It’s Solely and Singularly About Stopping Border Security


Their performance was so rigid and stoic that they might’ve been auditioning for Star Wars: Episode I. Or they’re planning on being in a Bee Gees music video. Image from NBC

Democrats have made it clear- the shutdown has nothing to do with federal workers. Even though Schumer and Pelosi based their response to President Trump’s warnings about rape and murder on telling us how bad off federal workers are (before Pelosi and Schumer’s  buddies went on vacation with lobbyists), their actions made it quite clear that they just don’t want border security. This goes beyond not wanting a wall, they don’t want border security period.

Let’s start by looking at the speech Schumer and Pelosi gave- it did not address Trump’s concerns about murder and rape except to dismiss them as part of a “manufactured crisis”. And they said all we need in the way of border security is money for future innovations. Trump’s idea is to build a wall right now that will do something, solid and tangible. Pelosi’s idea is: “give us money and we’ll give you something in the future assuming the government’s priorities don’t change”. Plus, she doesn’t tell us what future innovations she is talking about or when they’d be available, just that there will be some.


If this is what the gate around Schumer or Pelosi’s neighborhoods/homes looked like, you can bet there’d be hell to pay. Image from CNN

She talked about women and children at the border not being a threat, and the crisis being manufactured, yet Trump cited some very real murders and rapes, and the humanitarian crisis faced by the women and children who live long enough to reach the border. Pelosi says that’s all manufactured though, we just have a few thousand women and children at the border, no one is killed by the angels of MS-13, no one apparently dies trying to get to and across our wide open border. Pelosi also seemed more concerned about government workers than murder victims or even the women and children at the border. Schumer came off as a patronizing parent.

Let’s parse what Pelosi was talking about though. Funding for innovation that will solve the problem in the future. She does NOT want it to be solved right now with the border wall that her own party was demanding as recently as 2013. She is willing to keep the government closed because she does not want a solution right now (and Republicans in the Senate are happy to help).

As anyone who pays attention to government knows, when they say “just throw money at it” like Pelosi did, it’s because they want to pass some funds off to some friends while pretending they care about what’s happening. Look at Benghazi- Hillary Clinton said that if they had thrown money at the problem it wouldn’t have happened, only we later learn that money had nothing to do with it. Look at the VA scandal- it was the result of incompetent and probably sadistic employees, yet the Democrat response was that it just needed more money (Sen. Sanders’ first statement at this link, and the Pelosi and Obama clips previous are relevant because they boast of the money bundled by Democrats for the VA as if that mattered) and everything would be alright (VA usually had millions of unspent dollars at the end of each year). Not really, no. Look what happened after the IRS was caught wasting billions of dollars- the Democrats said just give them more money to waste and everything will be alright. Now look at Pelosi on the border- just give them more money for some vague objective with no solid delivery date and everything will be alright.


The Left’s immigration policy: anyone from an area that’s not light blue is allowed in. Image from

Now look at another Democrat talking point: they’ve wanted amnesty without a border, to the point where they wanted amnesty for illegals and limits only on LEGAL immigration… so basically, anyone who wants to be an American citizen and wants welfare, any of the 7 billion people on this planet that wants it, is entitled to it and should just walk across the border instead of trying to become a citizen. Democrats will need a lot more of your money than the mere bread crumbs that the tax cut gave, as Pelosi characterized them. Seriously, they tell you they want border security, they tell you that what they want is more money for some vague undefined future objective, and then they tell you that we should give amnesty to everyone coming in while half their party says a border is immoral. Is this too hard to follow? Do you need a neon sign pointing out what they’re really after? Obviously not, Democrats are smarter than the rest of the country, they tell us that, therefore by their own words and own boasts of intelligence we can solidly state that every Democrat is for open borders. The destruction of the United States. We’d just be a mass of land for anyone who wants welfare to come to that exists between Canada and Mexico, welfare at the expense of working-class slaves of all races (if anyone can come in, but only the natives are forced to work so that the others can live off welfare, and only the natives are bound by citizenship, what does citizenship become in that scenario other than the chains of slavery?).

And As For Federal Workers

Honestly, I have zero sympathy for most of them. ICE, Coast Guard, groups like that of course I feel sorry for and am horrified that they’re impacted so badly and think the shutdown is wrong to have done that, but I don’t give a damn about the rest of the federal workforce. For one thing- it’s bloated and corrupt, these are jobs that should not exist so why should I feel bad if people can’t work them? Another point- this federal workforce also happens to be heavily Democrat and thus also wants open borders, so I say let ’em suffer. Think about it: the federal workforce resides around DC. The areas around DC are the wealthiest parts of the country. All of the wealth ended up in the hands of the federal workforce (extending out to the contractors too). And you’ll notice that they routinely vote Democrat, so much so that the concentration of federal workers in the northern parts transformed Virginia from Republican to Democrat. Wealthy Democrat federal workers feeding off the taxpayers with jobs that are superfluous; wealthy Democrats who want open borders and don’t care about the carnage that results from that and devastation to the lower classes; why should I care what happens to them?

Democrats apparently are on the same page as me; they don’t really care about these workers except when it comes time to write more laws for us (a job they leave to this army of unelected bureaucrats). Republicans have tried to get some funding passed just to keep federal workers afloat during the shutdown, but Democrats shot down that measure (and I assume will shoot down the one coming up after this is published). Democrats told us to pity the poor workers, but refused to allow money to go to them. Democrats care more about stopping the wall, stopping border security as I established above, than they do about helping the poor helpless millionaire federal employees living in mansions that Pelosi in her speech told us we should pity.


So… much… wealth… Image from

Oh, by the way, as you’ll read here it’s not like Democrats aren’t perfectly happy to hold federal workers hostage to get what they want. That’s coming from Politico, a usually left-leaning source too! Since we can rule out the moans about federal workers as crocodile tears, what does that leave us with for Democrats’ true intention behind prolonging the shutdown? The wall, and only the wall. Maybe if the shutdown continues until Congress itself stops getting money, something will be done about-HAHAHAHAHA!!! Couldn’t even type that with a straight-face. Congressmen and Senators make 6-digit salaries per year. yet they mostly come out as millionaires. I doubt the shutdown would do much except shut down their summer homes. (An interesting note here is that women in Congress are wealthier than their male counterparts, despite their claims of inequality and the like)

Does Pelosi Speak For The Party?

We can say Nancy Pelosi is considered mainstream in the Democratic Party. She won speakership by a landslide and minority leader by a landslide 8 years ago. She’s routinely trotted out among other Democratic leaders. So her views must be in-line with the party’s thinking. Ok, let’s take a look at her views.

  • Hamas, the terrorist group best known for raining rockets down on Israeli civilians, is a humanitarian organization.
  • No one has been killed by MS-13 gang members. This is a manufactured crisis. That was her response to President Trump’s address to the country in which he outlined the many people hurt or killed by illegal immigrants/MS-13 members among them. Nancy Pelosi said it was a “manufactured crisis”, created in Trump’s head or wherever, and not reality at all.
  • MS-13 members who rape and murder are divine creatures, the highest forms, angels.
  • Republicans are scum worse than MS-13. Meaning half the country, in Pelosi’s eyes, are worse than MS-13. She never once said her opponents had a spark of divinity, she never demanded mercy on them. She defended rapists and murderers before she ever defended the half of the country that disagrees with her.
  • Despite her heartfelt and teary-eyed defense of rapists whom she defined as divine creatures, Pelosi claims to be a feminist, in fact she believes men should be removed from authority.

Do you hear any Democratic voices opposing these views? Nope. Right on down to the rank and file voter on the street, not a one of them has expressed opposition to any of this, at least openly or that I’ve seen, and at least 4 times a week I spend hours looking through this stuff. In fact, they voted for people who voted for her to be House Speaker, so clearly they think she’s right. What really doesn’t help the party’s case is that 74% of Democrats would vote for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as President, meaning 74% would vote for someone with views even more radical than Pelosi’s! So anyone saying that Democrats don’t believe the above or that I’m mischaracterizing the whole party based on their silence, just keep in mind that if 74% support someone more radical than Pelosi then it’s not a stretch to at the very least say 100% believe in the views she expresses, or believe those views are just a good starting point.

I have a question though…


I have another question- if Mexico is so bad that we have to accept refugees from there, so bad that we have to help all the poor people who want better lives coming from there, why do Mexicans and Hispanics want parts of the U.S. to be under Mexican control? If Mexico is such a bad place, why would they want this? And why do you keep saying it’s a bad place? Again, the only answer is that you just want their votes. Image from Pinterest

If it’s all about mercy for the illegals, why are we letting them die to come here? Why aren’t we fixing the problems that make them flee their country? Why are we forcing them on a death march, on a Trail of Tears, to reach safety? The only purpose that is served by forcing them to die to come here is to give Democrats votes and big businesses cheap labor to exploit. Even if we had open borders, these illegals would still need to travel through Mexico, with their tough border laws and strict immigration controls. Should we pay the Mexican government to escort any immigrants straight to our border? Well, why stop there? This is very classist of you- only the immigrants who can afford to come here via cartel caravans are welcome? Why aren’t we sending buses down to remove anyone who wants to come here? If it’s all about compassion and equality, why don’t we empty a few cruise ships and start transferring these populations into this country? Do you want women to be raped and children to die? Do you want that just so you can claim to be tough on the border but soft at heart, while gaining votes of those who manage to live long enough to reach this country?

If it’s all about compassion, then instead of death marches to our border just so the survivors can be raped and tortured before being allowed in, wouldn’t you just call up the Navy, have them dock ships in each South American country that has people who want to come here, load them up, then take them back to the U.S. safely? If we can shave $21 Trillion from the Pentagon’s budget as Ocasio-Cortez says, surely some of that can be used to fund the transfer of immigrants into our cities.

And why should our compassion stop there? These people are poor and uneducated, and unhealthy. They need free education, free medical care, free meals, and free housing. As it is, we make them get raped and risk dying just to come here, but then throw them out on the streets or give them some meager slice of welfare when they arrive? How is that compassionate? And so much is in English, these people with such poor uneducated backgrounds can’t be expected to learn our language, so we must learn theirs. We must make them feel welcome, adopt their customs. Afterall, they’re the ones who need help, right? You want to be compassionate and helpful, don’t you?

Or maybe you’d like to help by stopping the cartels. Legalize drugs! That will do it, they will no longer have any reason to smuggle anything, just like how with tobacco being legal Eric Gardner obviously was not illegally selling cigarettes and his life was never in danger and he’s still alive today because legalization totally solves all drug-smuggling-related crimes. And with their cash cow now legal, cartels will become peaceful. Or they’ll find something else to smuggle, like guns into gun-free zones. So should you legalize guns then too? Legalize everything!

Everything like new citizens, for example. The argument made in that link is that countries will send their best, that open borders works in Europe. It’s a false comparison. These countries are deliberately encouraging their worst and worst-off to come here, much like Cuba did in 1980 except with a wink and a nod instead of an order. Seriously, why would they want to be encouraging their BEST to leave? “Oh, you have an idea that will boost the economy? Go ahead and leave and never come back!” Yeah, that’s so believable. And the author of that piece destroys his own argument about improving the economy- he says they’ll send their best and their best will stay and improve this country, but then also says that these very same “best” will only stay a few years before leaving. And, pray tell,  if we’re not getting a country’s best and brightest right now as you imply, why would we expect to suddenly get them later? These people are all refugees anyway, remember Mr. Author? Why would they want to return to crime and poverty and possible death?


And why would we expect a bunch of people waving “brown pride” banners to help white America? Fun fact: Mexico is horribly racist. So doesn’t that mean people who want to Make America Mexico Again are racists too, for wanting to put more people under that racist influence? Why do all these clearly brown people want to return parts of America to their white Mexican overlords? Image From The Yucan Times

Why would we expect the train of their worst and worst-off to suddenly stop? If we have open borders we’ll suddenly get all the Einsteins and all the moochers will stop coming in? They don’t come here for the education; they come here because welfare and even prison are better than what they’re leaving behind! If we open our borders, the only thing we’ll be getting more of are the people too poor to pay off the cartels to smuggle them across. We get  thousands every time the border looks weak, why the hell would that idiot author argue that no border would LESSEN the flow?

Welfare is what draws them here; welfare, safety, and the easy-to-get low-paying jobs that are both opportunities much better than any in their countries of origin. If they’re doing fine in their countries, they have no reason to leave even though the best and brightest would be the ones who had the money to pay the cartels to smuggle them here. And how does an open borders policy discourage people from coming here for the above reasons?

Hey workers who think the open borders crowd are protecting your jobs, remember that $15 minimum wage you want? With the open borders crowd that you’re voting for, you’re going to have a bunch of non-citizens taking your job, and more than willing to do it for cheaper than $15. You were warned of wage suppression by Obama himself. Don’t you just love how you’re supposed to have work experience from summer jobs or part-time employment to make yourself competitive when applying to other positions? Well too freakin’ bad, those jobs will be taken by the guys pouring across the border. High Schooler looking for a summer job to pay for your first car? Forget it. College student needing part-time work to help pay for your education? Those jobs are gone too! Low-skill factory worker? Gone. Oh, and don’t think your white collar self will be unaffected- you’ll need to learn Spanish pretty quick to even buy groceries. And if a bunch of Hispanic politicians, fueled by votes from the newcomers, who believe it is immoral for billionaires to exist come into power and decide they want to take your money because welfare just isn’t enough, well… don’t say I didn’t warn you Mr. Open Borders.


Yes Mr. CATO, the people who support the ideals in this sign totally would be a boost to America’s economy and totally help America as a country. I might actually agree- if they solely reclaimed California and the liberals stayed put. Image from Flickr

The psycho behind the opinion piece above turns out to be a libertarian at the CATO Institute. I remember 5 years ago when they used to be a little more attached to reality. Boy, times change! I guess in his little bubble of rich lobbyists and opinion-leaders who’ve never actually seen a border except when looking at a map, he’s never had to contend with logic or common sense. I wonder if he’ll be feeling the same way if he gets his wish and his taxes jump through the roof to pay for the new arrivals? By the way Mr. CATO Psycho- Mexicans in here legally send home hefty amounts of their paychecks. You think they’d stop doing that if we had open borders? You think Mexico wouldn’t incentivize people to come to America and send money back home? Have you even met another human before? Do you not understand how this species works?

Let’s apply common sense here. The open borders crowd tend to be liberals, right? Ok, here’s an example of human nature that everyone agrees on. If it weren’t for laws stopping them, humans would exploit mother earth until it was a barren, smog-covered disaster. Right? Why is that the case for the world, but NOT the case for the U.S.? Immigration laws would be like environmental laws in this situation- they stop people from exploiting the resources past the point of depletion. If you believe we need environmental laws to keep humans from exploiting the planet beyond its ability to handle, why wouldn’t we also need laws to prevent humans from exploiting a country beyond its ability to handle? Why are humans so evil in one situation and yet have a spark of divinity in the other?

It’s About The Latino Vote

This is the reason we are having this garbage, and the shutdown, stuffed down our throats. Importing voters. Didn’t I mention that last time? Well, a leftwinger at The Atlantic agrees with me. Democrats are fighting for the Latino vote, fighting to ensure that the 11 million illegals become 11 million Democrats (they have been saying there are 11 million illegals here since at least 2006, it is impossible that number has not grown). Fighting to ensure that this never-ending spring of new Democrats doesn’t dry up, at least until every election is won by Democrats. Democrats have made it legal for illegals to vote in elections since 2008 at least, and have done much more since then to advance these non-citizen voting rights. Even way back in 2006, estimates of non-citizen voters topped 2 million. With Democrat governors happily restoring voting rights to rapists and murderers (notice in the first one how Democrat McAuliffe said that rapists can actually have paid for raping women, something I’m sure feminists like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D) who believes all men are guilty merely if accused would agree with), why wouldn’t they also let people who entered the country illegally vote as well?

Some Cleanup


According to liberals, these are women and children fleeing a country they hate and are afraid to stay in (I guess they wave the flag as a symbol of what they hate?) Image from Reuters

I have nothing against the illegal immigrants that are just coming here to suck our welfare system dry or suppress wages by providing cheap labor. They see an opportunity and they take it, and it’s on us for letting them do it. It’s also on us for letting their community leaders turn them into anti-White, anti-American pigs that are happy to steal our resources while demanding more and saying that anyone who refuses is racist. They sit there and say Mexico is great, wave the Mexican flag, saying “Make America Mexico Again”, all while profiting off American history and American money. And more come in to be transformed from desperate and destitute to activist. And then there’s the guys whom the Left tells us are helpless women and children refugees, who we see in pictures as being a bunch of men proudly waving the flags of the countries they’re supposedly fleeing in terror. Running with Ocasio-Cortez’s comparison, I wonder how many Jews proudly were waving the Nazi flag when fleeing that country.


Sometimes You Just Feel Like Shutting Down


Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on a Puerto Rican beach during the shutdown. Image from Twitchy

Isn’t this a lovely sight: Democrats are partying with lobbyists on Puerto Rican beaches while the government has been shutdown, while federal workers are literally out in the cold as DC becomes snowbound; those same Democrats refused an invitation to negotiate with Trump to help federal workers pay their heating bills, but did not refuse a vacation to a sunny, warm paradise with their billionaire buddies.


What is this thing that Democrats are so obstinate about? A border wall, the same wall in fact that they supported in 2013. So… in 6 years, Democrats went from supporting a border wall to help our poorest citizens as Obama himself said stemming the tide of illegal immigration would do (Obama said that illegal immigrants hurt our poorest by deflating wages and straining social services, ergo stopping illegal immigration would help our poorest), to vacationing on a beach while government employees freeze because Democrats refuse to fund that wall they once wanted.

No, Trump Is The Problem! (Really?)

Democrats like Sen. Mark Warner keep saying the shutdown shows that Trump is a bad negotiator. That’s not really true. A negotiation is where both parties want something and find common ground to achieve it. You can’t have a negotiation if there is no common ground. Senator Warner himself stated that they can’t let Trump “get what he wants”. So Warner said Trump is a bad negotiator, but then says Democrats cannot let Trump get what he wants. “You’re a bad negotiator because my goal is to make sure you don’t succeed.”


Walls totally don’t work. Just ask residents of Berlin between 1961 and 1989. Image from USC

And Democrats have a lot to lose if Trump gets his border security. Democrats depend on the influx of illegal immigrants for their party’s future- 2/3 of them will vote Democrat, or with a wink and a nod we’ll just say 2/3 of their anchor babies and legalized ranks will vote Democrat. They will, as Obama pointed out, become dependent on our government for survival and strain our social safety nets, so they’ll vote Democrat to keep the money coming in. Hard to blame them- live in poverty in their home country or live off the American government for free or by working less than you ever did at home. Sweet deal.

But this means Democrats have staked their survival on open borders (remember: to them, an illegal immigrant is the same as a legal immigrant, if you oppose one then according to Democrats you oppose the other and are racist. As you can see by this headline, illegal and legal immigration are one in the same, the very definition of open borders), so approving any forms of effective border security would be party suicide. Plus they have to worry about losing the open-borders far Left millennial voters, the ones who think a border is racist. Which means Democrats can’t negotiate with Trump, in fact this is not a negotiation at all. To Democrats, it’s Trump pointing a gun at their head and saying “if you don’t kill yourself then I will”. The political version of one of those traps in Saw (a film that I never… saw. HAAAAAAAA!).

And What About The Republican Majority?

We all know Republicans are gutless. Look at how things work with them. Rep. Steve King says something that seems to support white supremacists (I believe his explanation, mostly because I believe that the New York Times would not report what he said correctly if they thought they could get away with it- they’ve done it before. So good job NYT, I might’ve believed you except you lied too many times already, maybe your next article should be on the gender-neutral-young-human-identifying being who cried wolf… oh wait, I’d better check my privilege. Calling it a “being” assumes it exists, and that is an exercise of my being-privilege to just assume something exists or identifies as existing.), and they move to oust him. How many times was Maxine Waters penalized for calling on mobs to swarm government officials (in the midst of threats against Republicans that were legitimate enough to lead to arrests) so that in effect we’d have a shutdown where everyone was paid? Every Democrat who’s called for violence? What about the anti-Semitic Democrat Congressmen? What about the Congressmen tied to Farrakhan (Maxine Waters appears here again- so she’s called for mobs to swarm government officials and supported anti-Semite Farrakhan, and has continuously praised the LA Riots where at least 32 of the 50 killed were minorities, 16 of them black, yet she has not been disciplined once by either party)? What about the Congressmen who insist old white men are unfit for any office


Come on Huffington Post, everything about her is a joke, let us have our fun! Image from Daily Caller

(and shouldn’t Ocasio-Cortez be ordered to condemn the Democratic-Socialist group she belongs to for their remarks about that… and yes HuffPost, I am obsessed with her, because A: I’m about the same age and have done nothing with my life B: you put her on the financial services committee despite her view that the Pentagon somehow in 17 years wastes more money that it has ever been given in history, and Cortez claimed that collecting this alleged 21 Trillion worth of waste over the next 17 years would give her program 21 Trillion over the next 10 years. C: you said she is the future of your party which makes her a nice, singular personification to target, rather than the party as a whole because it’s always more relatable if you can put a face to a group D: she said she doesn’t have to have the right facts so long as she is morally correct, except if you don’t know the truth of what’s going on how can you be morally correct about it? and E: if I were to build a stereotype of a clueless bubble-brained millennial from the ground up it would look like her, and your side voted my laughable contrivance into office and take her seriously)? Why are none of them punished?

Do you really think those same gutless plague-sores desperate to hold onto their own tiny bit of power are going to fight the Democrats? They refused to do that even when they had all of Congress and the Presidency! Trump was the only one pushing the agenda.


Really, it’s Republicans in the Senate who are to blame. The House passed a bill giving Trump everything he wanted right before the government shutdown began. Why, if the shutdown is so bad and is entirely to blame on Democrats, won’t the blasted Senate Republicans invoke the nuclear option and pass the damn thing? We know the Democrats would do it, they were the first ones to invoke the nuclear option. It’s good enough for Republicans to use on Kavanaugh, but not on the border and funding?

Is It All Trump’s Doing?

If this is a PR move by Trump, it’s failing. The media would never tell the story straight on this. Even the image of Democrats partying on the beach while winter weather freezes unpaid federal workers kicked out of their homes won’t work… mostly because it will never be shown in that light, the Left will blame Trump and probably just show footage of Democrats who stayed behind or something. The media spin is ridiculous really, we saw CNN refuse to interview local news stations reporting on how real the


Nope, illegal immigrants are angels, angel families are liars, there’s no problem. Image from CNN

border crisis is, instead sending Jim Acosta down to stand in front of a border wall and tell us we don’t need funding for more walls because everything is secure… because of that wall behind him which his network said was ineffective, but which he’s now using to support their argument of ending the shutdown (of course the border isn’t at all secure, someone wearing an Osama Bin Laden costume repeatedly crossed it). And then we have CNN’s resident RINO Ana Navarro filing her nails while someone talks about people murdered by illegal aliens. That image right there describes the media’s view on the situation- you don’t matter, they won’t listen to you, and so what if someone kills you. The life of the Democratic Party matters more than your life.


Jim Acosta pointing out how effective the ineffective wall is, image from CNN

Besides, anyone educated knows it’s Republicans in the Senate who are really holding up funding for the government, as I said with their majority they could ram a bill through no problem. Democrats certainly would if they could. The worst that’s come out of this for Democrats is that some Democrats had to come out in favor in part of building a wall, but then their party refuses to fund a wall, saying it is ineffective and immoral, while simultaneously funding “ineffective” and “immoral” walls in other countries. And let’s not forget what I mentioned earlier of Jim Acosta standing in front of an immoral and ineffective wall to say that the border is secure. Democrats are used to this kind of doublethink though, I’ve made that clear enough in previous posts, so seeing it exposed now won’t hurt anyone’s reputation.

I say Republicans should ram through the bill and quit with the stunt. Sure they have the great image of sunbathing Dems while government workers die of frostbite, the great image of liberals nonchalantly filing their nails while hearing about all the people killed by illegal immigrants, totally dismissing the victims and ignoring reports about them, but no one who’d be impacted by these images would actually SEE it. CNN’s viewers agree that victims have no rights if they approve of the criminal (alleged or otherwise). Democrats will never learn of their leadership’s beach-going, or even if they did by accidentally looking at Fox News they’ll fight to justify it and try to bury it as a non-issue.


So Cowardly?

Well… only because this shutdown reflects badly on Republicans in the Senate; as I said, they could end it quite easily with the border wall bill that was sent to them before the House flipped Democrat. But this gets lost in the weeds, and the shutdown is characterized on both sides as either being Trump going crazy again or Democrats not caring about the public. If the media does pickup on this line of thought, then that could lead to voters being fed-up with Republicans being ineffective on border security, breaking their promise to act even though they clearly could. They lose voters, and the Senate flips Democrat, and then we are guaranteed to never have a border again because Democrats dream of open borders (and yes, Politifact tried to claim that Hillary didn’t want open borders, but even if she was talking about an energy grid crossing countries as she claims how does that even work without open borders, without each country being subject to another’s laws?).

Positive Spin?

It is worth noting that we saw no polling data on the President’s shutdown speech from last week. If the public disagreed, we’d have seen the polling data. The media takes polls every time Trump sits down for a meal, so of course they’d poll his shutdown speech. The fact that we never heard about the results indicate that the public was probably in support of him. Remember: just in the past week, as I said above, CNN refused to interview local news stations and instead sent Jim Acosta down to talk about the border- the local reporters would have said the exact opposite of what Acosta said. CNN outright lied to the public. Why do you think they and the rest of their Democratic colleagues in journalism, as outlined below, wouldn’t report on a poll favorable to Trump?


Most “Mainstream Media” Outlets colluded with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Election

Happy Holidays From The Media


Strangely, the Left’s theology parallels Christianity quite closely. Just like in the Bible there were many false antiChrists before, but Trump is clearly the real deal after his conversation with a 7-year-old. Image from

The media went insane when President Trump asked a child if she still believed in Santa. They tried to claim he basically told her Santa did not exist. The child’s parents on the other hand thought the phone call was awesome, and the child herself was positively exuberant.

I have a question for liberals- you spend your time selling atheism, except where Mohammed and astrology and Scientology are concerned. You spend your time attacking Christianity. You tell us we should only believe in your logic and your facts, that you don’t have any bias. (But from Kindergarten onward you try and destroy belief in scientific facts like how everyone except rare genetic freaks have either an XY or XX chromosome that determines their biological gender.) Yet, here you are, the masters of science and atheism, dedicated to destroying Christianity, trying to say Trump is pure evil for possibly hurting a child’s belief in Santa?


The only media personality so far who I can safely say wouldn’t mind burning “Year Without A Santa Claus”. Image from that production, all rights to whoever holds them.

What Trump said was this: that there aren’t many 7-year-olds who believe in Santa. That’s it. He didn’t say “there is no Santa”. He said few believe. That’s a freakin’ theme from “Year Without A Santa Clause”! Are Rankin and Bass now the modern equivalent of heretics like Baron d’Holbach? Will we see one of these journalists attacking Trump burn a copy of “Year Without A Santa Clause” on national TV?


As for that idiot from The Hill who said what Trump did was worse than Obama’s “happy holidays” and that the right should be outraged, I’ll take this time to say that such an idiot ought to be canned on the spot for making so blatant of a false equivalence. Trump just noted few 7-year-olds believe in Santa. That’s it. Yet that’s equivalent to banning Christmas in the eyes of this reporter from The Hill. Which leads question to the man’s journalistic abilities. If two disparate things are so comparable to him, then shouldn’t that raise questions about his ability for accurate reporting, given this gross inaccuracy? And if he is ever on deck for promotion to editor, shouldn’t this raise questions about what he would think a good story to cover is? The man has all the good judgment of the stereotypical drunk mall Santa.

The Left gives awards to anti-Christian bigots, the Left teaches atheism in schools except when it needs to refer to Mohammed’s teachings as the “revealed word of God”, the Left creates pro-atheist media, the Left works to convince every level of society that there is no God, yet they attack Trump for saying that most 7-year-olds don’t believe in Santa.

So… What Is Their Theology?

Let’s take a look- Mohammed is ok, Buddha is ok (don’t want to offend anyone!), Satan is ok, human sacrifices are ok, but God and Jesus are either pure evil responsible for everything wrong in the world or simply never existed to begin with. When someone expresses a Christian belief they should be burned at the stake as a heretic (if they’re not faking it like Obama (Obama was part of Wright’s church for a LONG time and visited Wright “countless” times, but none of this came up? Might as well say Hillary made a speech and the question of payments didn’t come up)), kicked out of public life, have their company razed to the ground and the earth under it salted, but if a child professes a belief in Santa then we can’t even say that other kids their age don’t believe. Just like we can’t say anything bad about Islam, Mohammed, or anything related.


The only star that should be on top of your Christmas Tree. The “C” is for “Christmas”. Image from Wikimedia

The pattern taking shape here isn’t that the Left has a coherent theology, but rather that it’s just a mass of hatred against Christians and various other enemies, that if they ever use Biblical terms it’s to glorify their mortal selves. How many atheists do you see protesting mosques? How many atheists do you see protesting Muslim monuments on public land? How many atheists do you see complaining about how Muslim bakers won’t make cakes for gay weddings? How many atheist comedians make jokes about Islam? Well, we know the answer to that last one- just read the obituaries. As for comedians who make fun of Christians, that answer is also easy- look at who the ones with the most awards are. Get the picture?


Remember- the people gathered at the DNC in 2012 desperately wanted references to God removed from the party platform. And these same people are complaining that Trump told a kid that other kids don’t believe in Santa.

For those who are still not getting it, take a look at this statistic: your side of the aisle is trying to tell 70.6% of the U.S. population- men, women, AND children- that their God does not exist or is evil. Then your side of the aisle screams as loudly as it can that Trump is evil for trying to exterminate a child’s belief in Santa. There is absolutely no way you can claim this isn’t hypocritical of your side, at least not in a way that isn’t as fictional as Santa Claus or the man-made global warming apocalypses that your side told us should have happened many times in the past 30 years (Dan Rather tried to jab at Trump over his disbelief in global warming related to disbelief in Santa- this serves as my rebuttal to the old disgraced sham of a human being).

So I ask you, proud defender of the Left- is the really the group you want to belong to? The group that does not believe Christians are fit to serve in our courts? I’m especially asking that alleged 59% participating in the destruction of your own religion (the Democratic Party that you belong to has defended Santa and Satan while attacking God and Jesus)? Can’t you just go independent- not Bernie Sanders or Angus King ‘independent’ where you vote Democrat more times than you inhale in the average year. Because every vote for a Democrat is a vote for this hypocrisy. Sure, statistically you think Christianity and Islam (and Buddhism) are equally as violent, with 10% believing that Buddhism is more violent than Islam, and 9% believing Muslims in America are treated worse than Middle-Eastern Christians facing genocide but… oh. Well, could you at least vote for people who do a better job of not looking so stupid when they reveal their hypocrisy? It’s as embarrassing to me having them as political leaders as it must be for you to have Trump as President!


We need to have a little talk about something called “optics“. Image from Daily Caller/Shutterstock

Grinches Stealing Christmas And Elections

Grinch-animation-magazineA.O.B. First

I’ll open with an update for last week’s post: the day after it went up, probably later the same day, I learned that the same Democrats who were all for invading Libya and running away while anarchy filled the vacuum of power are attacking President Trump for leaving Syria. Moreover, they can’t get their message straight with hardened Lefty anti-Trump ideologue Chris Matthews actually taking Trump’s side. It’s weird to see Matthews side with Trump against Republicans and the Democratic establishment, but there you go.

Onward And Backward

Russian Bots! Russian Bots! Russian Bots! The whole thing is rigged, except when Democrats win. But Russia and as you’ll read soon are apparently the only groups that have now or ever tried to rig elections in this country.

No one will believe some of the midterm races anymore than Democrats believe Trump won fair and square. Even Democrats are now admitting voter fraud is possible, when before we had an ironclad foolproof supersystem that was impossible for anyone to abuse (except Russian hackers) according to them. They told us that all attempts at Voter ID laws, purging dead people and people who don’t vote from voter rolls, and attempts to curb voter fraud were unnecessary. Worse still, Democrats invented nefarious motives for voter laws- racism. The claim from Democrats was that since minorities have no form of I.D. and are so ignorant that they were incapable of obtaining them, stronger voting protections would oppress these groups.

But Democrats have changed their tune, once they found an incident they could pin on Republicans. Apparently someone in North Carolina for an utterly irrelevant Congressional seat decided to screw around (no offense to folks in that area, it’s just that I don’t understand why Republicans would participate in fraud for such a small gain given the losses they had, better to lose but keep your dignity right? It’s not like a major Congressional leader was going to be ousted or this was the district that’d determine control of the House). An outside contractor decided to collect absentee ballots, and a few of them went missing. It just happens that collecting them was illegal and this contractor was tied pretty well to the Republicans. There were also fraudulent activity that the Democratic candidate himself reported. Well, silver lining, at least Democrats now acknowledge voter fraud happens. They might re-do the election, but that won’t be decided until January.

Down 95 A Ways

Failed liberal Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is trying to say that their must be fraud because she lost.


Stacey Abrams, image from the Weekly Standard

She made an interesting point, yet Democrats fought tooth and claw against any reform efforts. As established above, these are all racist and evil. She also mentions the “handwriting police”. So I guess if someone made an X voting in my name, Abrams wants there to be nothing stopping that vote for counting. Speaking of which, my vote was not counted. Oh I mailed it in plenty of time, but they claim they received it 3 days too late. Maybe Democrats in my home state suppressed my vote? Abrams certainly would agree if my vote had been for Democrats, and I’m sure the liberal gubernatorial candidate in Florida who says every vote must count would have said the same thing for my vote had it been for a Democrat.

Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown said it best- if Democrats lose then Republicans stole the election, meaning there is no legitimate way Republicans win any elections.

At The Bottom Of 95

I’m sure you’ve heard by now about Florida, mostly since I wrote about it. In summary: an election board member with a court-ruling against her about her inability to handle voting in a situation where her alleged incompetence helped an establishment Democrat win is found to have messed up again. Ballots mishandled, probably illegally, and of course magically appearing like an early Christmas miracle with the results pushing the Democrat closer to victory. We have a witness saying Democrats were altering ballots. Nothing suspicious there, but the Left went nuts over North Carolina while being dismissive of Florida.


While searching for data on this topic, I found a point I’d like to address. Let me just point out that the “Intelligencer” is lacking in its titular boast, chiding Republicans for spinning a poor election showing when that’s everything NYMag has ever done for Democratic races. I assure you, reading gossip columns like New York Magazine does NOT lead to more intelligence, except perhaps better reading skills and a broadened vocabulary.


I believe everything New York Magazine says.

At the link above you’ll notice that liberal NYMag is accusing Republicans of inventing fake voter fraud to cover election losses in California. Republicans already have a snowball’s chance in South Town of winning an election in California outside a handful of bizarre districts, so why the NYMag turns keeping California into a boast about how great Democrats did is a little beyond my intelligence. NYMag attacks in particular a line from a Republican party official about it being fishy that their candidate lost despite a 14-point lead (according to polling on election day). Democrats believe that Russia literally changed the vote count to let Trump win and absolutely believe his win was not above-board, in part because Hillary was always up in the polls, so surely NYMag can understand the shoe being on the other foot, if their “Intelligencer” section were to live up to the title.

As to suspicions of voter fraud in California and the characterization that Republicans just want to make voting as hard a possible for people, there’s a good reason for that. They’re letting illegal immigrants vote in elections, legitimately, brazenly and openly. As opposed to their methods of letting illegals vote wherein they simply issue them driver’s licenses and pretend that those aren’t used to obtain ballots. There’s a 46% chance that anyone who professes that the system is safe is someone who already believes illegals should be allowed to vote (and a 100% chance that someone in that other 54% would believe the people professing it to be safe), so you can’t really believe it anymore than you could believe a wolf with bloody feathers covering it when it says all your chickens are safe

Historical Context

Stealing elections is nothing new for Democrats. Because variety is the spice of life, let’s go to bullet points:

  • Boss Tweed. Democrat notorious for voter fraud in the 19th century.
  • Democrat Lyndon Johnson won in Texas, in alphabetical order even!
  • And no, the alleged migration of the 60s where the Left alleges all the racists and presumably vote-riggers left the party didn’t purge the Democrats’ pure ranks of this disease: disgraced sexual harasser Al Franken won his Senate seat in the first place because of 312 fraudulent votes (over a thousand felons voted when they should not have, and thanks to Minnesota law they could just claim they didn’t know any better and avoid prosecution, much like I’d imagine San Francisco’s standards for illegals voting would be).

Sure seems to me like voter fraud happens. Let’s look at suppression and intimidation now, since they allege that is what Republicans want to do.

  • Democrats passed laws banning interracial marriages and creating segregation in the late 1800s, and also not an insignificant number of laws stopping blacks from voting. This was after Democrats fought a war to keep slavery intact (among other things, a bone for those who have read Jefferson Davis’ book “A Short History of the Confederate States of America” and think Lincoln/the Union were jerks) which as you can imagine suppressed the democratic process among the African-American population.
  • The 1900s weren’t any better in the Democrat-controlled Deep South.
  • The Ku Klux Klan gets its own mention here- it was a group of Democrats (née Confederates) created to stop blacks from having rights, such as the right to vote. It came back in the 1910s in-part to do the same, with a highly praised (allegedly from Democrat, segregationist, and MODERN Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson) pro-KKK propaganda film inspiring the resurgence’s founder.

A bit more contemporary, after the alleged party switch I like mentioning never happened (also, why would it not have happened earlier, since even though Democrats were suppressing black voters we saw the black community voting heavily Democrat for 20 years before the alleged switch), we have:

  • Huffington Post talks about Democrats suppressing their own voters in 2016
  • CNN admits that Democrats are more than happy to engage in voter suppression, right now as you read this, two years after the alleged “Russian hacking”, wherein we are told Russia essentially did the job of a journalist in lieu of the “real” journalists (who were and are basically unpaid advertisers for the DNC, something else the emails showed) by exposing to the public how the Democrats rigged the system.
  • Black Panthers intimidating voters (DOJ dropped it because they didn’t want to sue black people, as they phrased it, Federal Court found Obama appointees messed with it, Obama himself knew the defendants’ leadership and probably had one in the White House). And the Black Panthers did not stop.

So they went from oppressing physical minorities to oppressing ideological minorities… and any physical/sexual minorities that disagree with them.

From The Other Side


He looks creepy. Image from wikimedia commons

Ever read what Democratic Representative John Yarmuth (KY) proposed? He wanted the government to be able to pick the candidates. His proposition was that the only funding for any federal-level campaigns (House, Senate, President) would come from the government. That means the government would pick who gets to run, and who doesn’t. If you can’t steal the votes, steal the candidate. In Khrushchev Remembers, we learned from him that the Soviets had a system very much like this, where the NKVD (the secret police who had a sloped basement so they could easily hose off the blood from the people they shot) always had pre-approved the candidates running for leadership positions.

And if you can’t steal the candidate, steal the district. I of course mean gerrymandering. Democrats routinely badger Republicans over doing this, but in Maryland we have Democrats going to the Supreme Court to defend THEIR gerrymandering practices.

What Else Do These Election-Stealing Grinches Want?

Christmas. Duh. Our sticky-bandit friends on the Left aren’t content with taking elections for themselves, it seems they want to take holidays from the Christian community.  We can’t even say “Merry Christmas”, because that is a “racist dog whistle”. Obviously the only things they want celebrated are Democratic victories. Don’t worry, they’re not going to touch other religions… yet.

Merry Melodies

Baby It’s Cold Outsideit’s just some guy saying he likes the girl and wants her to stay. Based on the backlash that allegedly represents the feelings of all women, women don’t want men to express any kind of positive emotion towards them, so here’s what the lyrics should read: “Lady just go outside!”. I won’t lend you a coat, and it’s freezing out there. Sorry, but if I gave you a coat you might accuse me of trying to put a straight-jacket over you so that I could rape you.

So I guess the moral of this uproar is: if you like a girl and want to convince her to stay at your house longer because you’re both having a good time, don’t. Because that’s rape. I assume if women don’t want to hear anything positive about them, don’t want to hear that a man likes there company, don’t want to hear a man beg them to stay, then women must either want to hear nothing, want nothing to do with men, or want to hear only something negative.

I think the negative, because they are doing everything they can to anger men. It’s no wonder homosexuality is on the rise– women don’t want to even see a man let alone talk with one.


An aging feminist showing support on World Hijab Day. CNN thinks it’s good to encourage women to cover up. Image from wikimedia commons

What I like is this: these #MeToo women who think it’s rape when a man accidentally glances in their direction, they grow up to be alone and unfulfilled, and are miserable later in life unless they happen to be lesbians, trans, or find one of the increasing numbers of woke emasculated Pajama Boys. There aren’t that many men like that… yet, but with schools weakening male students and neutralizing male kids with drugs this seems to be the wave of the future (which isn’t much of a future, because sciencey things like space exploration are signs of toxic masculinity, and science is sexist.).

But the present lonely old spinsters blame the patriarchy for their bitter golden years, and so start organizing younger activists to start the same sad cycle all over again. I guess it’s good that such women don’t have kids- keeps their genes from passing on, so less people will be genetically programmed to be receptive to their hate-based ideology.

On The Chopping Block

  • White Christmas. You can probably guess why this one is a problem. Sorry folks, no snow days for you. Snow is racist.
  • Jingle Bells.
  • Do They Know It’s Christmas? Not exactly a traditional one, but I like how some Lefty celebs decided to do something charitable, and now end up on the wrong side of the PC Police’s nightstick for raising money to help. And let’s face it- despite the BBC’s spin, there isn’t a part of Africa that isn’t going under.

Broadcasting Their Hate

Charlie Brown is on the chopping block over his Thanksgiving debacle, so I can imagine that his Christmas special isn’t that far off from being banned. Then we come to the most famous reindeer of them all. Only liberals (except The View for once) could take an anti-bullying Christmas PSA and decide that it’s actually telling you to bully. Huffington Post was ground zero for this PC bomb. The point of the story is that bigots learn their lessons not to be bigoted. So maybe


Farrakhan was totally a cool guy, but Rudolph is a little punk! Image from talkingpointsmemo.

HuffPost’s problem is that it shows bigots aren’t beyond redemption. If bigots could learn their lesson, doesn’t that mean they’re not all deplorable and not beyond redemption as Hillary Clinton opined and the Left agreed? Once a bigot, always a bigot, stained for life. But only if the Left dislikes you. Folks like Sen. Robert Byrd (Democrat, Hillary’s mentor) get a free pass of course. And people like Louis Farrakhan, while bigoted, are bigoted against the right kind of people.

Personally, I think it has more to do with their egos. They have to be the civil rights leaders, they want to be the ones in the history books. Thus nothing good could have come before them. Those nice words about equality for the founding of the country, followed by various amendments to ensure it? Forget about them. Racist sexist slaveholders. Martin Luther King jr? LGBTQ/Feminist-exclusive, so strike his name from your buildings.

Your Candy Too

Candy canes look like the letter “J”, “J” stands for “Jesus”, therefore Candy Canes should be banned. And they were. The logic is incredible.

Crumbs Too Small For A Mouse

Remember that tax reform bill that gave us on average $1000? Our incoming House Majority Leader said these dollars were crumbs, and much like the Grinch she and her colleagues are coming to take them away. Maybe her reasoning is that no one will miss them because they’re so small. Just look at her district- no one there would miss $1000. She’s spent decades representing them, rubbing elbows with people who don’t blink when they drop $1000 for fancy meals with portions so small that we’d describe them as “crumbs”.

So Happy New Year, happy misc Holidays, and enjoy your crumbs before the Democrats America put in charge of the House come for them.


$1000 just for dessert? Merry Christmas indeed! Image from howtocookthat

Flight Of The Intruder (NES, 1991, residual from the War Games series)


It was ported to the NES in 1991, but still says 1990 on the title screen. Believe it or not, I played this game in July of 2018- it took 5.5 months to review it.

As promised, here is one of the leftovers I mentioned from the midterm series I did. I suppose I should’ve just finished up on a current events post I was working on, but I have less than 3 hours and my day job to do, so here we all are. Lesson learned: don’t gamble on your sleeping schedule.

The Game

It’s a fairly generic flight sim. It didn’t seem appreciably different from games like F/A-18 Hornet on the Game Boy Advance or G-LOC on the Game Gear. A step up from After Burner, but a step down from full-on flight simulator.

You takeoff from an aircraft carrier in an F-4 Phantom II, your thrust readout looks like the silhouette of a Harrier, you fight what appear to be F-18 Hornets, and then you bomb surface targets and land your airplane as the titular A-6 Intruder. Take a look at the pictures and tell me that I’m wrong.










I’m willing to allow for the possibility that in this game you start as an F-4 to soften the enemy’s defenses, and then come in playing a separate pilot in an A-6 to attack surface targets. It would be nice if there was a definite transition indicating this was the case. Perhaps it was in the manual, I don’t know because I bought it used.

Flight_Of_The_Intruder-NES-Mission_MapThe first mission, the only one I could play because I could not land my plane, has you in the Gulf of Tonkin, so presumably this is happening during the Vietnam War, back when F-18s did not exist.

Aside from magical transforming aircraft, there isn’t much of note here. If you want a slower paced version of After Burner, this will work alright if you figure out the carrier landing portion.

Brief Background On The Game

It was released for computers first, and was almost as loosely based on the book it takes its title from as the movie “Battle of the Bulge” was based on the real event (I just watched it again last Sunday, so bear with the references to the 167 minute time eater).

What Would You Have Said If This Were Part Of The Midterm Stuff?

I would’ve lumped it in with After Burner, but then that post might have turned out way different. Granted, Vietnam I suppose was the prototypical Democrat war in some respects. The Democrats in Congress decided to bail on South Vietnam when a Republican was in office advocating continuing funding for South Vietnam, which as I mentioned would’ve led to a different outcome. We would naturally see this Democrat change on war with the Iraq War, which was fantastic when it started but quickly denounced by Democrats.

So that’s what they do when they have the advantage of not being in power- they support the war until it becomes unpopular in the public, or perhaps until they themselves make it unpopular just to score points against the Republican Administration. Then they denounce the war they once were united behind.


I suspect she will run for President again in 2020. Conditions are favorable for her to win the DNC nomination- the media has a shortlist of 40+ candidates that will run for President. All Hillary has to do is win a little more than the others, which shouldn’t be a problem even if it’s her winning 5 votes compared to 4 for everyone else.

Democrats also learned something else- make your wars short. Even though Eisenhower started sending advisers, it was Democrats JFK and Lyndon Johnson who escalated our involvement. So we ended up with 18 years of Vietnam in one form or another, trying to save a friendly regime (and topple it to replace it with another friendly regime, because CIA or something). Now with Libya, Democrats showed they had studied well. Go in, destroy the guy you inexplicably hate after lying about what he’s doing (actually doing what they alleged George W. did), and then hurry on to the next headline.

No wonder Hollywood votes Democrat- it’s like a war movie to them! In “Battle of the Bulge” we don’t see the months of training or Nazi staff officers sitting around for hours doing the calculations about how much fuel a Tiger tank guzzles, we don’t see the rest of World War II up to that point, we just see a vaguely accurate dramatization of the battle (“vaguely” in the sense of if you squint real hard at a Ferrari Testarossa it will look vaguely like a Ford Focus). We don’t see what happens after the battle either- the fall of Berlin for example. Just like in Libya- Democrats hid the buildup with their shroud of lies which ignored how Gaddhafi was actually playing nice for years, and Democrats didn’t bother filming the aftermath either. Like anyone viewing “Battle of the Bulge” where everything not in the movie was ignored, everything not depicted by Democrats with Libya was ignored. At least until Trump came into office and they could finally start yelling at a Republican about the chaos Hillary Clinton created.

So… I guess I’m saying it wouldn’t look much different to what I said in the After Burner post afterall, since I covered the same Vietnam and Libya ground.

Anything To Say Now?

Not really. Hard to make this apply to Trump backing down on the border wall, Comey yet again saying nothing to Congress, Trump still not ordering unredacted FISA warrants on Carter Page be released, and noted liar Michael Cohen getting tangled in his own web. Look forward to me touching on some of these items coming up.


You’ll be seeing this a lot if you can’t figure out how to land. I heard that Top Gun on the NES was quite similar to this game.

The Only Good Republican Is A Dead One


R.I.P., guy who was shot down near the Sevii Islands during WWII. That’s probably the most politically neutral obituary he got, so take what you can get.

While the country mourned the passing of former President George H.W. Bush, the media tried its best to act civil towards him. We had Maureen Dowd, noted Bush critic who used to lash at him over things as petty as the way he talks and what TV shows he watched because let’s face it the NYT has been a bunch of petty snobs pretending to be relevant for its entire history (why else would a NATIONAL NEWSpaper have a section reviewing local plays except to show off how snobby they are?), Dowd was someone who was the go-to reporter for the Left when they needed to bash the Bush family, someone who made her career lying about them and generating hate towards them (and fantasizing about kicking George Bush jr’s VP in the shins), suddenly talk about how great they were, in an attack on Trump. Well, it sure would’ve been nice if you said that about George and his family during his life!

You know, I think all these whiplash-inducing turnarounds- when the Left suddenly decides a villain is now a hero because someone they don’t like even more has appeared- has made it easier for me to believe plotlines in WWE. You never know one week from the next when a creative change or real-life injury will make a bad guy into a good guy to fill a gap in a program, or vice versa. While the badly done ones are a put-off to fans, I can just go right along with it because I see the media and politicians undergo worse attitude adjustments all the time. Undertaker going from zombie-thing to motorcycle-midlife-crisis-dad? Believable. Just look at Ann Navarro going from battle-hardened defender of the GOP to liberal pundit. Daniel Bryan going from prototypical good guy to some weird bad guy with poorly-developed motivations? Believable. Just look at Maureen Dowd going from Bush critic to Bush praiser. I bet one of the most pivotal and shocking moments in wrestling history: when Hulk Hogan, who made his career as a good guy, turned bad in 1996 wouldn’t have surprised anyone monitoring the contemporary transition of then-far-right activist (now liberal millionaire hit squad ringleader) David Brock. Based on the info at one of the links provided, it seems that being a turncoat was David Brock’s answer to “whatcha gonna do when Clintonmania runs wild on you?”.

Using The Past, Past Presidents, and Past Precedents To Attack The Present President’s Precedents

They’ve cried wolf over the next Republican SCOTUS nominee making abortion illegal (27 years since Clarence Thomas was supposedly going to end Roe V. Wade, 13 since Alito and Roberts were going to, yet we still have it… their predictions for the abortion apocalypse are as accurate as their prediction on the climate change apocalypse) and the next Republican President being fascist so many times, that now they finally acknowledge their past hyperbole and openly admit in the case of Trump “we were wrong then (but we’re right on him)”. When the Left cries “demon”, it’s about as believable as when they lie about Trump putting his hand over his heart at George H.W. Bush’s funeral… which is to say, it is as believable as when the Left claims to even care about patriotic displays.


According to a Vox headline, for the article this image came from, President Obama and I agree on something: “President Obama really really really really hates Maureen Dowd”.

The aforementioned reversal on who the evil Republicans are turns up as of late at the funerals for Republicans. Like with Maureen Dowd above- she despised those “Bushies(and all men in general), until the day one died and she could insult Republicans for electing Trump because Trump is worse than one of their old leaders. I assume that’s her reasoning, though it could just be she genuinely forgot she hated George H.W. It’s hard to tell with the Left, whether their lack of memory is feigned or genuine.

As for Dowd herself, you’ll notice she loves the word “chutzpah”. Fitting she’d overuse a Yiddish word I guess, since “haza” is an accurate description of her.

John McCain


Isn’t your hair supposed to turn gray when you gaze upon Him? Image from

This opinion piece pretty much makes my point. You should


Obama on the Left, McCain on the Right. It’s 2008 all over again. Image from

really read my links, no telling what nuggets of info are in them. As you may have guessed, the assertion is that prior to dying John McCain was the media’s enemy. 2008 probably didn’t help much, when the media’s ideal perfect messiah suddenly came down from heaven and poor McCain was stuck opposing him.

Before McCain’s death, the Left danced on his grave. After McCain’s death, the media called for civility. Called for unity. And attacked Trump’s daughter for showing up at McCain’s funeral to pay her respects. She was invited, by the way. Civility! And using the funeral as a rallying point for attacking Trump is apparently what “unity” means.

Antonin Scalia


Image From Ballotpedia

Just two months before he died, he was a crazy racist according to the media. After his death, he was a praised legend, and the Left attacked the GOP for quickly rushing to block any Obama nominees, despite that being the then-Vice President’s own idea (I picked that Politico link just so I could attack one of its points- does Obama look like the kind of guy who’d pick a nominee the GOP would compromise with? Just look at his approach– “If I want it, it’s your job to make it happen GOP whether you agree or not”).

That’s about the best the Left got out of Scalia’s passing, since the future was bright with what they thought was a guaranteed Hillary win they were quite open about their contempt for a conservative like Scalia. Since it was a Democrat in the White House, rather than criticizing the Republican in power as not worthy of the guy who passed, they opted for hoping the bad guy who was there would be replaced by a good guy in a “historic” moment.

Bonus: Gerald Ford


Image From Ballotpedia

2006, back when George W. Bush was still a demon being controlled by the king of darkness Dick Cheney. We learn that the media actually liked Gerald Ford (even saying he was too nice of a guy), whom hitherto was portrayed as incompetent and stupid. The reason for their newfound respect was some last-minute criticism of the soon-departing ex-President, directed at George W.

Get The Point?

I hope so, I’m running out of prominent dead people. Keep in mind it’s the mainstream media we’re talking about with the duplicitous praise. The liberal base has always been quite vocal about its true feelings, even in times of death.

Hey! These S.O.B.’s stole my idea! (To be fair, I only thought to write this 2 days after New York Post wrote theirs, but I didn’t see theirs until the morning of the day this post was published).




Google Search Algorithms


A lot changed since 1997. Image from Wikimedia commons

Google needs to fight to ensure that populist movements around the world are merely a “blip” and a “hiccup” in the arc of history that “bends towards progress.”   – Google Global Affairs VP Kent Walker

“You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. FUCK. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL… I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.” – Google Design Lead Dave Hogue

Much has been made about bias at Google. Leaked internal documents show bias, they’ve gone on the record being biased, employees were penalized over fighting this bias. They’ve considered everything from censorship, rigging search results, and outright murder. Here I’ll be looking just at the searches.

When it comes to search results, I hardly look for patterns. My first assumption is always user error, as I am a user who makes a lot of errors. Sometimes though a few things leap out at me, especially if the pattern is recurring over the course of several searches.


As evidence here, since at least 1974 liberals have been of the “you’re either with us or evil” attitude. Outlets like “The Nation” and “New Republic” would have you believe this film and other such things are myths.

I’ve referenced this phenomenon before, when trying to find information on North Vietnamese atrocities. While the reason for there not being much info about that on the internet likely is because any scholars or web-based outlets writing about it support Hanoi Jane, think “The Trial of Billy Jack” is a documentary, and would’ve spat on our soldiers at the time if they could, it still wouldn’t explain why the top search results for “North Vietnamese atrocities”, “atrocities committed by North Vietnam”, and similar searches didn’t give me results about North Vietnamese atrocities on the first page. Instead, the results I was greeted with first and foremost, and as the overwhelming majority of search results, were items related to American misconduct. I know supposedly Google ranks results by popularity and reliability, but here it was like searching for a sushi recipe and getting a thousand ways to make sake instead.

I had considered referencing such matters as I went along in the posts, and may do so in the future, but while doing the midterm stuff I decided to just pile everything here. Besides, I think it’s more potent if you see all the search issues I’ve had in one spot, instead of scattering them in each article. Granted, it’s more likely you’ll see it should I complain about it more often, but it doesn’t have so big an impact as seeing it all at once if it just becomes steady background noise.

Anyway, let’s get to it.

Burying Scalise

On August 5 I tried to find an article showing that the claim Steve Scalise spoke at a white nationalist rally was debunked. Page 4 is where I found it in one of my searches. I tried several before that, but the first one or two pages of each were completely full of Leftwing news sources and even blogs or forums talking about how he was guilty of it. The search that I finally found the article in, it was 3 pages of all that before I got to the truth. Full disclosure- it didn’t help matters that Scalise admitted to it- assuming that the allegations made by a loser Democrat’s son, a loser Democrat who claimed that Scalise’s district was mostly composed of bigots because they wouldn’t vote for her, was true. By the way- even after Scalise was shot, vaunted liberal outlets like Mic were still repeating this debunked conspiracy theory as truth.

Memory Holed History

I tried to find an article on August 8 dealing with how the Mexicans, in colonizing the Southwest, killed the natives instead of merely pushing them out as Americans tended to do (we had reservations and guns, the Mexicans just had guns). Particularly this was an issue near Texas, around the southern part of the 4 corners states. No luck, aside from a wikipedia page I found nothing, even though such things did happen. The search results were solely devoted to what Americans and centuries prior Spanish Conquistadors did to the natives. In other words- Mexico is given a pass. Maybe that’s a reflection of Google’s algorithms, or a reflection how the researchers at our universities believe Mexico should reclaim the lands that were given to us after they defaulted on their debt and started a war that left 13,000 Americans dead.

Hellraisin’ Hillary


The only face she or Google want you to see. Image from AP

Each time I reference Hillary Clinton being an angry monster behind closed doors, I need to find the link again. I end up trying different searches to find this article, usually searching for content related to the part on Hillary demanding that soldiers wear business suits while in the White House. Usually one of the first two results glorifies Hillary, the rest are mostly unrelated or positive about her.

Specific Searches

  • “trent franks resigned” -the first page was entirely liberal outlets. Page two had a Fox News link in the middle, but was liberal otherwise.
  • “violence against trump supporters” –first result is “FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?” from snopes. Found to be true of course. Snopes does not believe Tim Kaine, Loretta Lynch, New York Times columnists, and ACLU lawyers called for violence (either through ignoring/hiding/burying or “debunking” these claims… “debunking” in quotations because it’s kind of hard to say “that person never said what they are on tape saying” as Snopes does, and still be considered credible by anyone not partisan like they are).
  • “press make death threats against trump” mostly yielded threats against the press or Maxine Waters or people on Trump’s enemy’s list, rather than results about an NYT columnist who made a death threat against Trump.
  • “death threats against trump” started with Maxine Waters, but gave like a 60-40 mix of death threats against journos and anti-Trumpers vs threats against Trump. For both this and the “press make death threats against trump” searches, the wikipedia article for assassination threats against Obama came up.
  • “former government official threatens trump” led to top stories about Trump threatening to take away the clearances of former government officials.
  • “dc police 1990 illiterate scandal mayor”/”dc police academy illiterate graduates”/”marion barry police illiterate” – not one result I wanted, with that last search only getting 2 pages. The story here is that DC’s mayor at the time, literally a crack smoker, lowered the standards for the police such that illiterate people were allowed in. Gang members, drug dealers, even people arrested recently were allowed in. But the mayor was a black liberal, so it’s natural any relevant search results would be hidden. Or perhaps even nonexistent.
  • “Trump, without citing evidence, says China hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails” – Washington Post headline, top news story for the search “comey hillary not hacked” according to Google. One minor problem- WaPo is right that Trump cited no evidence, but wrong in the implication that there isn’t any. A reporter at the Daily Caller had discovered that the FBI knew China had breached Hillary’s emails in 2015 and did nothing about it. WaPo, either jealous of not getting that story in its anti-Trump anti-Russia fervor or jealously guarding Hillary, sent out this misleading headline with Google more than happy to promote it to the top result.
  • “hillary intent Saucier” – the first result is a Snopes story claiming that Navy sailor Saucier was not held to a different standard than Hillary Clinton in regards to the treatment of classified information. Saucier was arrested while Hillary nearly became President. According to the FBI’s one-time-only-for-Hillary-and-her-aide interpretation of the law, Hillary and her aide had to deliberately want to endanger national security to be guilty. Saucier didn’t want to endanger the country, and he was put in prison. As for the difference being that the sailor (Saucier) knowingly did something while Hillary unknowingly did something wrong, I’ll point out that A: ignorance is no excuse as we’re always told, and B: Hillary MUST HAVE KNOWN because emails in her private server were MARKED classified, something Hillary’s apologists at CNN and Snopes or even Google since Snopes is their first result seem to have forgotten, lest it make the Left-proclaimed “most qualified candidate” look like a reckless idiot, or something worse given the emails about stripping classification headings from her messages (a Google search for this info had politifact,, and politico as the top sources, such bastions of liberalism). 
  • The first PAGE of results for “clinton emails remove classification” consisted of politifact, 2 factchecks, 2 politicos, a dailybeast, ABC News where Clinton crony/former Clinton White House operative George Stephenopolous resides, USA Today, theconversation, and wikipedia. ALL left-leaning or outright leftwing media outlets. On Aug. 5 2018, the 3rd result from the bottom of page 2 was the first rightwing outlet, Fox News. The next was WSJ at the top of page 3

To ruin one result may be regarded as a misfortune, to ruin two looks like carelessness, but twelve times…?


Pretty sure the section header came word-for-word from “The Importance of Being Earnest”. Image from Encyclopedia Britannica

Well what do you think? Am I just bad at using Google, does Google’s search algorithm favor Leftwing sites because Google employees think they are reliable, or is it more malicious with the search algorithm targetting thought that Google disagrees with and ensuring it is rarely the first thing we see, or perhaps even not showing it at all? (One last personal experience, there was once an article for rightwing outlet “The Stream” that did not show up AT ALL well after it had been published, even when I quoted the title or quoted chunks of it.)

Now, some people try to spin Google’s actions. In the case of the employee they fired, Laurie Penny at The Guardian headlined “James Damore is wrong. It’s fine to discriminate against bigots and bullies”. It may interest her to know that the Left is starting to believe Dr. Martin Luther King jr was not tolerant enough. So Ms. Penny, are you just hoping to keep ahead of the Leftist wave until you die a natural death or are you prepared for the day when you too aren’t tolerant enough and someone says it’s ok to discriminate against you? I’ll refer you to Khrushchev Remembers, wherein we learn of real people like you- radicals saying it’s ok to discriminate based on subjective and ever-changing notions like “bigot” and “bully”- ended up being killed by the crusading government they created.

We also get efforts to spend Google’s own leaked docs to say that they’re struggling with censorship, but these defenders of Big Tech give away their partisan cheerleading, like the poor bloke at Techdirt who wrote “The Good Censor Document Shows Google Struggling With The Challenges Of Content Moderation”. In that piece, the author states that an 85-page leaked document on censorship that “Trumpkins” (DailyWire reported negatively on the document, and they are often at odds with Trump) jumped on as proof of Google censorship showed that Google was in fact struggling not to censor results. The insults at Trump supporters gave away the bias, the cheerleading happens when the author stupidly states that Google doesn’t want governments to abuse its platform. It looks REALLY bad now that we know Google had considered censoring conservative news outlets.


ÇINLI!!!!! Image from M*A*S*H season 3 episode 12

I say the cheerleading “stupidly” happened because it was a well-known public FACT at the time that Google built a censorship engine for the Chinese government. So we are left with this: the author must have known this, and decided to “forget” about it. And if Google truly wonders about evil governments abusing its platform in that 85-page document, then Google has some serious issues with self-delusion. Or, maybe, Google thinks the Chinese government is NOT a government that would abuse its censorship powers. Worse, and probably true, maybe Google doesn’t care about what the Chinese government does because they AGREE with its decisions. None of this looks good for Google, and certainly not for the Techdirt writer supporting them. Maybe that writer loves what China is doing too.

Oddly enough, the Techdirt piece was the 2nd search result for “Google “the good censor””. The first was the original Breitbart article talking about it. I find it odd because A: Breitbart is the first result and B: there isn’t a more reliable source as one of the top two results to counter Breitbart’s assertion.