of this country’s population. Blacks on the other hand do 25%, which is TWICE what their share of the population is. So basically- a black man is TWICE as likely to be a mass shooter as a white man. The media wants to judge it all on race, very well, do so but do it fairly. That’s not going to happen though- how could it when 32% of Democrats think you’re a racist if you are white and criticize a non-white politician even if said politician is doing something wrong?


I mean, he IS half white, and he did use attack dogs like police during Civil Rights protests. Image from evil.news

Democrats say that Trump is behind El Paso. Actually, if you read the guy’s manifesto, you’d find he was an anti-corporate anti-immigrant ecoterrorist pseudo-socialist. Do you know what his reasoning was for murdering Hispanics? It sounded exactly like what PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA warned about in his Grammy-winning audiobook “Audacity of Hope”. He was worried that the incoming Hispanics were reducing wages and straining our social safety nets, just like Obama warned. And liberals gave Obama a GRAMMY for saying that. So liberals gave Obama a GRAMMY for white nationalist rhetoric that led to a mass shooting. Cory Booker said the shooter had written a “white supremacist manifesto” which means, according to Booker, Obama was spreading white nationalist talking points. Cool. Also of note, the shooter said he was worried the media would blame Trump for his views. Notably, he also said that some Democratic Presidential candidates might be blamed for his views. Footnote here I guess, but some of the other items in the manifesto sounded like Joe Biden might’ve said them. Might as well also say here, according to Sen. Cory Booker, Obama really is a white nationalist. (Yes, the guy had some stuff about not wanting to mix white and non-white populations for reasons of biodiversity, but A: isn’t diversity a good thing? and B: you give Spike Lee awards for glaring at mixed race couples).

Drawing The Lines

Lost in this dense patch of anger below is my true position. I don’t personally believe Biden or Obama or Trump or Cortez are really to blame for what the crazies do. I agree with Fmr. DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazille (I’m starting to like her lately, or maybe that’s just because she seems like a moderate compared to the insanity that is the Dems’ Presidential race and The Squad). But then we get the weight of the Democratic Party pushing this narrative that it’s all the Right’s or Trump’s fault because they say things


Does anyone else think “Culpability” would be an awesome name for a biography of Robert Culp? Image from TheConsumateCulp

Democrats disagree with. So, I end up spending this post showing how Democratic rhetoric played the major part in the El Paso shooting, and how the Dayton shooter was entirely the Democrats’ fault. Because I learned when I was three years old that if a bully comes at you, you don’t run or cower in fear and surrender, you knock them on their ass. What better way than by showing Democrats that by their own standards of culpability, they’re responsible for both the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings.


Now that I’m at the part where I just have disconnected rapid-responses to things that annoyed me, I figured for the sake of organization I’d go with these nifty horizontal lines. Because I tried the bulletpoint thing and it looked awful.

As the Left screams for gun control, a story this past week shows how a good guy with a gun stopped a mass shooting. This is actually very horrifying though: El Paso and Dayton were the ones we heard the most about because El Paso was clearly tied to Trump, but there was one in California that the media ignored I guess because like with Chicago shootings just don’t happen in liberal places (or maybe because the guy was targeting  BOTH political parties). Then there was this attempted shooting that was thwarted in Missouri that I led with, but then there was ANOTHER shooting in Texas that was thwarted! That means we almost had FIVE mass shootings in 10 days!

I mentioned above in my screed that the El Paso shooter was kind of a Lefty. So was the Giffords shooter, who the Left keeps saying was a rightwing fanatic.

NYT got mad that Trump said the beliefs of one of the mass shooters needed to be addressed, after spending time attacking the beliefs of the other mass shooter. Because the Dayton shooter was a hardcore NYT-style Leftist and the El Paso shooter had a couple of beliefs in common with what we’ve heard from President Trump.

I mentioned before how early coverage said the Dayton shooter was a white nationalist. Before anything was known about the Dayton shooter, Buttgeek (it’s quicker to type, and actually started not as a homophobic slur nor an insult against someone who I’m scared of because he has a funny name as Obama might’ve assumed if Mayor Buttigieg weren’t white, but simply because I was mentally mispronouncing his name and misspelling his name all over the place when trying to read and remember it) was out saying that he was a white nationalist. He was dead opposite of that, unless Buttgeek thinks Warren is a white nationalist. I personally don’t think so, white nationalists generally don’t lie being Native American blood. It’s like saying a Sicilian has African blood.


Instead of linking to his book as reference for good communists disappearing, I thought I’d put a picture of the back cover here instead.

Democrats are going after Fox News’ Tucker Carlson for supposedly making white supremacy mainstream. Tucker Carlson has yet to do that. But he does say a lot of stuff Democrats don’t like. So that’s why they want to call it white supremacist, because that means it is hate speech, and the Left wants hate speech outlawed. Ending the First Amendment would make things rather easy for them: anytime you say something they don’t like, they call you a racist and then send you to Alaska (closest we have to Siberia). The public would never miss a racist. Of course, you folks on the Left need to be careful because a lot of good communists disappeared too under that other government you love who did that.

Along that same line, Francis Ethelbert (points to whoever catches what that play on Robert’s name references) O’Rourke says that his lie (at the upcoming link) about Trump “can’t be open for debate.” Now why would that be if his statement was factually correct? Well, liberals do say they’re smarter than us, so he knows his statement is a lie and doesn’t want to be humiliated for spreading it.

CNN outright said you are killing people if you don’t say what Democrats want you to say. NYT wants things like the El Paso shooting to fall under the veil of terrorism, which would mean anyone spouting rhetoric like in Obama’s Audacity of Hope could be labelled by the Left as a terrorist, as if calling people who aren’t Democrats now racists/sexists/bigots isn’t bad enough.

Finally for this section, Washington Post said “There is no excuse for supporting this president” in a headline, even though the one shooter is a socialist and the other could have been quoting Obama and Biden in his manifesto. I didn’t click on the article, but maybe there was an arrow pointing to a picture of Obama from the headline.

Dem Presidential Hopeful Castro said that the El Paso’s shooter could’ve been written by one of Trump’s speechwriters. Actually Castro, his manifesto could’ve been done by your former boss Barack Obama. So doesn’t that make you a white supremacist for working under Obama?

As the Left runs with gun control here and demands we end the 2nd Amendment (glad they’re out doing it, they used to say you were crazy if you said they were trying to repeal it), we see protesters in Hong Kong wishing that they had a 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from a ruthless government. Meanwhile, a CNN host was yammering on about how Venezuela with its severely oppressed citizens couldn’t understand why we’d want guns to defend against such a thing.

So now we’ve had in the wake of the weekend shootings assaults by the Left on our First and Second Amendment rights, and yet they’re baffled by why we’d want to keep guns. Even though liberals themselves decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights out of fear of President Trump. I’m beginning to understand a little bit of the liberal mind I think- between all these conflicting positions there just isn’t ROOM in their heads for reality.

Amidst the calls for gun control, 4 are dead in a California stabbing spree. Now, liberals define a mass shooting as 3 or more people killed. 4 died from this knife, so now that mass stabbings are a thing will we have knife control like in England?


Image of a big nope from WWE.com… come to think of it, I’d better get some sleep if I’m going to be awake for their PPV in less than 12 hours.

Remember how I took the time earlier to outline how whites have overall done about 54% of the mass shootings in the U.S., how certain other groups have done a totally disproportionate number, and how this year whites have done just over half the mass shootings this other group did? Well, this actress here said that she is ashamed to have been born white because of the white people shootings. Which begs the question- does she believe that blacks, who for this year are four times more likely to be a mass shooter than whites, should be ashamed for being born black? Whoops. Personally, I would be ashamed to have the last name “Arquette” after David was  given the WCW World Heavyweight Championship.

A CNN contributor/TV personality decided to advocate murdering more than 40% of the United States’ population. One of their contributors, a board member of the National Iranian American Council, someone who was given an award by Harvard and ate a human brain, decided that the best solution to the Left’s woes was a Final one. That link between Trump and white nationalism that liberals like him lied to create (Trump denounced white nationalists during his campaign, in his Charlottesville remarks as you saw above, and after the El Paso shooting, and probably some other times I’m not remembering too), he decided to take it further and say anyone supporting Trump is a white nationalist terrorist who deserves to die. I suppose he’d know about terrorists, he often lies to cover for Islamic ones. So glad CNN has him on its crack team of advisers. Genocidal maniacs, because he is directing this at white people, are welcome in Don Lemon’s safe space, at least based on what Don Lemon has said in the past.


Anyone else tired of all this jive talkin’; feedin’ us lies?

Again, part of the problem we have here is what the Left actually believes white supremacism is. They say Trump’s mention that some illegal immigrants are criminals is racist. It’s correct, below I cite data on it, but it’s racist to say I guess. And Cory Booker in a section quoted somewhere in here (the one where he speaks with “moral clarity” about Trump, even though Booker has less moral clarity than Goebbels because A: Booker supports Hitler-lovin’ Farrakhan and B: Goebbels probably knew that he was lying while I doubt Booker is smart enough to know even that much) notes that Trump allegedly referring to lousy countries as “shithole” countries (that remark was never actually proven to have taken place, it just became part of the lore, like the father of modern Progressivism’s praise for KKK thriller “Birth of a Nation”) makes him a racist.

Even if Trump said it, he’s right. Liberals spent years telling us that the “women and children” swarming our border are fleeing shitholes. They just didn’t use that word. But when Trump did, suddenly according to the Left it became racist to say that the people at the border were fleeing bad places. That totally undermines asylum claims too, because Democrats are saying it’s so wrong to claim that Central and South American nations are in bad shape that it’s racist to do so, so how are we to believe people when they come here requesting asylum? Our laws don’t allow you to request asylum from paradise.

Congressman Gutierrez said to Trump “stop calling people like me breeders”. At least when liberals distorted the Charlottesville thing they still used something Trump said. Gutierrez is just making up random stuff now.

As to his hypocritical outrage, I will say this: you don’t care either Gutierrez otherwise you wouldn’t be part of the party demanding money that could help stop that violence goes to people who look like you. You want to call Trump a racist, but here you are supporting a party that will take money from those blacks shooting each other that you mention and send it to help people like you enter the country to strain our welfare programs that the inner-city Chicago blacks rely on, as Obama said.

Playing right into the hands of the white supremacist groups feeding off the anger and fear whites are feeling (as I started this post off describing), MSNBC confirms that whites are the only race who have ever done a bad thing in the history of the world. All other races are divine gods living in peace. They believe that being white means being evil. Meanwhile, MSNBC says Trump is the one trying to divide the races against each other.

Some guy from The Atlantic told CNN that Fox News gets its ratings by “making white people scared and angry”. I don’t watch Fox News. I’m too cheap to pay for it. For my job and this blog I watch you a lot though. And I do get scared and angry when I listen to people like him. Remember that long rant I went into where I applied Leftwing justifications for urban youth violence to white people? I didn’t ONCE say Fox News was where they were getting their info. I said they were listening to liberals like that guy from The Atlantic. People like him and CNN and MSNBC as noted just above saying whites are evil. They are doing more for white nationalists than Fox News ever could.


For a network that attacks white people so much, they sure do love white women. Image from an MSNBC tweet, criticism from the Left.

It’s easy to say the Left hates whites as a generalization, but hard to prove if no one on the Left says anything. But EVERYONE on the Left is saying it; they’re providing the evidence; THEY’RE providing the grounds for the fearmongering! Serwer might as well have said “Discovery Channel’s shark week gets ratings by making people scared of sharks”. We are perfectly justified in fearing our predators. And by the way, with all the times CNN and MSNBC say whites are evil, it sure seems like they get their ratings by making non-whites scared and angry. Even if Fox News did do that for whites, why is it wrong when that happens but right when CNN and MSNBC and I guess you too do it? What do you call MSNBC claiming that Trump wants to “exterminate Latinos” (I watched the clip- that wasn’t an accident, and she knows that a lot fewer people are going to see that off-air apology than saw the on-air remarks)?

Francis was out saying that mass shootings and immigrant children in cages don’t happen unless the President is out “giving people permission”. So… O’Rourke said Obama gave permission for Sandy Hook and Pulse Nightclub and Gabby Giffords, and Obama is responsible for putting kids in cages. Well, if he thought for a moment about his gaffe he’d realize that’s what he was saying. By the way Beto, wasn’t some of this going on in your home state while you were in Congress? What did you do about it? The El Paso shooter said he had his views long before Trump came around, which happens to be around the same time you were a Congressman. So were you giving him permission? By your own logic, you must have been.

Chris Rock instagrammed out a kind of darkly humorous image about the shootings, basically saying that everyone understands all mass shooters are white. I’m not going to attack Chris Rock over that. While 25% of mass shootings are done by people who look like Chris Rock, which is really about 10% of the population, and 51% of the mass shootings this year were done by people who look like Chris Rock, the liberal media only mentions race for white people. Also, Chris Rock likely did not see a picture of the Virginia Beach mass shooter from two and a half months ago. He was a black dude.

This next little spiel is tangential to the shootings. Saying Trump is a racist for claiming that illegal immigrants include criminals in their midst opened the door for this line of examination. But let me head this off right here- I’m NOT saying all Hispanics are criminals nor that the victims of El Paso deserved it, because I know how this works liberal. I will make the next assertion and you’ll decide I said something completely different no matter what I say, even if you have to lie about it, just like you did with Trump at Charlottesville. You’re an idiot.


Bobby’s white face annoys me. It drips with sanctimonious hypocrisy. He just LOOKS like a stupid rich white twit pretending to be relatable, his face says it all. Plus it vaguely reminds me of a loser frat boy I was forced to room with, who probably makes four times as much money as I do because that’s how the world works. So instead have a picture from Slick Hare used in an earlier post showing why guns are not appropriate at all venues.

Anyway, Robert Francis O’Rourke decided to repeat the claim that “immigrants” (don’t know if he meant illegal or legal or all, but probably illegal) are more law abiding than U.S. citizens. The Left says they’re DREAMers, the Left says they deserve billions of dollars and free healthcare, liberals like Elijah Cummings complain about their treatment. And what of our OWN citizens? The Left does not care. Cummings is out advocating on behalf of illegals while members of his own district are in his own words walking around zombie-like because of the drugs they’re strung out on. The Left wants to import more and more despite Obama telling us only 13 years ago that this will destroy the black community. The Left says of American citizens that they’re more likely to be criminals while illegals are morally upstanding citizens (libertarians say that as well, but the facts show that illegal immigrants are much more dangerous than the average American). MS-13 consists of divine beings according to Pelosi.

The Left also says American citizens are lazy drug addicts who need the illegals to do our jobs because we’re just too stupid and incompetent. You heard that Senator’s remarks? He basically said we should just abandon the American people and now only represent illegal immigrants! And as you saw with Cummings and Pelosi, and anyone who wants open borders despite Obama’s warnings, it’s now the Democrats’ party line that the average American is to be abandoned in favor of illegals.

Oh, one more thing, about that Senator- he was Biden’s buddy Senator from Delaware when Biden was in the Senate.

Something interesting I ran into, might as well note it here. The El Paso shooter was kind of a Leftist, the Dayton and Bernie Bro shooters were totally leftists, and while some victims statistically may have been Trump supporters the media never reported on a Trump supporter being killed by a liberal. Even though that actually did happen.

The story apparently is one of neighbors provoking each other. However, key to this is  the murderous liberal’s defense. Part of the defense is that the Republican neighbor was provoking him by placing pro-Trump signs in his yard (the killer had anti-Trump signs in his). So basically, having a pro-Trump sign can be used as justification for murdering someone, or at least that’s part of what they were going for. If a liberal is sufficiently triggered by a pro-Trump sign, then you should give them a lesser sentence if they murder the guy who put the sign up to deliberately provoke the killer. Blaming the victim. Now yes, the Republican guy may have been an asshole, but the liberal shot him, waited a few seconds standing over the motionless body, then shot him again. Then tried to claim all that was self-defense spurred by years of provocation, such as having a pro-Trump sign in the yard.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press, alleged purveyors of unbiased reporting, found that there was no political motive whatsoever in the shooting and dismissed any statements to the contrary as just being from some rightwing nuts. So I guess the killer himself was a rightwing nut, despite his anti-Trump signs and pro-liberal positions and all that. He must have been, Associated Press said so!

That’s It For Now

Saturday Night became Sunday Morning. 7am. And this post is looking pretty dern long, so I’ll just bow-out here and pick up the other hunk for Wednesday.


Senator Warren gives a white power signal after her white supremacist supporter in Dayton kills a bunch of people causing her and her allies to make a bunch of money. Image actually from Vox and taken months ago, and signal would more likely be the black power gesture.

So Far Left They’re On The Far Right


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.


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!


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.

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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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”.


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.



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

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

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

The Game


From the Atari 7800 version

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

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

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

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

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

The Jungle

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

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

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

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

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


The Desert


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

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


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

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

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

What Do You Think?


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

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

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


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