Setting The Barr Low; or, The ABC’s Of Bigotry


from wikimedia commons

Yes, it’s a little late, but time has no meaning to me. Playing DKC on the GBC does that to you.

Oddly enough (to the thinking of some of you in the audience), I do believe Roseanne’s remarks are a little racist. Spot on about the Muslim Brotherhood part, but racist with the “Planet of the Apes” reference. Not that I’m condemning her for anything except lacking awareness about the reprisal such remarks would bring. As I will outline in a moment, we all are entitled to our opinions, to condemn others would be to condemn ourselves (yourselves, liberal, as you will read if you dare).

I should clarify- I meant the reprisal that statements like Roseanne’s SHOULD bring. You see, ABC is lacking some awareness itself. Here are some folks ABC still supported wholeheartedly, fervently, and partisanly despite similar remarks to Roseanne’s- or worse, real attitudes they hold (which should always be the measure).

  • The Presidential Candidate that they lobbied very hard for, that they were disappointed lost, once made a racist joke about Indians and participated in a faux pas related to the African American community… make that TWO (and it’s amazing how forgiving media outlets such as ABC and Democrats were over Hillary’s superpredator remark when and how they voted for her- and don’t say too much time passed, ABC went after Steve Scalise with the rest of the media wolves over a fake racist incident that would have been 12 years old if it had really happened- yet when President Trump refers to MS-13 gang members as animals Democrats and media outlets like ABC suddenly decide that all gang members are divine creatures who cast down bullets of love upon us, who are merely filling women with love when they rape them, who merely are spreading the word of peace when they put a knife into us a hundred times, as opposed to VOTING FOR Hillary Clinton when she said much the same thing about African Americans) (ALSO, listen again to the Gandhi clip. You hear the people laughing at Hillary’s remark? It’s clearly a racist joke, yet your party of tolerance that has called Trump a racist more times than a pulsar will emit a beam of EM radiation in its lifetime is sitting there LAUGHING at a racist joke!)
  • ABC’s buddy Joe Biden once said Obama was the first mainstream African American candidate who was “clean” and “articulate”. Joe Biden ALSO picked on folks of the Indian persuasion, so I guess since he became Vice President after he said that and Hillary Clinton was almost President after mocking Gandhi, that means Democrats are perfectly ok with being racist towards Indians. That kinda takes the wind out of the sails of their anti-Apu movement.
  • ABC’s buddy Harry Reid once said Obama had “no Negro dialect” (something ABC didn’t let others get away with) and made an Asian joke that ABC decided wasn’t even newsworthy. (ABC also failed to mention when Harry Reid said “why would I want to do that” in response to being asked if he’d fund children’s cancer research, so there you go.)
  • ABC’s buddy DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison was/maybe is an anti-semite (note how he had issued a statement as Wolf noted saying his association with Farrakhan is long ended, admits to being associated with Farrakhan in that clip, but says he has always forever and ever opposed anti-Semitism despite his admitted association with Farrakhan)
  • ABC’s party of choice, the Democrats, standing behind anti-Semitic hate-monger Farrakhan (Hillary Clinton allegedly called her husband’s campaign manager a “Jew bastard” so in its love for Hillary, ABC already established its forgiveness of anti-Semiticism if it comes from a Democrat. Because as we know from the Associated Press still claiming Steve Scalise spoke at a white supremacist rally 16 years ago when that is factually untrue and was disproven 3 years ago, journalists like you’d find at ABC won’t let the truth get in the way of a good slur if it’s against a Republican)

Why so many Democrats listed? What do they have to do with ABC you ask despite the links linking them? Read the chart.


ABC is well-represented on this list of journalists working with someone who has a history of making racist remarks, who is involved with a Party that has a history of racism, one which still appears today as evidenced throughout this piece.

And of course, ABC itself currently has, or had, other racists/bigots/misogynists/folks of ill-repute in their employ who were not canned. ABC’s choices of news and programming arguably support much the same thing.

  • ABC’s Joy Behar dressed as a black woman for Halloween, and shared the picture with the cast of ABC’s The View on ABC one morning, saying she looked cute when dressed in blackface. (so while Roseanne simply made a throwaway remark on Twitter to her relatively small following, Behar was proud of having dressed in blackface and showed millions how happy she was about it on ABC’s network, and yet Behar kept her job)
  • ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel (and Joy Behar) smearing Christians (without at least equal time to other religions, not one joke or attack directed at Islam has passed their lips, what do you call it when you single out a group because of certain stereotypes about them but let another arguably worse group get a pass?)
  • ABC ignoring Farrakhan’s history while praising an event featuring him (he praised Hitler, for example, but that was never mentioned by ABC)
  • ABC supporting sexism by not exposing links between sexual assaulters and Democrats
  • ABC’s very feminist act of ignoring an alleged rape because the accused were illegal immigrants rather than white frat boys
  • And then of course ABC’s programming consists mostly of hateful diatribes, keeping in line with the personalities it hires. (guess I shouldn’t be surprised about some of this, after all, ABC news folks were happy to call America sexist and seemingly agree with Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ remark)
  • Don’t forget to consider just about any time ABC airs anything by Spike Lee, whose least-racist quirk is glaring at interracial couples

It’s perfectly fine, if you are a liberal, to be bigoted or to support bigots (we’ll even throw the Left’s favorite playbook at them- why didn’t ABC denounce Farrakhan 55 times while praising his rally? Why has ABC never denounced the New York Times or Esquire over their association with a racist?) is perfectly acceptable. Party of tolerance indeed!

Maybe They Just Didn’t Like Her

It’s readily apparent that ABC simply hated Roseanne. Her show was a ratings smash, but not with the right regions (New York, Los Angeles. You’ll notice that the networks tend to promote shows that resonate with them, as they’re the top ad markets in the country. Suburbs of a big city, apartments in a big city, nerd scientists in a big city, singing a pure propaganda song about your big city on New Year’s with millions watching while said songworthy big city makes cesspools look like mountain springs, crimes in a big city. Big city nights! The suburbs and rural areas are full of crooked rednecks and people killing each other. What’s the backdrop painting for the late shows? A cityscape. And by the way, where do all the journalists live?).

ABC was champing at the bit to find an excuse to cancel this politically toxic (to them) show, like with Tim Allen’s “Last Man Standing”. Tim Allen’s show was ABC’s second-highest rated series, but the first excuse they found (production costs) they dumped it because they hate anything that appeals to anyone who is not already waving a Soviet flag from their Brooklyn apartment window. Want more evidence for this? What does ABC replace the Trump-country appeal of the Roseanne revival with? A spinoff that takes it to the Left.

Or to put it simply- Roseanne didn’t embody “New York Values”.


Just one example of New York Values, from wikimedia commons

The Big Apple Didn’t Fall Far From The Tree

  • ABC’s parent company hiring misogynist Keith Olbermann.
  • ABC’s parent company not bothering to release Jemele Hill over her racially charged remarks (which tended to be anti-White, and tended to be almost anything she said)
  • ABC’s parent company not even punishing Bomani Jones after he said all American sports fans were racists

Just To Be Clear…

I’m not saying ABC doesn’t have the right to hire and fire who they want, if they want 24/7 bigotry and misogyny that’s their business. I’m saying it’d be nice if they weren’t so openly biased and applied their rules equally. Oh well, what do you expect from liberals? Typical. They can’t even play by their own rules because they know they’d lose. You know, their “rule” that says we should all be tolerant and open-minded. Their other rule that states such things as were said by the above folks are racist/sexist/bigoted/etc. Clearly, that only applies to people they hate, not to themselves.

Just For Fun…

Let’s end with some more bigoted liberal quotes (Liberal leader Al Sharpton sure didn’t seem like an LGBTQ buddy in the one at that link!). A quick glance into the world that ABC wholeheartedly supports, the world of Democrats. Maybe Roseanne was just a token sacrifice so that no one will question ABC’s liberal ethos when it supports the below intolerance. (NOTE: ABC has yet to apologize for or denounce or otherwise distance themselves from the below remarks, nor from the above incidents, aside from Roseanne’s statement… whereas if even one Trump supporter is shown as a racist the President must answer for that individual’s beliefs as if they were his own according to ABC and the media’s playbook, interesting how when a Muslim jihadist attacks it’s never Islam’s fault yet every indication of racism from a Trump supporter reflects that entire side of the aisle)

  • “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” – Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights, someone thinks this is an inspiring quote. So is her quote about accusing Republicans of racism to distract from real issues.
  • “(I get to) kill all the white people… How great is that?” – Jamie Foxx discussing his Django Unchanged role on NBC’s Saturday Night Live, a statement made to a cheering crowd.
  • “(Blacks and Hispanics) are too busy eating watermelons and tacos to learn how to read and write.” – Mike Wallace, CBS News 1982
  • “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” – Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania
  • “I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” – New York City Councilman, Charles Barron (who also said we attacked Libya for oil… just like Iraq I suppose because we never got any from Libya either!). His full quote was about him saying that blacks needed reparations in part because they paid for facilities under segregation they never could use. So did whites. And yet he was happy to impose Obamacare on people so that people who object to abortion would be forced to pay for it. Typical. Also, Barron, I have a question: if a white person can’t understand certain aspects of being black, how the hell does a black understand what being white means? Does your race have this magic ability to see beyond its skin color simply because you think it’s superior?
  • “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” – Former DC Mayor Marion Barry who was busted smoking crack with a prostitute
  • “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” – Barack Obama, who is known for not being a fan of whites.
  • (Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” – Dan Rather, CBS Evening News
  • “A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” – Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy
  • “Hymies.” And “Hymietown.” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail (Jesse used “Hymie” as an anti-Semitic slur. Hey, remember when the Left went after Ted Cruz for being an anti-Semite because he said “New York values”? Why does the Left still love Jesse Jackson after his Jew-hatred was revealed like a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert?)

And of course, the patron saint of welfare himself-



Climate Of Fear

Editors Note: At the time of this articles posting I was unable to fully verify or disprove the information of this article. I must say this does not fully reflect the views of C-Gaymer on Climate change. I can, however, verify these claims made in the article and confirm they are in line with my own views:
1. Many Climate Change Scientists have manipulated data, they are a disgrace to the scientific community and damage the cause of raising awareness about and combatting manmade climate change.
2. Under the Obama Regime government agencies like the EPA routinely engaged in dishonest and destructive behavior for various reasons from keeping their budgets to attacking the political opponents of the regime. The EPA is no exception and Mr. F.L.A.G. convincingly makes the case that the Colorado mine disaster was intentional.
3. I fully agree and support the Presidents decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. Having actually looked into the accord after the fact, I can confirm it was a useless attempt to look like leftist governments were combatting climate change. In reality, they only restricted the economies of western governments like the United States while giving a free pass to dictatorial regimes like China to pollute and destroy the Earth. It is a worthless document much like the Iran Nuclear Deal. Another part of Obama’s Failed Legacy.

Here at C-Gaymer, we are Eco-Conservatives. This means we acknowledge Manmade Climate Change and the need to combat it. Unlike our dishonest and ignorant Liberal Counterparts, however, Eco Conservatives believe in the power of the free market and believe in incentivizing companies to seek green solutions and alternatives to things such as plastic waste or Energy. It is more effective than lies, witchhunts, and petty rhetoric. To learn more about being an
Eco Conservative, visit Know that this website does not fully reflect our views either, but they are a great place to start learning about being an Eco-Conservative, and we need to take the reigns of that movement. Thank you for your time.



Not Hawaii but you get the point. From You Only Live Twice

Isn’t this interesting. For April, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached its highest point ever, as recorded in Hawaii. Right before a volcano erupted near the observation site. Except instead of linking those two, scientists said this carbon dioxide came from the burning of fossil fuels. Maybe I’m too much of a cynic, but if these scientists don’t issue a correction or at least explain why A: Al Gore was only saying last year that CO2 emissions were on the decline and B: why CO2 from a volcano does not affect CO2 readings in the atmosphere near said volcano, I’m pretty sure they’re abusing the fact that we can’t distinguish CO2 that came from a volcano from CO2 that came from humans, in order to promote their climate change agenda.

Maybe what I said is totally impossible because of altitude (but then how did CO2 reach that section of the atmosphere for them to read such high levels in the first place?), maybe it’s exactly what happened. We don’t know, so advantage liberals because guess what: most scientists are liberal. Scientists have a monopoly on knowledge, and they use that to their political advantage to shove through whatever agenda suits them, claiming that if you oppose them then you oppose reality. Though reality comes along and bites them in the ass (as we saw with the liberal scientists of the Soviet Union) even when scientists hide from the truth behind their iron curtains of “knowledge”, the fact that opponents like me don’t have so wide a knowledge base still leaves the scientist with enough ethos/ego to dismiss any criticism.

It Was Supposed To Save The World

Let’s run with the scientists’ assessment though. Hawaii is quite a long ways from anywhere that didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement (the unenforceable agreement that anyone could cheat on, but was supposed to save the world) or abide by it. In fact, you’d have to go all the way to Idaho or Arizona or Alaska before you hit a spot that doesn’t abide by the Agreement that’s supposed to have saved our planet. The way air currents travel though, none of the air from those states would be reaching Hawaii in an


As you can see from this photograph taken 20 miles from DC, all of the pollution from the rest of the backward business-loving Republican strongholds has left a layer of smog so thick that it causes anyone looking at it to hallucinate so vividly they think they actually see a pretty wooded path.

unfiltered form (especially after passing through the lush green paradises of treaty signatories India, Russia, and China). They WOULD, however, be reaching me here in the nation’s capital in their purest, most CO2-laden form. The Left has already made the atmosphere quite toxic here, sans pollution. Now, for there to be enough CO2 in Hawaii from the mainland USA’s horrid pollution that Hawaii would still record the highest CO2 levels ever after the rest of the world greened itself, that would mean that the East Coast would look like Beijing or something.

So explain it to me liberal- you contend that the U.S. is the largest and only producer of CO2, as the restrictions present in the Paris Climate Agreement indicate (the treaty allowed every nation except the U.S. to increase its fossil fuel use, while the U.S. must keep reducing its use. For example, China, that pollutes much more than the U.S., with double the CO2 emissions of America, is allowed to indiscriminately pollute for 13 more years before the treaty restrictions start. Maybe the framers of the treaty read the fake news in the NYT, AJC, and Ecowatch that claims somehow the pollution stats are way off and the U.S. is worse than China. Remember, these science deniers are the ones telling us global warming exists, to begin with, the ones who say China with acid rain covering way more than a third of it and with lethal pollution in its waterways and crippling smog covering its cities is somehow less polluting than America with its swimmable rivers, distinct lack of acid rain, and clear-aired cities. Think I’m exaggerating on how much these liberals and scientists who warn us about global warming love China? A major politician involved in planning


Public executions are popular events where thousands attend, in the country that the UN believes has the best government for fighting climate change. As if the pictures didn’t make it obvious, their rationale for why they think China is the best government does (especially given what was presented in the “California Attacks Muslims” piece and what will be discussed here later). And all this time I thought liberals were against the death penalty, but I guess they only oppose it if the murderer in question is black and shot a cop. image from

how we stop polluting, the UN Climate Chief, said that China has the ideal model for action on global warming, despite as you may have read in the above links how China’s provinces simply ignore climate initiatives, and despite its failures. There is no clearer example of how distanced the climate change scientists/activists/politicians are from reality than what I have just outlined). Given your belief that the U.S. is the only cause of pollution, then how does liberal Hawaii with all it’s anti-global warming measures which only receives air from nations that signed the treaty, nations that had such low pollution that they were encouraged to BUILD polluting structures, record the highest amounts of CO2 ever in history? Surely after 24 months, the treaty would be showing some impact, yes? And remember- 9 of those months still had Obama in office. But I guess if you believe Obama winning the Democratic nomination was the day the seas stopped rising, you’d believe Trump’s inauguration is the day the sky caught fire.

Come to think of it, on the one hand the Left claims global warming is instant (No Arctic ice by summer 2008 as predicted earlier that year despite the fact polar ice has stayed about the same since 1979, Prince Charles said in 2009 there were only 96 months left to save the planet, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in 2009 there were only 50 days left to stop terrible climate catastrophe, the head of Canada’s Green Party said in 2009 there were only hours left to save the world) and there are points of no return that we’ve passed in date but not passed in damage to the climate (the Paris Climate Agreement was signed only at the end of 2015. 2015 was 26 years after the UN warned we had only 10 years- a warning which we followed with increased CO2 production. 2015 was 6 years after NASA warned that Obama had only 4 years to save the Earth. 2015 was 2 years after when Al Gore predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone by. 2015 was the same year the UN said the temperature would rise 2 degrees Celsius, the same year climate chaos was supposed to be unleashed on the world as predicted by France’s foreign minister, and the same year a bunch of other deadly predictions outlined later in this piece did not happen. You will find a lot of failed predictions by these alleged scientists and politicians), but they also claim that any solutions to global warming will take a while to be effective. So CO2 works instantly, but its sudden absence does not? And surely with all of the climate measures you’ve put into place while you ran the government and all of the climate measures the rest of the smarter, more liberal world has instilled we must see at least some reduction in CO2/climate change/temperature increase? (Vox summarized the party of scientists and climate warriors’ actions from 2009-2016 best with its headline “Obama had a chance to really fight climate change. He blew it.”)


Let’s be honest- with this as the face of the Left, we can pretty confidently say they never have to explain away any errors to their followers. Image from Urban Dictionary

They have a way of explaining away why the things they implement will have no measurable impact (much the same way as apocalypse predictors can always explain why the date they pick is wrong once it’s past, or buy themselves time by pushing it into the future… much to the chagrin of scientists that want to advance the date by 50 years to 2050 instead of 2100)– they say the CO2 emitted in previous generations is still there, so whatever we do now won’t be felt because of that earlier pollution.

So… if you can’t even distinguish CO2 from a volcano vs. CO2 from a car if ancient CO2 is still hurting us, how can you distinguish CO2 emitted 250 years ago from CO2 emitted 250 seconds ago? How do you know it’s still there? How do you even know what we’re adding to it? Do you count how many CO2 sources there are (meaning count factory by the factory) and update every day in case one or more shuts down? And if it takes so damn long to shrug off the effects of CO2 emissions, what if we’re ALREADY at the point of sustainable CO2 output, but we just can’t tell yet?

Seriously, where are the experiments on how long it takes CO2 from source A to infect the atmosphere across the globe? Because if the U.S. is the only polluter as the Paris Climate Agreement’s punitive anti-American measures indicate, then obviously everything we do here has a worldwide impact. (I’m not disputing that one nation’s pollution can have a global impact; folks in San Francisco import some of their smog from China… but that can’t be since as I said according to liberals China pollutes so little that it has the ideal model for fighting climate change and can, under the Paris Climate Agreement, increase its polluting!).

Scientists Would Tell Us!

Scientists say the Paris agreement will drop the world’s temperature increase by half a degree at the end of the century (instead of rising 2 degrees Celsius over 100 years, it will rise 1.5 degrees… assuming the science behind it works, but fake data and bad conclusions throw shade on that, with signatories such as China outright lying about their data despite being the best people at fighting climate change as we have been told… plus, climate warriors thought the Paris Agreement was crap until Trump decided he hated it, at which point its Lefty critics found true love with it) Yet at the same time, in only 15 years of polluting enough damage will be done to kill off 250,000 more people on average per year. In fact, according to the IPCC, in the last 40 years disasters have been caused by mother nature alone without man’s help (and they said there was a stall in the increase in temperatures, at least until the Obama Admin faked some data) despite also believing that human-induced global warming impacted EVERYTHING over that period.

Let’s not forget- these are the people who tell us we will never see snow again because of global warming, and then a year after a blazing headline carrying that info these people brazenly tell us we’re entering into an ice age because of global warming, after spending decades ridiculing the notion of a new ice age, which came after spending a decade promoting the idea of a new ice age. “The people” being the whole freakin’ scientific community if we are to believe that 97% buy into climate change. Oh wait, turns out that’s fake news. The Left thinks it’s settled science that global warming will end snow/cause an ice age/be limited by a treaty/not be affected at all by our actions so far. And skeptics are either stupid or evil for not simultaneously believing all four of these are true and all four are false.

You would have to be either at the peak of stupidity to have a head so empty that yesterday’s talking points are so readily and unquestioningly swapped for today’s (like believing simultaneously that Antarctica is affected by global warming less and more than the rest of the world… and ignoring that it was waaaaaay warmer anyway, before humans could even pollute), OR you are some kind of super genius that both can co-exist in your mind at the same time. This DOES explain why the Left gets oh so violent when faced with someone outside their belief bubble– violence is the action of the unthinking beasts in the jungle, and if the Left actually analyzed what they believe for consistency and accuracy they might stop believing it. Can’t have that now, can we?

You’ve Been Misled In Other Ways Too


Polar Ice Cap circa 2015, according to Al Gore. Image from

Remember the repeated instances where leading climate scientists were caught faking data (I love this urgent CBS headline: “Mistakes in Climate Report Fuel Skepticism“. Ya THINK?! Let’s summarize it- “people who are lied to become skeptical of claims made by the liars”)? Remember how gas was supposed to be $9 per gallon, and milk was supposed to be $13 per gallon as wildfires raged across the U.S. and New York is submerged, in the far-off year of 2015? Remember how the North polar ice cap was supposed to have disappeared by 2013, yet here we are 5 years on and it’s GROWING? You CAN’T say it’s because Democrats came into office. Mother Earth doesn’t CARE what party controls the government (no matter how many times liberals tell you reality favors them) if said party does nothing except ram through a healthcare bill! The only climate initiatives Democrats undertook were the Paris Climate Agreement and to make it so that if you spat on the ground the EPA could regulate it as a protected waterway! I guess Solyndra too, though the only thing green about that was the money that Obama’s wealthy friends made at the expense of taxpayers.

If You Can’t Handle The Heat, Then Get The Hell Outta My Ozone! AAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!


Granted, the Second Impact was a slight setback for the ozone layer. Image from

The ozone layer is another bundle of fun. First, we’re given the wonderful news that scientists say the ozone layer will heal by 2050. But wait! Turns out a year later scientists want to horrify us into a coma by saying that all along global warming has been stopping the ozone layer from healing… although it’d be nice if they told other scientists about that too, because they’re looking very disorganized, especially when they say a warming climate is healing the hole instead of destroying it. Doesn’t matter I guess, since one of the eco-friendly saviors who signed the Paris Climate Agreement is destroying the ozone layer.  Oh yeah, and humans can and can’t take credit for the ozone layer healing, and they even say some holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with humans.

What Do They Gain By Fearmongering?

Solyndra is an example- they get money! Politicians get power. Then there are treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement which, if obeyed, ensure that one of Europe and China’s

patent-medicine-ad-yesterday's papers

Snake Oil?! I thought this was an add for the Paris Climate Agreement! Image from yesterday’s papers

largest economic competitors (America) is crippled while the aforementioned countries flourish. It was supposed to be a “major leap for mankind” that ends pollution (except from the statesmen who polluted in order to travel and meet for the deal when skyping or something would have worked, so its no coincidence the leaders omitted their means of travel), ends ALL hurricanes, and probably give every millennial a check for going to school like they do in Australia (which seems a bit classist to me- why would kids who can afford to go to college need extra money? Give it to the indigenous peoples of Australia or minorities, or at least give more money to the folks that can’t afford college. Geez, I thought Australia was supposed to be liberal!). I guess it’s not surprising this agreement was about inflicting economic damage since an IPCC co-chair once revealed that all their climate plans were about redistributing wealth rather than saving the planet, that they had “almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”.

Of course, scientists get influence and money too, and thus a license to act recklessly. The aforementioned data fakery is an example. But we also get new examples. Would you believe that the wildfires in California are the direct results of their liberal climate policies? The drought in California is because that liberal state’s government is squandering its resources while farmers are growing food that’s best suited to Florida’s climate, or at least Vietnam’s, whereas California is largely desert and mountains? And then they hide their utter stupidity and irresponsibility by filling the pockets of some scientists with nice taxpayer-funded efforts to say that global warming is to blame.


UN stands for “Unlimited Nickels”, at least as far as scientists are concerned. The UN doesn’t have a clever acronym for “scientist”, they’re just wondering how long before scientists and their blunders thoroughly discredit the scientific community, so that the UN can avoid paying expensive grants and hire cheap aspiring novelists like Ben Rhodes, given the amount of fiction in the climate reports anyway. Image from wikimedia commons

Seriously, as liberals love to say, FOLLOW THE MONEY! If research by institutes that get funding from oil companies or the Koch brothers is automatically tainted, what about funding to scientists that A: comes from a government with an interest in proving climate change exists (like say the Obama Administration, or the liberal California administration), a government that would withdraw said funding if it disagreed with the conclusion and B: goes to scientists who already believe climate change exists despite major incidents of faked data that should have left them with the least little scintilla of skepticism (based on the claim that 97% of scientists believe in global warming despite the severe credibility gap). Is that not also tainted? (It’s pretty much a given that the funding source will bias a scientist or pick biased scientists no matter what the research is about.)

And what if these climate treaty meetings receive money from fossil fuel companies and then decide that certain fossil fuel-consuming means of transport are exempt? Doesn’t that mean, by your standard, that the Paris Climate Agreement was tainted? And let’s not forget- while the oil company scientists and Koch scientists have yet to be caught faking data (you only claim it’s faked because you disagree, not because you have internal emails talking about faking it, unlike us climate skeptics who have the dark secrets of your scientists’ private thoughts spread on the internet for all to see in their own words), the global warming scientists have been caught faking it MANY TIMES. Does this not warrant any skepticism? Oh yeah, like I said in the article “California Attacks Muslims” (it was only unposted for like a few days, I just wrote like crazy in that time, hence why I never link to it) liberals will easily believe their side simply because it’s what they want to hear. Scientists too, apparently.

When Reality Is Not On The Side Of Liberals…

I mentioned the wildfires and droughts that the Left are trying to paper over with their bogus scientists. Probably some of the same scientists that said the very policies that caused the drought and wildfires were sound. But let’s also not forget when the EPA polluted an entire river basin. The corrupt liberals with their corrupt scientists and corrupt research wanted to steal some land from the folks in Silverton, CO. So these liberals and scientists schemed together and ended up polluting a river, which led to the residents deciding to vacate as the government wanted, only at the marginal expense of an ecological disaster of massive proportions. And yet we are still supposed to TRUST these people who just destroyed the environment over a land battle when they say they want to PROTECT it?!

…They Craft A New One


In the Left’s reality, New York City really was flooded by 2015 and temperatures had risen to create extreme heat, just as the Left predicted. But the Paris Climate Agreement reversed this. Image from

Here’s another callback to the “California” piece- the Left wants us to put MORE trust in them! Their version of climate denial has been responsible for wildfires, massive pollution, and a neverending drought. Now they want us to trust them with even more power to fight the climate change that they cause and other climate change that they’ve been faking data about. Liberals like Bill Nye, instead of debating their farce, are demanding that people like me be jailed for mentioning the flaws in the Left’s climate ideology. Like I said- unthinking beasts. What these animators did in jest the Left did with deadly conviction- invented a lie, they believed in it and acted on it, and now wish to punish anyone that DOESN’T believe this lie. Climate scientists, instead of arguing their point or disproving their opposition, are now suing to stop anyone from opposing them. How scientific. Attorney Generals of liberal states even now are using their power to attack anyone that publishes data against climate change. If the science is settled, why can’t you argue your positions? Why are you suing to shut up anyone with data you don’t like if it’s so easy to contradict? What is it you are trying to hide?

What else does the Left intend to do because of their “reality”? Well, of course, there’s the population control mentioned in the omnipresent “California” piece, in which the Left would pretty much decide that only liberals have children. Now we break into UN Agenda 21 (alias “smart growth”). Simply put: to fight global warming, every citizen in the United States will be confined to one of several super-cities (no suburbs because single-family homes are a no-no), leaving most of the country empty. You wonder how the Left will arrest climate deniers, how they’ll make sure you have only one kid, how they’ll execute any number of their measures? Well here’s one answer that they had for it, under the guise of environmentalism.

By the way- the good folks at the UN when discussing this were kind enough to mention that it has occurred to them to instill worldwide communism, destroy the middle class, and revert the world to a pre-industrial state (well, let’s be honest, everyone in the world except for them). So before you dismiss this Agenda 21 tangent as a conspiracy like a few Leftwing outlets have done (picking some of the more absurd claims, like the Jews being behind it, to make their case that ALL of it is a conspiracy theory) why don’t you actually read the statements from the people who you gave the power to implement this? And why don’t you take a look at my “California” piece for the references to current, respected liberals that demand such population control?  Motive, opportunity, and a history of such remarks are already established. Oh, and concurrent with Agenda 21’s introduction, we also have the Wildlands Project being introduced, which suggests 50% of the U.S. be depopulated (“rewilded“).

Remind Me Who’s Anti-Science?

A UN consultant gave us a statement to the effect that the UN believes wealth inequality causes global warming. SCIENCE!


But Earth-chan is so sick! Please help make her better by throwing all logic, reason, common sense, and really any brain functions that separate us from a herd of cows out the window. Speaking of a herd of cows, when I get to Agenda 21 you’ll see just how primitive of a state scientists want us to revert to. Propaganda image from Eurokeks

The ones who fake data supporting climate change, call upon state Attorney Generals to intimidate climate change deniers, and want to imprison anyone with a dissenting point of view? THESE are scientists? That’s what the Left has done, that’s what “scientists” have cheered, you want me to think that they are IN FAVOR of science? You want me to seriously believe that the majority of “scientists” who buy into this crap can credibly be called scientists? If your idea is so indefensible that you must protest against opposition, invent fictitious data because there’s no evidence supporting your assertion, and imprison dissenters then it’s readily apparent to anyone with an IQ above a potato that your idea can’t credibly be considered part of “science”, unless we tack a “pseudo” in front of the word.

It’s ironic too- as mentioned in the “California” piece, the Left attributes all sorts of oppression to religion. Including repression of scientific discovery. Yet here we have the Left doing its best Spanish Inquisition impression, with climate change deniers as latter-day Galileos. I guess the moral is this: no matter how ignorant you are, so long as you have a mind open to learning and discovery you’re more of a scientist than 97% of our scientific community.

But you’ll never get a paper published because it’s now all just a contest to get funding from liberal institutions and the people deciding what gets published are all a bunch of liberals hellbent on shoving their agenda down everyone’s throat, while the rest of the scientific community that might later claim to be sheep in this mess are openly abandoning the idea of scientific inquiry in favor of unswerving devotion to dogma. Scientific awards and academic journals are now on par with the Oscars- just forums for liberals to pat themselves on the back about how liberal they are while taking shots at nonbelievers. “Nonbelievers” is a very polite term- based on the Left’s utter contempt for people they deem inferior, ie people that don’t believe propaganda, and based on the Left’s drive for control of population (and the Left thinking that they’ve cured Down’s Syndrome by killing all babies born with it), I fervently believe that “nonbeliever” is more accurately replaced with “Lebensunwertes Leben”. Why don’t you ask a liberal and find out?

Illegal Dumping

Scientists want it to be illegal for me to insult them. But when they decide to attack countries that have cleaned-up their act, to punish a country that has done quite a lot to cut down on pollution, and to put on a pedestal the country which is the biggest example of anthropogenic climate change/government not caring about it and say they’re the one whose example we must follow, these scientists open themselves up to insult for such a backward, self-defeating, contradictory response that is in defiance not only of the urgent reality these scientists have imagined but in fact of reality itself. This can’t be considered libel because my statements are factually correct- liberals and the scientific community (more liberals) say we have very few hours/days/weeks/months/years to stop man-made climate change, and they tell us the best way to do this is to follow the example of the one country that, if it were to suddenly vanish, would cause the temperature increase to drop .5 degrees Celsius just as the Paris Climate Agreement aimed for.

Before you start ranting on about how anti-science I am for opposing scientists that wouldn’t know real science if it walked up and started throwing Erlenmeyer flasks at them, let me make my position even more clear: man-made climate change happens (otherwise my criticism against China would be bizarre). The problem is that A: the Left is blaming only the United States despite our fairly unpolluted countryside, B: the Left demands a worldwide totalitarian regime be installed to save us from their hyperbolic predictions of fiery death that have never come true, and C: the Left wants to silence opponents of their lies by jailing people/totally controlling the rest of the people right down to deciding if they’re worthy enough to reproduce (as established in the “California” piece). Their Final Solution to the Climate Question.


The UN’s new climate chief indicated in a recent interview that he too thought China was the best model for how to fight climate change. Image from wikimedia commons

And unfortunately, because of liberals, man-made climate change will doubtless continue and even reach the levels they are warning against. Not because of the U.S. which they target, we’re doing alright at least compared to where we used to be (except in liberal cities like smog-covered LA or NYC in which just one sip of the Hudson will probably give you cancer). Rather, it’s because of the countries the liberals are giving a free pass to pollute as they like (as established above with the description of what the Paris Climate Agreement allows, which makes this CNN piece saying China is near a point of no-return hilarious as the Climate Agreement lets China DRAMATICALLY INCREASE its polluting) while forcing the U.S. to make up the difference. As point of fact, while the U.S. is forced to withstand punitive, economy-damaging measures, we also are forced to PAY other countries (and Palestinian terrorists) so that they can keep polluting (the treaty is non-binding and there is no enforcement measure such as cutting off funds to a country that abuses them or ignores the agreement; the only reason America is forced to do anything is because of the Leftwing political leadership that brought us this agreement). But then again, as mentioned above, liberals have admitted at least twice that this is not about fixing the environment. It’s not about fairness or equal enforcement. It’s about wealth redistribution and ending capitalism. And even if we don’t believe the Left’s 97% claim, as seen at a Forbes link above we still have 80-90% of the scientific community on board with this radical ideology and inevitable genocide of political opposition.


All this just so that China and India can keep exemplifying the ills of man-made climate change or even accelerate their pace of polluting, as the Paris Climate Agreement permits. By the way, if China has the ideal form of government for fighting man-made Climate Change, would that also mean the USSR was ideal? Because you might want to rethink that assessment too… just as the UN has been rethinking its assessment of how effective the Paris Climate Agreement was. Doesn’t matter, it never was about the climate anyway, as stated before.

Why is it that I, the allegedly anti-science knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnon guy blasting scientists and environmentalists for hyping man-made climate change, am the one who seems to know more about real man-made climate change than they do? I assume I do, otherwise, the Paris Climate Agreement which scientists marched in support of would look a lot different, and they certainly wouldn’t support bad actors/major polluters like China being given free reign to pollute as they please. Maybe I’m the only one mentioned here that actually believes in man-made climate change, maybe the scientists are just rallying behind it in a cynical attempt to usher in worldwide communism and destruction to their political opposition (their opposition is easy to identify- whoever believes their contradictory statements unquestioningly is with them, whoever doubts them is the enemy). Wouldn’t be the first time someone used an ostensibly laudable cause as a Trojan Horse, and scientists already have a pretty bad reputation morallyspeaking (something also cynical, aside from my outlook, but I noticed I had a very hard time finding info on Soviet and Chinese human experiments, with most of the search results for both countries being links to American experiments, and any search for China had Unit 731 listed near the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if either A: Google didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they hid results, B: academics didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they didn’t study it, C: journalists didn’t want their favorite governments to look bad so they never reported on it, or D: all of the above).

I Leave You With One Last Smear Of The Scientific Community

They’re idiots (and yes, these folks who claim that people who rape/behead/burn people alive are the real victims DO represent the scientific community). This is the state of our scientific community… and explains why we’re still such a primitive species, technologically. But you liberals reading this probably believe we’re still primitive because science itself is sexist because it deals in absolutes, ie. sexist because 2+2 will always equal 4. Whatever.

When Is A Spy Not A Spy?


Image of the third-best Riddler, from DC Database

Riddle me this caped crusader!

Answer: when an investigation into collusion is not an investigation into collusion!

A Little Before Mueller’s Time

The New York Times and Washington Post report that the FBI had someone providing them information about the Trump Campaign, someone associated with the campaign. defines “spy” as:

a person who seeks to obtain confidential information 
about the activities, plans, methods, etc., of an organization or person, 
especially one who is employed for this purpose by a competitor:


to observe secretively or furtively with hostile
intent (often followed by on or upon).

President Trump said that the FBI had a spy in his campaign. This led to such headlines as:

  • “Donald Trump turned a rumor into a full-blown government conspiracy in just 5 days” – CNN
  • “Trump repeats unproven conspiracy theory” – CNN
  • “Trump’s FBI Spy Theory Is Completely Insane” – New York Magazine
  • “The No. 1 reason Trump’s ‘spygate’ conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense” – Washington Post
  • “Blame these people for Trump’s outrageous attack on truth and U.S. law enforcement” – Jennifer Rubin at Washington Post (their once alleged conservative columnist, though if that beastie is what WaPo thinks a conservative is it’s no wonder they’re so deathly out of touch with reality)

What exactly is THEIR definition of spy, or spying? Maybe this explains the credibility gap between us and the fake news media. Maybe they’re really telling the truth, but they speak an entirely different dialect of English. Or maybe America is suffering from Anosognosia Of The Media (A.M.).

The alternative, of course, is that these “journalists” believe that if they tell a lie (well, maybe half lie) enough, everyone will start believing it. And naturally, they complain that Trump is the one enabling dictatorships even though they’re the ones whose methods of deceit and whose goals of opposing free governments most align with the totalitarians. But like Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton’s mentor) said: accuse the other side of doing what you’re doing.

Repeat It, Like Other Lies, They Told About This…


Pictured: One of the many executions of American/Allied spies that the Left said would take place if we learned who the spy in the Trump Campaign was.  But like some Stalinist purge of history, I guess this didn’t happen since the NYT and WaPo were the ones that told us who the Trump spy was, instead of House Republicans. Image from The Real Cuba

They said that no one was ever spying on the Trump campaign. Well, that’s obviously a lie. Remember how they said revealing the spy would be illegal and jeopardize national security? Remember their breathless coverage of courageous Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) as he threatened to prosecute Republican Congressmen and Senators if they tried to find out who the spy was because people would die if that happened? Lies again! The spy turned out to be some guy who’s already well known for spying. So instead of looking like idiots for over-hyping the murders and collapse of intelligence gathering that would happen if anyone learned the identity of the spy, the media instead goes for looking stupid trying to say there was no spy after they themselves leaked enough details to identify the spy.

And so comes in my favorite Congressman to hate on- Adam Schiff (D-CA). This man must have stuffed a crayon up his nose or something as a wee lad, for all the wonderful sound bites he gives (like saying 15 months ago that there’s more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, but not revealing any of it even after the House shut down the investigation he was part of, even after the Mueller Probe failed to find or at least act on any such evidence after a year of looking). Adam said, within 90 seconds, that revealing the name of the spy would kill people and collapse our intel networks and that there, in fact, was not a spy at all. Personally, I liked Mr. Krabs’ delivery better. The icing on the cake is this: Adam Schiff made these statements days AFTER the NYT and WaPo released enough information about the spy that within five minutes everyone had identified him.

So for weeks the media and politicians tell us that we can’t know who the spy is, then the media tells us who it is, then the media and politicians either say there was no spy or that we can’t reveal information about the spy without causing a lot of damage. Or both, as Adam Schiff went for. And Former DNI James Clapper and Former FBI Director James Comey, who both went so far as to say no one was spying on the campaign at all but people were spying on it (Comey has since gone to just say nothing happened at all, period, despite his earlier remark). CNN too, who think this is a vast rightwing conspiracy… even after the leakers and NYT and WaPo admit it happened. And after all this, after the government leaks info that the media says would lead to people dying, after the media itself reports that the government spied on a political campaign, we have folks coming out and saying that it is wrong to question the government’s integrity.

Speaking Of Wild Remarks


I don’t really know what elitist Schumer has against this chain of stores. Image from My Bank Tracker

Sen. Chucky Schumer (D-NY) said that only a banana republic would investigate its law enforcement officials if circumstantial evidence (like Brennan, a political hack like Schumer, who once voted for a candidate that really was colluding with Russia, aiming the intel community at Trump the moment he looked like the Republican nominee) indicates a possible abuse of power. Remember- Schumer champions the Mueller Probe which is looking at all things even remotely related to the election to find any kind of crime committed by anyone involved with Trump at any point in their lives. Even if it has to manufacture one, as Michael Flynn learned. Or they’ll just settle for destroying your life. So in Schumer’s world, creating a taxpayer-funded group of law enforcement sicarios (they’re only one step more civilized than cartel hit men, only because they didn’t give Michael Flynn a Colombian necktie, so I refuse to demean mafia torpedoes by comparing them to the Mueller investigators) with unlimited power to prosecute political opponents is perfectly fine, but countering this corruption is itself the definition of corruption.

Schumer has shown yet again that he, the DNC, and clearly the entire Democrat Party and its myriad voters are all a bunch of gangsters. Thugs. Wannabe dictators trying to remake the U.S. into a banana republic of their own. I am laying blame on the entirety of the Democrat electorate simply because we are told Democrats are smarter and more independent, and more sane than Republicans. If that is the case, then they MUST be aware of what their leadership, like Schumer, is up to. They either do not care about what is going on or even support their goals. At the very least this argument applies to every Democrat in the state of New York that voted Schumer in, as well as his plentiful donors across the country… and let’s be honest, across the world because the number 1 Senate Democrat probably gets his share of foreign investment the same as the number 1 Republican.

What Did That Informant/Spy Do?

Halper tried to establish whether or not the Trump Campaign had connections with Russia. He started work July of 2016. He was unsuccessful in finding evidence of collusion and was even frustrated when George Papadopoulos had no idea what he was talking about when he asked George about alleged Russian meddling.

Which Way Will It go, George, Which Way Will It Go?


Stalin looks on with envy at the DNC’s relation with the American Press, as he wonders why his contemporary Soviet Press can’t be anywhere near as friendly to him.

George Papadopoulos is significant because I think the current iteration of the investigation’s origins (not the Mueller Probe; I mean the investigation that put Halper into the Trump Campaign. The Mueller Probe has only charged George with lying to the FBI, with said lie being that he told them he made contact with someone before he joined the campaign. The FBI thinks it is a lie because, though not part of the campaign at the time he made contact with this guy, George knew he would be in the campaign.) have him as being important. I don’t know, I might be behind on the latest origin story and stuck with what it was for Earth-Two, courtesy of the fantasy weavers on the Left that might be on Earth-One right now. First, they tell us it’s Carter Page and the Steele Dossier, then George.

George was one of the targets for chosen spy Halper, and the timeline is where the Left and DOJ/FBI slip up. James Comey (FBI Director at the time) told Congress under oath that their investigation began in LATE July, and Democrats in Congress pinned the date down as being July 31, 2016. Except Halper started spying for the FBI on July 11, 2016. Oops. Plus, former DNI Director James Clapper implied George wasn’t so major of a player in all this as to be the start of the investigation (otherwise Clapper would certainly remember his name).

Going back to the Steele Dossier for a second- Axios is saying that the House GOP’s finding that the Pee-Tape Dossier was used to trigger the FBI’s investigation, and Trump parroting that, are now discredited because the FBI had been investigating Trump much longer. Two problems come to mind. 1: that means the DOJ withheld information from Congress otherwise they’d have known better, and 2: the FISA memo was in fact retrieved based largely on the Dossier, so it still played a substantial role. Oh yeah, and 3: it sure looks like the FBI acted on the Steele Dossier when they deployed Halper- the FBI received it July 5, and on July 11 Halper starts spying on Carter Page who is hyped-up mightily in the Dossier. It’s still almost/more than 3 weeks before we’re told the FBI started their investigation that we see the FBI investigating this.

Speaking Of Violated FBI Rules


Let’s not kid ourselves with this partisan stuff- the real reason Comey didn’t tell the Trump Campaign is because he was too busy thinking about the millions his book deal would bring him. As seen in this pic from, the only thought in his head is “baby you’re a rich man, baby you’re a rich man, baby you’re a rich man too”

Oh, by the way, in regards to the idea that Halper was just there to check if Russia was trying to infiltrate the campaign rather than check for wrongdoing by the campaign itself, the FBI’s rulebook says it was supposed to notify the Trump Campaign instead of planting a spy. The Obama Administration decided not to do this. Taken alone

that might just seem reckless and slightly abusive like they were looking for an excuse to put a spy in the campaign, but consider the other steps the DOJ took (and the lies) and this takes on a more sinister overtone. Steps like setting-up Mike Flynn for a perjury trap, steps like “leaking” that J.D. Gordon met with Russian ambassadors in a “secret meeting” (which turned out to be lunch at the RNC among hundreds of other ambassadors) so that his reputation would be destroyed, and finally steps like the Deputy AG ordering an investigation into Trump over (in part) obstruction of justice because Trump did what the Deputy AG recommended and fired the FBI Director (notice how Newsweek dismisses this and proven collusion with Russia as conspiracy theories, to defend the idea that there is no DOJ corruption and to defend the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory).

And now we add that the Obama Administration decided not to warn the Trump campaign they could be facing Russian infiltration. The Obama Admin also didn’t want to warn the Trump Campaign that Carter Page and Paul Manafort had foreign ties. And sure enough, there’s an investigation into Trump-Russia collusion afterward. It’s like if police were to take down those “one-way” signs and then lie in wait to give tickets to people that travel the wrong way up a street while having let someone get into your car who would tell you to drive in that direction. And oh look, they even charged Paul Manafort (for unrelated stuff), who never would’ve been in this position with the Trump Campaign to begin with if the Obama Admin had warned them.

Denying Spying

Well, there you have it. Spies, and what appears to be entrapment and outright fabricating charges (like for Flynn and George, where Comey had to fabricate intent for Flynn and George was charged for not sharing the FBI’s definition that you are working on a campaign before you work on a campaign). And the best defense the Left has is to deny that any of this is happening, or try to divert to an even more implausible story (as was the case when shifting from Page to Papadopoulos). But it’s as clear as black and white that there was spying afoot, as reported in the Left’s own black and white printed papers of record!


Question! What’s black and white right, but white and black wrong? Image from Star

Phony Comey Wants You To Give His Book A Look


An appropriate picture, as for both sides of the aisle Comey is the face of the DOJ and FBI. Except if you look at the reasons you’d wonder what universe the other side of the aisle was in. Image from CNN

Former FBI Director James Comey either lied to Congress or the American people, so naturally he’d call Trump a liar and say “facts really do matter”.

Ironically, his statement on facts was when discussing a leak he executed, one of his memos to a friend. He said that since it was an unclassified conversation it wasn’t a leak. Facts matter Mr. Comey, as you said. Maybe that one incident you spoke of was unclassified, but at least two of the memos you leaked to your buddy contained classified information. On top of that, the FBI claims that your little “diary” as you called it is really government property. And remember when you tried to punish your agent who leaked details of the unclassified meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton? So while you’re free to promote your book, others have been jailed for similar crimes, and the FBI itself UNDER YOUR WATCH tried to punish an agent for a similar leak.

Then again, facts also didn’t matter with Comey when he told Congress that Trump said “I hope” the investigation into Flynn would be dropped. Comey decided that this statement meant that Trump was ordering him to drop the investigation, thus committing obstruction of justice, but under examination Comey denied that Trump ordered him to drop the investigation and couldn’t come up with any instances where someone was charged for obstruction for hoping something. Of course Comey forgot about this embarrassing examination and sticks to his obstruction story.

So Comey is saying that because of how he chose to interpret a statement Trump made, an interpretation not based on any words Trump used as mentioned in Comey’s testimony, Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, because facts matter or something. Ok, fine. If that’s the measure for a crime, then I say Obama is just as guilty of obstruction of justice for when he said Hillary was innocent of any charges before the investigation had even interviewed her!

Oh, by the way, Comey also lied about Lt. Gen. Flynn. Because facts matter. As it turns out, the agents that interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn was lying. Comey overrode them and went after Flynn. Flynn of course had to plea guilty because he didn’t have the money to defend himself. Since we know Comey lied multiple times already, including about Flynn to the point Flynn was in legal jeopardy over it, and since Mueller seems inclined to believe Comey’s account as you’ll see below, it’s no wonder Trump’s legal team believes the Mueller Probe’s desire to interview him is a perjury trap, like what happened to Flynn.

Peas And Carrots


Certain other events also led the media to believe that George was lying when he told them about the rabbits after they’d done a bad thing.

What Comey did here is a typical liberal argument tactic, so it’s no wonder he’s now a media darling. Someone says x. You decide that they really mean y even if they never said it. Then when enough time passes and everyone forgets that x was said, or if someone never knows x was said, you say that particular someone said y. This is what liberals did to the Bush Administration when they claimed the Bush Administration said the invasion of Iraq was connected to 9/11 (a fallacy which some liberals still believe). NO ONE in the Bush Administration said anything like that. But after enough time passed, the mainstream media started attacking the Bush Administration for tricking the American people into supporting the invasion of Iraq in part by saying Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. When the media were confronted by the fact that they invented that narrative, their reaction was to say it’s what the Bush Administration wanted them to think. MIND TAKING! BOOOOOOWEEEEEOOOOO!

So the media claims that their own stupidity and rabid partisan fervor was in fact a deliberate manipulation by the Bush Administration. And after lying about this, they continue to lie about WMDs being found in Iraq because guess what, THEY WERE according to the New York Times itself (and for you hair splitters who say that these weren’t the active WMDs we were promised, Obama’s intelligence chief believes those went to Syria, so what are you going to do, criticize Obama?)!

And of course by pointing all of this out, the Left will say I’m attacking the First Amendment (because an attack on the press is only an attack on the First Amendment when a liberal is the victim, none of these Lefty journalists attacking Trump complained about Obama’s crusade against Fox News) and don’t want a free press. A free press would be nice, yes, and it’s too bad we don’t have one in this country.

This is about Comey though.

Ball-less little lyin’ pansies like Comey, who was never an FBI agent in his life but was chosen by Obama to lead the organization, don’t have any respect for rule of law, nor do they have the guts to actually confront their opponents (without the security of a court room and government protection anyway). It’s ironic that Comey prosecuted the Gambino crime family, they actually HAD integrity and honor when compared to Comey. Can it be declared a mistrial if the prosecutor is more of a scumbag than the defendants?


Comey’s next book will be a romance novel about his… “intimate” knowledge that rumors of Obama’s sexuality are true. Image from

So you ask why Comey would leak his memos? Comey said he did so because he wanted a Special Counsel to investigate Trump for collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice or pretty much anything. Probably because Hillary lost, since Comey’s family was all over her (and protesting Trump) and Comey himself was in love with Obama. Comey even happily went along when then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter”, and did not even think of looking into whether that tarmac meeting constituted collusion or obstruction or whatever as evidenced by the lack of followup to it and Comey himself said his only response was to make his July announcement about the investigation.

The pattern around the Comey memo leaks goes like this: the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired, Trump fires Comey, Comey then leaked his memos to his friend with the hopes of triggering a Special Counsel investigation, then the Deputy Attorney General obliges and appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, with Mueller being tasked with looking into if Trump’s firing of Comey at the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General was obstruction of justice. So based on this pattern of facts it’s very hard not to conclude (unless you’re Newsweek, who want to dismiss this and the Clinton campaign/DNC paying money to Russia for the Fusion GPS dossier as a conspiracy theory, ie dismissing FACTS, thus indicating the folks at Newsweak aren’t even reliable enough to spell their own name right) that Rosenstein tried to set Trump up for an obstruction of justice charge by suggesting Comey be fired. It’s icing on the cake that Trump refused to hire Robert Mueller again as FBI Director, that Rosenstein knew of this bias but appointed Mueller, and that Mueller did not recuse himself.

What Else Has Comey Done For Us?

Of course leaking isn’t the first issue Comey’s been a hypocrite on. Naturally I can point out that Comey DID NOT take notes on any meetings with Barack Obama or even Loretta Lynch after he stated he would’ve been suspicious of her motives. Gee, I wonder why he only took notes on Trump?

He attacked Former New York Mayor Giuliani, saying he was a terrible leader. But under Comey, the FBI was decimated as a legitimate institution. Comey and his number two man Andrew McCabe became leakers, and a conspiracy to hurt a Presidential candidate/sitting President was initiated. So uh… about that leadership thing? Comey ought to know that the leader sets the tone at the top. But that’s par for the course for the Obama Administration’s appointees, I guess.

There are other players out right now who have no integrity, in relation to the Comey issue. You know how the Left and the media are praising Comey over his book and his integrity and stuff?  How they’re touting his pronouncements about Trump being unfit to be President because Comey believes Trump is unethical? Here’s what they used to say about Comey:


George Stephanopoulos interviews James Comey while several Democrat politicians, DOJ officials, and members of the media look on. Image from quora

Well, Democrats and I agree I guess on something afterall- that Comey sucks. Comey is a glory-seeking piece of human filth that probably decided to make the Trump memos and make his Hillary email statements so that regardless of who won he’d have a book. No wonder Jorge Estebanlos interviewed him, peas in a pod since they have the same ethical standards. And when talking with George, Comey said he hopes Trump is not impeached because that would “let the American people off the hook”. I personally feel that folks like Comey are best seen on hooks, through their mouths, maybe as some vengeful Gambinos lower him to the bottom of the Hudson with a fashionable summer ensemble consisting of a navy blue three piece suit from Savile Row, alizarin crimson silk kravat, and the latest in cement dress shoes.

Didn’t He Have A Book?

Oh right, I was supposed to touch on the book in here somewhere. Well I never read it. Its title is A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership. I wonder what that loyalty is to- he’s thrown Democrats under the bus and is attacking Trump hard, and he can’t mean higher values given that we’ve established Comey is incapable of telling the truth and lies whenever it suits him (and in general is a terrible leader). I’m not sure on what grounds Comey is declaring that he has the moral authority to attack Trump in his book, or that his book has any moral authority whatsoever. There’s an old saying about casting stones if you live in a glass house. Comey lives in a freakin’ brandy snifter. He’s already well past the point of having enough character flaws to make him an A-Team villain.

California Attacks Islam


The “C” is for “California”, image from wikimedia

What a salacious headline! Bear with me while I establish the background on AB 2943

I know, I know. You read about this bill on Snopes or FactCheck or Politifact or in your favorite mainstream media outlet, and believe these groups. Despite the fact that they didn’t bother quoting the relevant parts of the bill; the only quotes were merely assurances from its writers. Just like the folks at the San Diego Tribune, who I guess think that the writers and proponents of any piece of legislation should be believed regardless of what the words in the legislation actually say. Well didn’t California’s own Nancy Pelosi once say you have to pass the bill to know what’s in it (you’ll notice that ol’ snopey gives Pelosi the benefit of the doubt, and even tries to interpret her words for her, to the point where they answer “did Pelosi say x” with a “mixture of fact and truth”, as if somehow you can say something but NOT say it, and then they try to prove that! A courtesy snopey does not extend to the other side of the aisle.)?

These Lefty groups want this thing to be made into law, or they simply don’t think they have to do any research because a liberal reassured them. Well, read the bill for yourselves. It’s rather obvious our fact checkers and media are lying once again. Pretty much any time a liberal says some rightwing claim has been debunked, no matter how allegedly respectable the propaganda rag they write for is, you can bet your bottom dollar that they’re lying or their idea of “debunking” is simply to say “it’s not true” without presenting any evidence. Which leads to embarrassing retractions, like when the New York Times said it was a rightwing conspiracy theory that the Palestinians paid millions of dollars in pensions to the families of terrorists. NYT had to issue a retraction for that, even though if the author and editors and fact checkers had engaged for even the briefest of intervals in the act of journalism they would’ve realized that their biased opinion didn’t reflect reality and that statement never would’ve been published.

From now on, when referring to “articles” written in liberal “news” outlets such as Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc I should refer to the reporters as “authors”, given how far removed from reality their “journalism” is. It’s like they took a cue from Obama, but instead of hiring an egotistical hack novelist who is neither experienced nor knowledgeable about national security to be National Security Advisor, the Leftstream media hired a bunch of egotistical novelist hacks as reporters. Meanwhile, the Left forgets Obama’s choice (and Obama’s pre-Presidential record) and constantly criticizes Trump for being inexperienced and picking inexperienced people. Psychologists call this “projection”- “humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

A Step Into The Left’s Mind


Jackasses. Image from wikimedia commons

You see, to the Left, anything they say is the truth. That’s the rationale behind the protesters, whether it’s David Pigman or Sharpy Sharp And The Dull Bunch. Whether they’re protesting Trump’s victory or protesting the idea that people here illegally who had 6 years to register themselves with no penalty should’ve done so by now. Or a protesting mob of scientists who think faked data is grounds for worldwide communism and population control (I wonder what standards the Left will use to determine who lives or dies in their model, probably the same standard of who should be arrestedwhen legitimate, respected liberal thinkers start sounding like Bond villains you’d think that the Left might realize how far out they are, but nope, they simply double down and fight harder… guess that mentality explains all the nameless henchmen the Bond villains have). Doesn’t matter, liberalism today is about imposing your self-made factless reality on the rest of the world. That’s why we are told science is sexist because it deals in absolute truths. That’s why everyone gets their own truth that outweighs reality. In their minds, they might not actually be lying to you deliberately. Maybe the fact checkers and liberal media actually believe that if a liberal tells them something it must be the truth because liberals don’t lie. I mean, most women are liberal and we already know women can do no wrong, according to the feminists that liberals support. Lying would be included in that list of wrong things women can’t do.



The Left lives in a world just as magical, but a bit more trippy. Image from

This denial of reality goes into why they are so violent towards anyone who opposes them. They KNOW they are right. They KNOW they are smarter than anyone else. If they truly believed there was another point of view, that would shatter their myth of superiority (so they want to ban anything that challenges how right they are, basically admitting that their worldview CANNOT hold up to scrutiny). Which is why they’re atheists too, by the way, they can’t tolerate the idea that they’re not at the top of the pecking order. But it’s also why they don’t listen- if they’re right, then you MUST be wrong if you disagree. For a group that supports more gender types than episodes of Star Trek that I’ve seen, they are EXTREMELY binary when it comes to worldview. You’re either with them, or against them. And you must be evil when you oppose them, because they know they are right, so if they’re right and YOU claim to be right too, that must mean you’re a liar, and since everything a liberal stands for is good, that must mean you stand for evil because you oppose them. That really is their worldview. Just ask. And there certainly aren’t any facts opposing my claim, in fact every day there is more support to my assertion that this childish reasoning is all they have. Diversity of flesh, but not diversity of thought, to the point that you are judged by the color of your skin rather than the content of your character… unless you have the appropriate skin color but DON’T think appropriately.

Or Maybe I Misjudged The Case Here

The other alternative of course as I mentioned is that the fact checkers read the bill, and LOVED what they saw, but that again goes towards the whole “we have our own truth that we’re imposing on you” thing. In the Left’s mind, religion is a blight on society (just read the comments section for any given YouTube video touching on religion). It’s the sole cause of wars and the Dark Ages and what holds everyone back from being peaceful communists living together. Ok, that’s overgeneralizing, CHRISTIANITY is a blight on society. Just ask Senator Cory Booker (D), who unilaterally did the very unconstitutional thing of giving a Trump nominee a religious test, and attacked his beliefs later… but seems fine with having an Islamic Deputy Chair. You know, Islam, the religion that’s usually MORE oppressive than Christianity. Liberals are cool with every religion* except Christianity, and also aren’t cool with a Jew that’s pro-Israel. Or rich. Or… ok, they hate Jews too but not as openly. They see Christians (and Jews) as ignorant savages and see religion as an oppressive force so naturally any bill that attacks it gets a pass, like say the bill I start this article with.

*for you Shintoists in the audience who might note that I only mention 3 religions above, the Left ignores your existence unless someone in your group runs counter to their ideology, much like how it treats Asian Americans when they talk about the prejudices they face– see the section above on skin color for more details on this pattern

They don’t see the bill or similar items as an attack; they see it as a means of educating the population, a means of suppressing misinformation (afterall, like everything else in the liberal world, religion is just caused by some outside condition, akin to their reasoning for why whites are always privileged and blacks are always oppressed). Which makes me wonder now if people in China and North Korea genuinely believe that “re-education” camps are merely learning institutions, because if liberals pulled that same thing here you can bet anything from dollars to navy beans that Snopes would believe whatever they’re told about the camps as long as the source was a liberal.

To The Bill At Hand

So I’ve established that the bill can be used in an extremely anti-Christian way if you read it rather than listen to its leftwing advocates, as the fact checkers and our allegedly free press did, and I explained why the Left wouldn’t bother reading the bill itself and just rest with the assurances of its authors, but I have yet to explain how the terrifying headline is anything close to accurate. Well, you see all this evidence about how the language in the bill puts Bibles on the chopping block and makes it so it would be illegal for churches to ask for donations or even be funded, all because of what the Bible says about homosexuals, can be used against Islam too. So let’s see what Imams and the Koran say about gays…

Islamic scholars overwhelmingly teach that same-gender sex is a sin.

The Muslim holy book, the Koran, tells the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom – and sodomy in Arabic is known as “liwat,” based on Lot’s name.

Men having sex with each other should be punished, the Koran says, but it doesn’t say how – and it adds that they should be left alone if they repent.

The death penalty instead comes from the Hadith, or accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The accounts differ on the method of killing, and some accounts give lesser penalties in some circumstances. “

Noble Verses 26:165-166, 27:55, 29:28-29 were sent to me by brother Bassam Zawadi, may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:

“Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!  (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

“And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. “Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?” But his people gave no answer but this: they said: “Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth.”  (The Noble Quran, 29:28-29)

Also, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:  “A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering.   (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0667)” “

Gee, under this bill you wonder how anything Islamic involving the exchange of money wouldn’t be banned. And no, that part about gays repenting is NOT enough to let Islam get a pass if it were treated equally, because if you’d read the sources you’d know that the bill dealt with anything that attempts to say homosexuality is wrong. Repenting is the act of admitting you are wrong. (I’m going to love reading the comments that say my use of Koran quotes means I’m a bigot for explaining this detail about Islam in its own words. As if liberal Marie Harf dictating what a group of Muslims believe contrary to what the group itself said wasn’t bigoted. And as for repenting, California already has a bill that makes it illegal for heterosexuals who were molested by someone of the same sex to obtain psychological treatment for any homosexual feelings that may have come from that trauma, so it’s rather obvious California wouldn’t look kindly upon repenting either)

So Where Are The Outraged Muslims?


Intersectionality works because Muslims have a thing called “taqiyya“- they can lie to infidels and pretend to have beliefs which they really don’t so long as it advances Islam. Kinda explains Linda Sarsour, either that or she is functionally illiterate. Image from GetReligion

Well, this is where we get into something called “selective enforcement”. There are way too many laws on the books to enforce against everyone who violates them. Due to the amount of regulations on the books, we’re all guilty of a crime whether we know it or not. We all probably commit one every day whether we know it or not. Your kids aren’t safe either, 12 year olds in the U.S. have been handcuffed for eating french fries. Heck, I bet none of you reported your eBay purchases to the IRS this past tax day. That leaves the government with a disturbing option- all of its opponents are guilty of something, so go after them while ignoring the violations of its friends.


The Muslims know that the Left is their bestest good buddy. Muslims won’t bite the hand that feeds them. Not yet. Remember- the Left claims slavery is freedom when it comes to Islam. The Left declared Islamist Linda Sarsour, who believes in an oppressive version of Islam and called for a jihad against Trump, to be a feminist celebrity. The Left almost fetishizes the oppression of women under Islam, claiming that symbols of such oppression are symbols of liberation (contrary to the opinion of people who had live with said oppression, but the Left loves dictating what people should think from its guarded fantasy world). Heck, liberals think so much of Islam that they cheered Palestine’s flag being waved at the Democratic National Convention, whereas no American flags were even present. At first, but the physical ones wheeled in were kind of off to the side in the shadows. Liberal anti-Israeli protesters did bring an Israeli flag too, but they burned it. They burned American flags too.

More importantly and pertinently to the “selective enforcement” argument, consider this: how many Muslim bakers have been forced out of business over discrimination? None. How about Christian ones? Get the picture?

And of course we have the liberals Europe, the ones that the Left tell us we should be more like, letting the Muslims get away with rape gangs that had thousands of victims, blaming the victims of said rapes, because the police and government are too scared of being labelled as racists. In fact, they’ve even said that people reporting on these crimes were racist and gave the rapists lighter sentences because they were not white and their victims were. UK’s government believes that rape is not a serious crime if the victim is white and the rapist is not, that is what their own internal conclusion is. Germany took the approach of siding with the Muslims and saying the rape victims were responsible for what their attackers did. So Muslims know that if the Left literally will let them get away with raping the Left’s own kids (or let a Muslim get away with assault because in the Judge’s mind, a judge who threatened the victim, Islam takes precedence over the First Amendment… and for you women out there, even in America those liberal activist judges I alluded to think a Muslim should be allowed to rape you), then they’ll certainly give the Islamic faith a pass when it comes to this bill.


So I guess Democrats and Islam have something else in common- peace is so old school for both of them.

You’ll notice I didn’t distinguish between “radical” Islam and ‘regular’ Islam. That’s because I’m trying NOT to insult the Muslims. I’m not Muslim, so I have no right to make that distinction. The whole sectarian struggle in the Middle East is about what version of Islam is extremist and which is not. I can say I like certain brands, but I’m not going to decide which one is radical because quite frankly if you ever read the Koran ALL THE WAY THROUGH and the hadiths too you’d notice that ISIS is acting mostly as an adherent to the rules (later, violent sayings and stories overrule older and peaceful ones, so Islamic scholars of Islam currently and historically said- this is called “abrogation”), whereas if you stopped reading while Mohammed was still in Mecca you’d think that the peaceful Westernized vision was the true way. Me saying “radical” here is no different than if a Muslim were to say Protestants had it right and Catholics were the radicals, from a Christian point of view.  I don’t want to encourage certain groups by saying “radical” Islam is bad, because to each group there’s another group that IS radical Islam (even non-Muslims disagree on what “radical” is, with the SPLC saying someone who is against “radical” Islam is in fact a “radical” Islamic extremist), so instead I’ll encourage them all to clean house and get their defecation consolidated by lumping the bad and good together as simply Muslims, much like the Left always does with Christians.

The point is: if this bill is passed, there will be legal grounds to attack your religion, Mr.-or-Mrs.-Muslim-what-reads-this. Once the Right is gone, if you think the Left’s not going to put up a fight against you, you’re very naïve. Just like any liberal who doesn’t think that the Alliance To End Republicans (or Hulkamania) will fall to pieces once that common enemy is obliterated. I mean come on, do you seriously suspect that your whole intersectionality idea will hold you together with all those ideologies competing against each other? The only glue holding you together is your common hatred for certain groups, so you will desperately try to find one boogeyman after another to hate against in order to maintain your power. That’s probably also why the only emotions we see from you are hate-based: if you didn’t spend every minute of every day filling your mind with hate for your common enemy, differences between you and your allies might just enter into your mind.

I’ll cover what happens with that in another piece, but Harvey Weinstein was just a preview, as was the mention of Asians earlier. You can also look at how your side treats blacks from Africa to see the state of your so-called tolerance. You see, apparently there was an “African Holocaust” in the U.S., and according to the Left and the few african americans who claim to suffer from said holocaust (obviously they feel black Americans are superior to Jews or anyone else who experienced a real genocide), folks from Africa are wealthy (compared to the holocaust-stricken  African Americans) and never had any problems. Ever. So I guess these conflicting worldviews that will come to blows once there isn’t a common enemy are what happens when we each have our own truths, like African Americans who think they’re worse off than folks in Darfur (and liberal women who think Islam is a model for achieving a feminist utopia).

If You Still Believe The Bill’s Authors And Media, Even Over The Language Of The Bill Itself

And for those on the Left, who would be glad the above lies were told and see no problem with them nor the results of the laws that came to pass because of these lies, I present the below so that you may have empathy for my position:

You don’t believe Trump, you claim he’s a liar, well I just outlined how YOU TOO are a liar, so why would I EVER believe the assurances of your lawmakers on this matter, ESPECIALLY when the freakin’ BILL ITSELF says the opposite of what its writers and your “fact checkers” are telling us! “Fact Checker” is now an Orwellian euphemism, they belong to the Left’s “Ministry of Truth”. This bill does not target Christians/Muslims, chocolate rations are up 20%, and we’ve always been at war with Eurasia (a terrifying example of life imitating art thanks to the DNC’s sudden anti-Russian-warmongering furor, and remember: it’s been nearly 2 years and we STILL don’t know if the Russians hacked the DNC! And no, 17 intel agencies DID NOT say that Russia did it no matter how much liberals want to memory hole the truth. Read the news sometime! And ask the DNC why it destroyed evidence if it’s so eager to show Russia is behind its hacking, and ask why the DNC ironically set itself up for being accused of the crime of destroying evidence by claiming that hacking its servers was a criminal act by Trump and Russia).



    Minitrue mark article doubleplusungood crimethink.                         Miniluv remake goodthink fullwise.                    Image from DailyBeast, doubleplusgood bb duckspeak friend

Computer Companies Cripple Constitution


image from

If you have Windows 10, Microsoft is monitoring everything you type. It’s already bad enough that the NSA immediately flags you if you start doing a web search for certain terms, terms that don’t even have anything to do with classified info or national security risks or crimes in general. Now we have to worry that anything we type at all will flag us for censorship. Even liberals have to worry, particularly if they aren’t Left enough or their stock-in-trade is quoting conservatives and then attacking them. “Correction” AI makes no distinction between friend or foe, if you type it you’re wrong. We’re not at the AI stage yet except on social media, but if you think Microsoft will continue to employ censors when it can simply program them then you’ve got another thing coming.

And to up the ante, Microsoft has released a new user agreement effective May 1 2018 that makes it a violation of their terms to use their software for “hate speech“. In violating the terms, they can suspend your account and remove your ability to use Microsoft products. Microsoft, being a liberal company like all of Silicon Valley, has a definition of what hate speech is that’s doubtlessly at odds with half the country and the President of the United States. In fact, liberals like those at Microsoft are of a mind to ban free speech altogether, claiming it leads to violence (which is true, what the Left defines as “hate speech” usually leads to liberals trying to murder conservatives, or demanding it and just beating people or using threats to silence dissent, knowing full well that their position is so indefensible that it would never withstand intellectual scrutiny, so they have to physically or verbally attack anyone with a different view). Keep in mind that government offiicials use Microsoft products- how long will it be before Microsoft decides to disable the Trump Administration over some hate speech issue?

Oh, and for you angry liberals out there, you also can’t swear. And Microsoft says it can examine your personal files if someone complains to them about you. Granted, you liberals might get a pass because of the “selective enforcement” thing I mentioned in my piece “California Attacks Islam” (I’d link it, but I’m writing this while that one still hasn’t been posted).

What Does This Mean?


The kindly, dignified group of young people expressing grievances against President Trump in a civilized manner pictured above will be the ones deciding if what a Conservative says constitutes “hate speech”. Well… if you want to know what something is, you go to the experts. Images from AP, Fox News, Quora, and RWC News

If you’re a liberal, it means nothing at all. Just like with Facebook, the folks at Microsoft are hardcore liberals. Just like with Facebook, they will use their power only against their political opponents, never a liberal (that’s far enough Left). Remember: liberals are the biggest purveyors of the notion that “hate speech” should be banned to begin with; by the very act of putting that into their service agreement Microsoft is showing its political bias and anti-First Amendment attitude. Their new terms of service for some of their products, taken with their proclivity for recording everything you type, hits a new level of scary because basically anything you’ve typed can be leaked to the public. The only thing stopping it is just how merciful a liberal will feel towards you after they lost an election.

It’s already bad enough what accusations of “hate speech” can do. Mobs are formed, people are threatened, Democrat officials demand free speech not happen because of the risk to the public from liberal mobs (a nice little cycle: liberals threaten violence against a conservative, so a liberal in authority silences the conservative in the name of public safety, thus encouraging liberal protesters to threaten even more speakers that the liberal in authority doesn’t think should have voices anyway), and now Microsoft will go through (and doubtlessly leak) your personal information. You don’t have to worry about anonymous trolls or CNN doxxing you, now it’s Microsoft itself that’s coming after you for having opposing political views.

The Left figured it out. They failed in election after election, so now instead of repealing the First Amendment legally they’re just using their power to get the same effect. I doubt they remember when they kept telling us to respect the “law of the land“, just like how they forgot about Obama delegitimizing the Democrats’ current #resistance/riots/obstructionism/First Amendment fight when he said “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election… but don’t break it”.

What Can We Do?


30 years ago there was a visionary who tried to raise venture capital to save us from this Silicon Valley scourge. Sadly, the surveillance-state loving British Government stopped him. Yes, given how many death threats (and what best can be described as death porn and calls for genocide) the Left has made, including one using another Christopher Walken movie, I’m totally comfortable making this joke. Image from Squiggly’s

Do all of your work on a Linux system. Use different word processors. Good luck boycotting Microsoft. If anything this latest move will encourage the Chinese government and strongmen worldwide (that liberals like those at Microsoft who complain Trump’s attacks on the press enable) to invest in Microsoft because Microsoft just vowed to fight free speech. Never judge a liberal’s intent by their words; only judge by their actions.

You’ll notice that I DIDN’T say Apple was an alternative. They’ve done their share of fighting the first amendment, as has Google (so don’t bother with Google docs and gmail, they have your browser history, your emails, and even your movements tracked via your phone). Oh yeah, and like Microsoft the liberals at Apple are more than happy to complain about Trump enabling oppressive governments with his attacks on the press while Apple itself works with the Chinese government to censor the views of the population, thus enabling the very strongmen that they attack Trump for enabling.

Taken As A Whole

  • Liberals reacted violently to Trump winning, to the point of committing acts that legally should be considered domestic terrorism (ie violent acts designed to intimidate or coerce the government and civilian population, with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and current Senator Tim Kaine having encouraged such terrorism)
  • Liberals committed acts of violence against Trump supporters
  • Liberals believe the above violence is justified, that any violence against speech they dislike is justified
  • Liberals believe speech is equal to physical violence
  • Liberals believe speech must be censored (and that the First Amendment plus other Constitutional protections should be abolished)
  • Microsoft records everything you type
  • Microsoft will come after you if you offend their liberal sensibilities

Does anyone else find it ironic that liberals whine about corporations taking over society, but then liberal companies with liberal values do just that as liberals cheer them on?

As for the rest of us- only use your Microsoft stuff for games, use Linux, use every bit of anonymity you can on the internet (Tor browser, proxy servers, etc), and grab a gun for the day you’re eventually doxxed and physically attacked for your beliefs. No, censorship is not that bad in America yet, Microsoft hasn’t started banning people and leaking their personal info (like say social security numbers and bank account info, in addition to addresses and names) for having the wrong political views yet, but the instrumentality to do it all is in place. The Left loves to ask gun owners why they’d have a gun if not to kill someone, well I ask them why would the Left take the above steps if they had no intention of being oppressors?

Of course, as I mentioned in the article “California Attacks Islam” (still not posted, even several paragraphs in, though I wrote this citation prior to the one above. Welcome to editing), the Left and liberals reading this don’t see themselves as oppressors, and in fact don’t even understand how this could be seen as oppressive. It’s a startlingly common mantra by the Left when it comes to leaking private info of someone on the right- if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide (sometimes in those words, so I guess the Left hates the Fifth Amendment too, but also by demanding transparency and dismissing privacy concerns, but only when it’s related to the opposition). Why worry about liberals having this much power over you?

Yes, I’m painting the Left with a broad brush. As I said, judge them by their actions. Who on the Left is calling Microsoft/Apple/Facebook/Google out on their censorship? How many on the Left have said this is an issue? How many on the Left have signed petitions against or boycotted these liberal tech giants? They’re happy to boycott Fox News hosts for insulting liberal cheerleaders, or Breitbart for reporting actual news that liberal journalists refuse to touch (and because their guy helped Trump win, literally starting a boycott because their side lost an election), but they don’t dare touch tech giants that are waging war on the First Amendment? Think about it.

The Ol’ ULTRA Violence


Image from wikimedia commons

“Of course I was a very minor missionary, actually a heretic, but I toiled wholeheartedly in the vineyards because it was fun, fun, fun. Where else could a red-blooded American boy lie, kill and cheat, steal, deceive, rape and pillage with the sanction and blessing of the All-Highest?” -CIA Agent George White, in a letter to agency chemist and poison expert Sidney Gottlieb.

Well, if we elect more Democrats, I’d say anywhere in the country Mr. White so long as you remained in good standing with the party. But we’ll circle back to this in a moment. As the CIA did here, we know that Dems just love victims that can’t fight back.


Project MK ULTRA was the CIA’s attempt to understand mind control. What could go wrong? In the wake of the Korean War we saw supposedly brainwashed American POW’s and our government was curious about this. So instead of starting a fake war with aliens like any normal government the CIA decided to learn about how our POW’s could be brainwashed by trying to brainwash people themselves. They tried a bunch of stuff, from drugs to electroshock therapy. The tests were done at hospitals, prisons, and universities.

The CIA also conducted business at CIA safe houses. Government-employed prostitutes would lure people to those safe houses, slip them a mickey, and CIA agents would watch and record. This is what Mr. White was referring to above. CIA agents would often get a little carried away in the merriment, all on the taxpayer’s dime. Like when the IRS went to Disneyland. As you can imagine, this phase of the program (appropriately called “Operation Midnight Climax”) had very little oversight.

Not Quite Legal

The CIA abducted and spied on people while dosing them up with drugs, without their consent. They hired prostitutes. The CIA is limited to what it can do domestically, but I guess hiring prostitutes, kidnapping, drugging, and spying on the results doesn’t technically violate their charter, since it only forbids them from doing law enforcement or internal security work domestically. After revelations of these activities from the Church Committee, President Gerald Ford signed an executive order saying this was totally not cool guys.


Frank Church wanted this guy to like him.

And before you point out that the head of the Church Committee, Frank Church, was a Democrat thus proving that my snarky remark at the top of this piece is invalid, let me remind you that he was one of those EEEEEVVVIIILLLLL Democrat racists who you tell us switched parties to become Republican (Church reportedly didn’t care about black people, and only pretended because he wanted a favor from President Johnson later), so this is not a valid means of criticism for you unless you want to admit that the Leftwing narrative about the great Republican racist switcheroo is a lie.


ULTRA Apathy

Why should any of this matter? Government agency in charge of protecting our lives endangers them instead, no oversight, party-like atmosphere with prostitutes. Remind me again which political party wants us to trust the government in all things? Which party abhors oversight (or at least thinks it has no usefulness when a Democrat is in the White House)? Which party doesn’t even pay lip service to the idea of ending wasteful spending? The same party that tried to keep the American flag from being displayed at their convention for determining their Presidential candidate. I wonder why.

Trust The Government

Do you trust the government? This goes into why we should remember MK ULTRA; it seems we never quite learned the proper lessons of government accountability and transparency from it.

Let’s take a look at the Secret Service under President Obama. Incompetent, to say the least. The White House ended up taking a few bullets, and a man with a knife made it all the way into the building after hopping the fence. A member of the President’s last line of defense was found passed-out drunk in a hallway. The White House itself ignored some of these issues. Literally the life of their hero and boss Obama was on the line, but they ignored the problem.

Let’s take a look at the IRS scandal under President Obama. Conservatives are targeted. There’s one token firing. Years later, Conservative groups STILL don’t have tax-exempt status that was originally held-up by the IRS. And yet during all of this, even after hearings on IRS waste, the IRS demands more money from sympathetic Democrats, while Democrats dismiss and downplay claims of targeting (there’s a piece at titled “The Damage In The Wake of the Non-Scandal At The IRS” that Google saw fit to place as the second result of a search I did in which not only is the IRS case is dismissed as a non-event while perpetuating 5 year old myths that had been debunked, but the piece also denies the existence of the deep state, and Google result number 4 was a Newsweek article from 2017 saying the IRS scandal was fake news created by Republicans despite the IRS apologizing for it just 17 days after the Newsweek article was published, as well as several other scandals, while telling tried and true lies- like by saying the targeting stopped and telling the lie that Democrats are timid, it’s typical of bullies like the Democrats to pretend to be the victims. I also want to point out that this Newsweek article levels the criticism of “the investigations took forever and found no evidence yet they still believed the myth” at the Republicans, which Newsweek and doubtlessly the political hack author Neil Buchanan who has less credibility than his idols at Glavlit are reluctant to bring against Democrats over the Trump-Russia tale).

Let’s take a look at the DEA prostitution scandal under President Obama. The head of the agency said she didn’t have the power to discipline employees. It was up to an internal committee of unelected/unappointed (by Presidents) bureaucrats to police this agency.

Or how about that time the Obama Administration forced an Inspector General to stop looking into a friend of Obama’s who misused government funds, which sent a clear message to the rest of the Inspector Generals not to do anything unfriendly towards the President or his allies.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration claims there were no scandals during it, and no one in the Leftstream media challenges that narrative. Do you think the CIA would be handled differently if caught in a scandal?

So How Would MK ULTRA Go Over Today?


“We’re your government. We’re the good guys!” Watchers, 1983, and apparently Barack Obama, 2013. Image from

Well, we already know the CIA Director can lie to Congress under oath and get away with it. We already know that Democrats can get away with saying there were no scandals in their Administrations. We know the NSA can get away with spying on Americans, Obama just has to tell us we can trust the government, maybe in a soft appearance on our favorite late-night shows.

We actually can kind of guess the rest, using Hillary Clinton’s email scandal as a model. Hillary wiped her servers to remove the evidence. It’s the 21st century afterall, the age of MK ULTRA and their Ollie North-brand file shredders is long over, but the firm that cleaned Hillary’s service lacked the CIA’s common sense and bragged about it. Some sympathetic deep staters would investigate and find no wrongdoing even before they interview half the witnesses, including the star one. The Democrat President would say people acted carelessly, and an exoneration letter would be drafted around that same time saying exactly that. Then the media would tell us there was no scandal, just hysterical Republicans.

So if Hillary can destroy evidence, endanger lives, lie under oath to Congress about possession of classified materials and various other things, threaten to fire the Inspector General investigating her, and be cleared of all charges in time for the election then surely the CIA would too have been given nary a slap on the wrist.

How Come You’ve Never Heard Of MK ULTRA?

It’s almost like it never happened. You’d think even the Republicans would be referencing it as an example of the deep state gone rogue, what with the CIA committing illegal acts against thousands of Americans. This didn’t even hit the headlines when the Unabomber was caught- he was one of the subjects of the CIA’s experiments. Take a look at this article from The Atlantic- NOTHING is mentioned about the CIA’s possible involvement.


But remember kiddies- the government will be your friend throughout your life! Image from wikimedia commons

The Unabomber was only 17 years old, a math prodigy studying at Harvard. One of his trusted professors put him through this. The CIA experiments, which consisted of sessions held across 3 years, were designed to destroy his core beliefs. Well it worked: after the experiments he was mentally warped and thus 6 years after the experiments would’ve ended he started his nationwide bombing campaign.

The casual disregard for lives exhibited by government agents, scientists, doctors, and psychologists during all of this is rather stunning, though I guess after all that human experimentation in World War II I can’t say I was surprised. Just disappointed that it happened here, especially since our intellectual elite loves to tell us how superior they are. Definitely something to consider the next time you hear a climate scientist demand we adopt a totalitarian government, and demand control of how/whether people live. Since most of these professionals are Democrats anyway, I can’t say I’m surprised. It just confirms some of the worst stereotypes about them and their chosen party.

Speaking Of Democrats


Only a conspiracy theorist believes in MK ULTRA. By the way, did you hear how Trump is really a Russian agent?

Over at Leftwing rag “The Daily Beast”, we have Rick Wilson telling us that Republicans who defend Trump against the Russian Collusion accusations are engaging in “wild-eyed MK-ULTRA paranoiac raving”. For one thing, he only presents insults to back his claims (whereas my insults usually orbit around facts, pardon the preening acknowledgement of my own flaw). Claims which clearly can’t be trusted, as his choice of presenting MK ULTRA as something only a crazy person would believe in demonstrates. He does not even have the knowledge which fellow liberals have of those events, thus it is doubtful that for his rambling chain of ad hominem attacks there could be found a factual basis. It also appears he is impugning the credibility of said liberals.

Moreover, if Republicans are really as deluded as this screaming tantrum indicates, then surely after a year the Mueller investigation would’ve produced something against Trump. Right? Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told us in March 2017 that they already had beyond circumstantial evidence of Trump colluding. Surely that would’ve been leaked by him, master leaker that he is, or at least released out of spite once the GOP ended the House’s investigation, and Mueller certainly could use that tipoff. At the very least the GOP would’ve debunked said evidence in their summary. And let’s not forget- a crippled GOP with only Fox News to help managed to prove malfeasance by the IRS in 2013 within several months, much less than 12. Surely the Mueller probe with the full apparatus of the mainstream media and its legions of journalists at its disposal would’ve produced some smidgen of evidence by now. But instead it seems all they’ve produced is an army of Rick Wilsons with their tales told by idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Aside from the form of insults and a scattered few articles, there isn’t much in the way of widespread talk about MK ULTRA. At the time of the revelations of course the networks covered it, but this bit of deep statism was memory holed pretty quick. Perhaps because the program allegedly ended (can you really trust the CIA to obey an executive order after breaking several laws to begin with?), it just isn’t considered a noteworthy pursuit.

Or maybe because it’s a grim reminder of what happens when the government gets too much power. Maybe it’s Plan B if this Mueller thing doesn’t produce anything useful. We already have an army of anti-Trump bureaucrats leaking secrets left and right just to spite the President, we have an admitted conspiracy by anti-Trump law enforcement officials to take out Trump (their insurance policy), we have the Obama Administration spying on Trump’s campaign, you have liberals all over the spectrum calling for Trump’s death and other forms of violence against both him and Republicans in general (while those in charge of handling such matters ignored it because they were Democrats), so would another Strzok still stuck in the government deciding on dosing Trump’s morning coffee with some surplus LSD really be such a far-fetched thing?



Forgettable 1961 CIA Spokesperson Rai (pictured center) was unavailable for comment on if the mind control experiments really worked. Records of his tenure are lost to history due to a tragic shredding mishap. Original images from and artbooks