U.N. Squadron (SNES, 1991) – Part of Tomcat Tuesday

UN_Squadron-SNES-cartridge-title_screen

F-14s are pictured on the cover, but not immediately available in the game. Also, at the time of this writing it can be speculated that the logo on the right is a Galarian Rapidash.

Oh boy, another arcade-style shooter, this time sidescrolling instead of moving forward.. You might recall how terrible I am at these.

UN_Squadron-SNES-Character_Select

The guy on the left is the main character of the series. The guy on the right appears to be Mario. He’s pretty good at these sidescrolling shooters.

Anyway, this here game is a victim of localization. It’s actually a port of a 1989 arcade game based on a 1979 manga (titled Area 88), and in Japan it bore the title of the manga whereas internationally it was retitled. There is no characterization here that I saw or in-depth storytelling, instead the enjoyment comes from killing a bunch of people but without the shame and self-loathing that the hero felt according to the Wikipedia page. Really, kinda runs contrary to the message of the story. And the fact that I played as the hero character makes it doubly ironic- while he was a top ace, I am absolutely terrible. For a triple irony score, we have the game being called “U.N. Squadron” when you play as a mercenary group that has no affiliation with the U.N., an organization that frowns upon mercenary activity. Hell, let’s go all-in for quad-irony: the manga was praised for realistic depictions of air combat, while this game is very much unrealistic.

The Game

UN_Squadron-SNES-gameplayDidn’t I tell you? Side-scrolling shooter. You can pickup power-ups that change your gun from being some kind of infinite energy bulb shooter to an infinite energy crescent shooter. The eventual form of your energy bolts reminded me of one of the ultimate weapon upgrade in the SNES Star Wars games. You also can have several secondary weapons, but they’re in a finite supply.

You start with a screen showing a map of the area, and can pick a mission on that grid. Then you go to a screen where you can select your fighter. You start with an F-8 Crusader, but can upgrade to various other planes as your amount of money increases… so I guess that’s something from the manga they were able to translate to good effect without too much of the irony thing happening. You can buy other planes to fly, such as the F-14. Once you select your plane, you are taken to a screen where you can pick what secondary weapons you wish to equip. Go ahead- buy an F-14 and load it up with all sorts of insane things, then fly at real low speeds mopping up enemies. Pretend you’re flying the Turbokat. You choose your science-fiction fantasy, you’ll be living it every time you play this game based on a manga lauded for realistic depictions of air combat.

UN_Squadron-SNES-F-14-submarine

What did I tell you last time? I told you that an F-14 could only attack a sub on the surface. Here you are. An F-14 vs what looks mostly like a Soviet Delta-II class, borrowing the sail of an Ohio-class.

The missions don’t happen in a vacuum- while you are doing one, the enemy has units advancing elsewhere. So you might finish a mission to find that an enemy sub is shooting-up your base, or an enemy mercenary squad has finally reached  your base. Or you might take a million turns failing to fight off the enemy air force as it advances to your base until it finally arrives and becomes the only mission you can select.

That’s it really as far as I can tell. Just keep playing until there aren’t any more missions? I’ll never know.

Final Opinion

UN_Squadron-SNES-Fighter_Select

They gambled wrongly on the F-20 and YF-23, since between the two only 5 prototypes exist. The F200 is apparently based on a Clint Eastwood movie that I’ve wanted to see for decades but never got around to.

It’s not a budget title, it runs at around $25. As I recall for $15 more I was able to get arcade ports of R-Type I and II on the PlayStation. So… to me it didn’t have much to offer that differed it significantly from other games like this or that would make it more cost-effective to buy it over another side-scrolling shooter, but if you like the Area 88 series then I’d suggest this game over the other side-scrolling shooters.

UN_Squadron-SNES-Game_Over

Turn and Burn: No-Fly Zone (SNES, 1994), F-14 Tomcat (Game Boy Advance, 2001), and Super Hornet F/A-18F (Game Boy Advance, 2004) – Part of Tomcat Tuesday

Turn_And_Burn-F-14-titles

I wanted to do this in November, but then work and laziness mixed into a toxic smoothie. So here we go now for December. On Tuesdays, I will have a post about games featuring the venerable and maintenance-heavy F-14 Tomcat. Not because I’m an Iranian sympathizer, but because I grew up with them flying over my head.

It’s really the same game, but they changed the title. I guess because over the course of 7 years kids forgot what “Turn and Burn” meant. Or maybe it’s because Nintendo wanted to continue misleading the public on how its first set of GBA games were just retitled remakes, like release title Super Mario Advance. Seriously, 14 or more of the games released in its first seven months were just ports, slight remakes, or collections.

What Is This Game?

Turn_And_Burn-Night_landing

From the SNES version. I had a teacher once who told about two Air Force pilots that tried a night landing on an aircraft carrier, as seen depicted above. One was terrified, the other transferred to the Navy.

It’s a flight simulator. A fun one, I should add. I’ve played others that were terrible (like a virtual reality one that got waaaay to realistic in that you had to have a real-life manual to run the plane, and F-22 Raptor for the Sega Genesis which is kind of slow and clunky). You pretend you are piloting an F-14. For those who don’t remember, they were a very needy plane that Iran still uses, being the only country to use them that wasn’t the United States. We got rid of ours because at the time (2006) we didn’t need them. Now we do, or rather we need a ship that has the same range and speed as a Tomcat. But maybe without the expense or high maintenance needs.

Of course the military has been getting away with wasteful idiotic and likely corrupt projects (like the F-35, the Bradley, and body armor that doesn’t work) or at-one-time worthwhile projects that work but end up being done in the most asinine corrupt way possible (like the F-22, the C-5, and buying hammers and toilet seats), and politicking and fraudulent accusations of fraud between services and with contractors has been laughably dangerous for our national security, so we’ll probably get a proper replacement for the Tomcat exactly 10 years after the next war, and it will only be half as good as it needs to be.

Back In The Game

Turn_And_Burn-refueling

Refueling on the SNES version

You start each mission with a briefing telling you what you need to shoot down. Then you take off from USS America (which was retired 2 years after the game came out on the SNES. It looks like you still launch from her in the Game Boy Advance version despite this being 5 years after the carrier’s decommissioning, though when you takeoff the number is indecipherable and on the title screen it looks like the carrier is numbered with the rather unconventional “6E”). You’re in a first-person view all the way. When it shows the rear view of your character flying, that’s just looking through the rearview mirror. Yes, they had those.

Turn_And_Burn-F-14-dogfight

GBA on the left, and the SNES version with the bottom of the screen cropped by accident on the right.

While up in the air, you take on enemy planes, MiG-29s. This presents a problem in the GBA version as while the SNES keeps the enemy vague, on the GBA you are fighting China who never used the MiG-29. Later on, submarines appear on the map and send missiles at you- while you can use your countermeasures to get the missiles off your tail, you can’t do much about the subs, just like real F-14s which could only attack a sub if they could see it on the surface. Sometimes, you are given a special target, which basically ends up being you shooting at the ground. Let me explain: Mode 7 allows for certain effects, like how for landing on carriers in the game it looks like you’re flying at a blue wall with a picture of an aircraft carrier. Well, that dynamic is repeated when you attack a ground target (they just have you fly at a picture of the ground and shoot various points of interest on it) and when you attack a new surveillance plane (you just shoot sprites of propellers as you fly at the picture, also- I assume it’s either supposed to be a Yak-44 which never went into production and was probably classified at the time, or they just used an image of the American Hawkeye). I didn’t make it much farther than that into the game, but it’s probably safe to assume you have to do it to some other stuff too. I’m not criticizing the technique, I rather enjoy it.

The dogfighting in the game made me think of Star Fox 64. Maybe the visuals, cockpit view, and mechanics are why. Some instinct honed over years of playing that game and its 3DS remake told me “this is like that”. It seemed kind of fast-pace, I guess. Anyway, that’s entirely subjective, but I was impressed by the dogfighting and sensation of speed this game was able to provide.

You don’t have to dogfight, you can lock onto the enemy with one of three different types of missiles. Upon impact, in the little screen where your radar is, instead a small video clip from Top Gun plays that shows a plane getting hit by a missile. One possible clip is of an F-14 getting hit, the other possible clip is the one famously used by China where an F-5 is hit. This happens in both versions of the game.

I don’t know how it proceeds through the rest of the game since I didn’t bother getting far, but the first set of missions came as a group of four. Day, evening, night, sunrise. Kind of like Super Battletank.

Since I am but one person, I did not have a chance to sample the multiplayer modes.

Version Differences

Turn_And_Burn-F-14-takeoff

Here’s you taking off backwards on the GBA version (left) and taking off like it really works, on the SNES (right). This view also appears when you want to deploy electronic countermeasures to hit a missile tailing you.

Some bullet points:

  • Bullets are blue on the GBA but yellow on the SNES
  • GBA’s overall play field map does not show the whole area, unlike on the SNES.
  • On the GBA version you takeoff from the front of the carrier, but then when it flips to the rear view your plane is seen taking off from the back of the carrier (which is physically impossible).
  • GBA’s close-range radar screen is different
  • The GBA game pits you against China, while on the SNES the enemy was not named though assumed to be Middle Eastern since the manual says you are in the Mediterranean Sea.
  • Dogfighting was a lot harder on the GBA
  • Of the two difficulties, novice and ace, the GBA version makes novice even easier than on the SNES. It takes off and lands the jet for you on the GBA novice setting, and when all the MiGs are destroyed you are immediately teleported back to the carrier for the landing sequence. On the SNES, you controlled takeoff and landing, and you had to find the carrier yourself on the novice setting.
  • the multiplayer modes: for the SNES, your fellow player is your R.I.O. while on the GBA you instead deathmatch with up to three others.

I had some difficulty getting my copy to work. It might just be my copy, but it almost didn’t work on my DS lite and absolutely refused to work on my GameCube Game Boy Advance Player, this after the game had been cleaned.

Overall Impression

It’s a great budget title if you like flying fighters and dogfighting. Some bits of it reminded of Super Battletank and Super Battletank 2 (I mention this because the tactical map in that game is similar to the one here), probably because the same company made those games. The GBA and SNES versions both ran about $5 (I think the GBA version might’ve been cheaper).

Turn_And_Burn-shot_down

From the SNES version, after I got shot down

Addendum/Post Script/After The Fact/Super Hornet F/A-18F

Super_Hornet_F_A_18F-GBA-title_screen

Looks familiar, doesn’t it.

Super_Hornet_F_A_18F-GBA-carrier_takeoff

If it ain’t unplayably broke, don’t fix it… I guess…

Wow. This game is just… I knew Majesco was cheap, but damn! Basically, it’s the above two games but with an F/A-18 pasted over the F-14 stuff. It even does the same screwup that F-14 Tomcat does where you takeoff the carrier backwards. Instead of showing footage from Top Gun of exploding planes, to their credit they show different scenes. But otherwise, it is just a slight sprite update with some new terrain to fly over. Basically, it’s Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 to F-14/Turn And Burn’s Mortal Kombat 3. I had already completed the above post and was originally going to start a new post on this game, and set it for release in the new year, but it’s the same as the above two games so this seemed more appropriate. Plus, when F-14s weren’t flying over my head growing up it was F/A-18s (and when I went golfing the occasional EA-6 and E-2 flew by, and once an F-15 for some reason).

Super_Hornet_F_A_18F-GBA-combat

Apparently, I should be losing in a dogfight at this close range with a MiG-29, but I should have been able to shoot the MiGs down from farther away. Except you run out of missiles pretty quick, and have to land to reload in all the games. Y’know, instead of sending up multiple fighters to meet the threat.

The game’s story is at least different, you’re now going against Iraq. Iraq used MiG-29s so keeping them as the enemy isn’t a problem. But there is a problem when you fight submarines and destroyers. Iraq didn’t have destroyers in 2004, and never had submarines. So I guess this rules out Iraq being the adversary in Turn And Burn.

 

 

It’s Miller Time!

Stephen_Miller-Washington_Post

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.

Brains_Strauman-wwe

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.

Khrushchev-Remembers-Back-Cover

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.

Fairfax-Herring-Northam-USAToday

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.

VDARE

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.

 

CIS

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.

AmRen

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)

Planet_Of_The_Apes-tv_Show-Galen-famousfix

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 famousfix.com

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?

Nancy_Pelosi_2012-wikimedia

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

Elaine_Luria,_Official_Portrait,_116th_Congress-wikipedia

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.

Hanoi_Jane-patriotpost

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-wikimedia

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

Encyclopedia-Britannica-illustration-Spanish-Jew-Grand-Inquisitior

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.

Anti-Enlightenment

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.

Anti-Trump-Riots-AP_RWC_Fox_quora

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

 

Impeachment Hot Air

adam_schiff_cspan

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

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

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

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

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

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


Joe_Biden-creep-pjmedia

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

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

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

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

obama_stern-face

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

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

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

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

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

Deep-State-Robert-Mueller

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


616px-Kurt_Volker_U.S._State_Department

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

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

 


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


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


Mitt-Romney-CNN

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

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

 

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


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


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


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


Khrushchev-Remembers-Back-Cover

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

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

 

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Vince_McMahon-prowrestlingstories-Chris_Murphy-gstatic

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

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

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

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

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

Why The Furor?

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

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

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

October_15-Democratic-Debate-Heavy

Run.                        Image from Heavy.com

 

Wordtris (SNES, 1992)

Wordtris-SNES-Title_Screen

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

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

Wordtris-SNES-Children-Head_In_Lion_Mouth

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

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

Wordtris-SNES-Cow_Pig

The images can get a little Freudian.

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

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

Why Are There Clowns?

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

Wordtris-SNES-Mime_Thing

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

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

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

Wordtris-SNES-Score_Screen

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