A Liberal Environment


Since teenagers support groups like the socialist Democrats who caused this disaster, does this mean it’s a… teenage wasteland?

As you’ll read soon, a liberal environment consists of rampant wildfires, deliberately polluted rivers, and deliberate Chernobyls. Deliberately done by liberals, mind you.

I could go on and on about Democrats and their little dispute over which faction is the most racist: Pelosi’s moderates who don’t like the socialist Progressives that happen to be largely minorities, or the socialist Progressives who want to replace black Democrats (after my earlier post, are you surprised that the group led by a Latino Supremacist would target blacks?) with much to the chagrin of the Congressional Black Caucus. But I have another topic to get to, though I’ll note here that the CBC should realize catering to blacks is sooooo 2008. Remember: the Democrat position is “open borders” now, that’s what their Presidential candidates are demanding, and that’s what Barack Obama in 2006 warned in his Grammy-winning audiobook would devastate black communities. Since the Democratic Party is willing to exterminate the Black community to gain the support of the Hispanic community, I’m pretty sure the CBC’s complaints are falling on deaf ears.


Om nom nom nom! Image from Dictionary.com

Anyway, that lead-in does tangentially reference a figure that I’ll use to mention another figure that I’ll use to segue into today’s post. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the folks caught in the Left’s racism ouroboros. Well, it’s not her specifically that I want to talk about but rather her chief of staff/leader of what evolved into the Justice Democrats (and lover of a Nazi collaborator as you see at the end of this article, so is it ok to punch him too, or at least milkshake him?). Remember that Green New Deal that Ocasio-Cortez marketed as being needed to save the Earth in 12 years? Turns out she knew that was garbage, and that the Green New Deal was not originally designed with the intent to fight climate change. The Green New Deal was designed to convert the U.S. economy into a socialist system where the government controls everything and everyone, down to your day-to-day decisions. Micromanaging the entire public. Their plan was to scare you into socialism, saying the world would end if you didn’t obey their commands, and they ADMIT that their plan was more about controlling you than saving the environment.

Stewards Of The Environment

I suppose it’s a good thing that the Left didn’t really plan to save the environment. They’ve been pretty bad at it. Their Green plans keep burning Mother Nature and killing people. Let’s look at some, including the most alarming (which is why I am writing this now, instead of writing about the Democrats calling each other racist… well, that and it’s 2:41am and it would take me way longer to sort through my notes on that one).

  • The liberal EPA under President Obama deliberately polluted a major river just to steal some land, as mentioned previously.
  • The Left’s mismanagement of our forests in the name of being Green has actually caused more death and wildfires. And of course they tout their self-made disaster as an example of climate change that we need MORE of their policies to stop.
  • Here’s a big one, the real kicker for getting this post out. It was brought to my attention after the recent earthquake in California that there is a nuclear power plant sitting near some major fault lines. This plant is in very crappy shape. Like, right now it’s pretty much “Fukushima the day after the tsunami hit” crappy. Note that this environmental hazard is in California, the land where they spent $12 Billion trying to build a light rail to Go Green and where they talk of banning the sale of gas-powered cars by 2040 because they want to Go Green.

Presumably, this is one of PG&E’s fires, based on the article, though I won’t say for certain in case they put together what little money they have to sue me. Image from Forbes.

Now, in the most environmentally conscious state in the country, why would they allow that nuclear plant to exist? I don’t know, but it gets worse (if you read the first article I linked to in the above bullet point, you pretty much know where this is all going). Do you know who our liberal betters who are going to save the Earth put in charge of this rotting power plant? A power company that went bankrupt because of all the lawsuits against it. You see, that power company’s infrastructure was badly maintained and kept causing wildfires, resulting in death and millions of dollars in damage. So naturally, our Go Green superiors on the Left, the intellectual and moral and environmental saviors, put this bankrupt company in charge of the already hazardous nuclear plant.

There’s still more to this. In 2014, the scandal-free Obama Administration sent an inspector from Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The inspector saw how bad off that nuclear plant was. Obama’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission hid the report and transferred the inspector to Tennessee, and the inspector left the agency.

Remember: Obama was the environmental Jesus. He was going to stop the seas from rising as you saw in an earlier link (maybe by boiling them away with nuclear reactors melting down and creating Hiroshima-sized explosions?)! Obama’s Paris Climate Accord was going to end all pollution and all hurricanes forever (actually, it was going to destroy the U.S. economy while allowing literally every country with the capability to build as many coal-powered powerplants as they possibly could, and for those slogan socialists Khrushchev warned us about, coal-powered powerplants are the ones that deliver the most pollution). Yet, here we have Obama’s NRC burying evidence that a reactor was in serious danger, that we were going to have a Chernobyl in the United States. But it was also Obama’s EPA that caused an ecologic disaster just because they wanted some land for themselves, so I guess this is to be expected.


This is a 15-kiloton nuclear explosion, which the article warned California’s mismanaged powerplant could cause an effect similar to.  You will note that the author of the article I largely reference for this bit about the powerplant is absolutely a leftist. Image from Pinterest.

Given how Liberal environmental policies and the fearmongering over the climate which put liberals into power have led to lethal wildfires, an ecologic disaster, and will lead to another Chernobyl (quite literally, because the socialists in the USSR were warned about it too and tried to hide and ignore it, just like the socialists in California and the Obama Administration were warned about this and tried to hide and ignore it), are we really so surprised to learn that the Green New Deal had absolutely nothing to do with the environment? Are we really surprised that liberal utopias like the Soviet Union polluted more than the supposedly unregulated capitalist smogholes like the U.S.? And do you at all trust liberals when they demand you give them control over your life in exchange for them saving the environment?


With the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission coming up, I thought I should plug this in. Besides, it wouldn’t be a post on climate without smearing scientists and the media. Another bit of evidence of the New York Times’ agenda-driven reporting came to my attention. It’s an interesting timeline. In 1920, fake news NYT smeared Dr. Robert Goddard. Why? Because he thought rockets could fly in space. Now, you’ll notice the NYT did NOT smear the Soviet space program, and did not declare Sputnik fake news, and did not retract its attacks on American Dr. Goddard during its articles praising the Soviets for Sputnik. It wasn’t until the Apollo 11 mission that the NYT finally retracted its anti-science attack on Goddard.

It’s easy to tie the NYT with a pro-Soviet position during this time- only 17 years after smearing Goddard with the NYT’s settled science that rockets can’t fly in a vacuum, the “newspaper of record” was covering up the mass death under Stalin’s watch. And now, the NYT is covering-up for Stalin again, while promoting socialism, because scientists say socialism will cure global warming and that fits the NYT’s agenda. Probably the same breed of “world’s top scientists” that attacked Goddard. Yet anyone opposed to what the NYT reports is anti-science, just as they said a hundred years ago about anyone who believed a rocket could fly in space.

You see the pattern though, right? They smear American scientists that disagree, they promote Soviet ideas, now they promote socialism in general under the guise of science. How are we supposed to believe the NYT’s position on “settled science” when they historically have shown a lack of understanding of it, when in the present day their fearmongering predictions turn out to be lies (as shown by the false predictions they and their climate allies are caught in), when at all points in their advocacy of science denialism they’ve acted like the Catholic Church, prosecuting heretics the way the Church went after Galileo, and when their science denialism is currently aligned with their attempt to convince Americans that socialism is ok? Did the NYT decide that anyone working for them must be an advocate for Stalinism and that’s just an unspoken corporate policy for 90 years? Much like the GND was about socialism according to AOC’s chief of staff, the NYT’s position on science historically and presently has been more about advocating their personal views and socialism than about facts. And the Left sees them as the “newspaper of record”, and sees you as and evil earth destroyer for daring to oppose their facts du jour (because as you saw in this last post, their facts change pretty regularly). How trustworthy can any of them be?

What Were They Debating?

Tim_And_Eric-Its_freeFree stuff! Free Stuff! FREE STUFF! For the low admission fee of your vote, the Democrats are giving away EVERYTHING for free!

  • Free Healthcare for all citizens!

  • Free Healthcare for all noncitizens!

  • Free money for not being white!

  • Free $12,000 annually for everyone!

  • Free College!

  • Free Elimination of Pre-Existing Student Debt!

So cast your vote NOW! Political operators are standing by.

In Reality

Interesting stat– Democrats said “free” 683 times, but “America” only was uttered twice.

Another interesting thing- Democrats say they will fund their programs by stealing from the profits of companies, but they spent the whole evening badmouthing profit as if they wanted to stop it. So they want to stop the one thing they keep saying they’ll use to fund their programs, which means they either WON’T fund them anymore or WILL start stealing money from people who DON’T profit. People like me with $7,500 of credit card debt they can’t pay.

Democrats really have no freakin’ clue how to pay for their plans. Even lefty groups tell us that plans we’ve heard from the candidates for how to fund their programs won’t work, without more people than just the rich paying for it. And that’s just for the stuff they’ve told us their plans for paying!

Speaking of reality, when questioned on how they’d deal with very real Republican opposition, Democratic candidates suggested mob rule- they wanted to have mobs of people go after anyone opposed. Like we’ve seen with Antifa (which Democrats defend, as it’s part of their new fascism- that is, fascism disguised with the trappings of socialism… honestly, socialism and fascism both involve the government controlling every aspect of your life so to the person being stomped on it makes no difference what color the boot is) and Maxine Waters ordering her followers to chase Republicans out of public spaces, and even the New York Times demanding border patrol agents be assaulted in public (what NYT calls for matches the legal definition of assault, as does what Waters calls for). Alleged frontrunner Kamala Harris outright suggested a dictatorship.

Hmmm… a dictatorship where the leader does whatever they want with no opposition while mobs of people attack you if you disagree or if the government tells them to. What country are these candidates trying to lead again? Do any of them have funny-looking mustaches? I know a lot of liberals are frustrated artists (or art majors or “artists” in the musician sense, but you get the idea), so that’s another step in this direction.

Another reality is that the country is not as far Left as the candidates. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough got it right in his scathing criticism, whereas CNN tried to deny that the candidates were talking open borders or universal healthcare while at the same time saying that such positions were mainstream among Americans (they aren’t).

992 Arguments


Image from New York Times

The candidates did not do a good job of showing a unified front. The aforementioned Scarborough even went so far as to say that anyone watching who hated Trump’s style would be turned off by the Democrats’ similar belligerence towards one another. NBC outright declared Trump as the winner of the debates. And what were they arguing over? How far Left they can go on issues that most Americans already think are extremist.

One argument which exemplifies arguing over far-left positions was the one between Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro. Castro was arguing for decriminalizing all border crossings, while O’Rourke was trying to say that Castro was focusing on a narrow population of immigrants. The thing is- as Obama’s DHS Secretary said– Castro was basically arguing for open borders, despite Castro telling us back in April that nobody on the Democratic stage or in their party wanted open borders. I guess not, because as we saw in both nights they didn’t talk about “open borders”, they only talked about making it legal to enter anytime you want and providing free health insurance to anyone who comes in. Perhaps the phrase “open borders” was not uttered, so on a technicality maybe Castro was right.

This didn’t happen at the debate but it goes towards that whole “unity” thing and touches on issues brought up in the debates: it’s worth noting here that candidate Cory Booker believes that Bernie Sanders is a literal Nazi (and as you see later, Bernie Sanders is also a racist, so in a party where BERNIE FREAKIN’ SANDERS is a Nazi and a racist, with widespread support for that belief based on how much support Kamala Harris and Cory Booker have despite their views I outline, do you think there’s room for tolerance or diversity of thought?), and also believes that Fareed Zakaria is a literal Nazi, based on Booker’s claim that denying asylum to ANYONE makes us Nazis. If Bernie is now a Nazi based on rhetoric from other Democrat candidates, and the party apparently supporting this by virtue of the fact that Booker made it to the first two debates, and has been one of what Time refers to as “soaring politicians”.


Then you have Kamala Harris attacking Joe Biden over busing. For those who don’t know, busing was the practice of taking kids from one school district and having them attend schools in another district to encourage integration. But it wasn’t popular, and wasn’t even legal. Not many parents liked the idea (Joe Scarborough and Joe Biden referenced this) of their kid attending a school just as good as their own that was an hour away (as good or better, black-only schools ended up being largely inferior to their white counterparts, but as we see with Democrats opposing vouchers for poor black kids to attend private schools, school quality is not relevant- also note that they don’t want poor black kids attending the private schools they themselves attended). Now, imagine the impact on working-class families who can’t afford to take time off to drive that hefty distance if their kid needs an emergency pickup or has a school function that needs a parents’ support, or imagine the impact on the 7 year old who is now more isolated than they’ve ever been in their lives, with the closest person they trust being hours away. Heck, with our hair-trigger CPS taking kids from parents who just let kids play in the front yard unsupervised, it’s hard to imagine busing even being considered today!

Here’s a Bidenism on the topic-

"you take people who aren't racist, people who are good citizens, 
who believe in equal education and opportunity, 
and you stunt their children's intellectual growth by 
busing them to an inferior school…and you're going to 
fill them with hatred."

Much like Kamala Harris. Being a vicious (her people lied and cheated to put innocent people in prison, and Harris fought hard to KEEP those innocent people in prison) prosecutor (who unseated a real progressive by promising to put more people in jail) like her takes a lot of hatred (I wonder if her marrying a white guy is a Freudian thing- promising to lock up more blacks, marrying a white person, in general being fierce, am I seeing signs of resentment against her black parents for abandoning her to the buses? And, she supported legislation that would put kids who skipped school in jail, something else that makes one wonder about her childhood.), and if you’ve watched her in the Senate you know she’s filled to the brim with hatred. So Joe predicted that someone like Harris would come from busing.

And here’s something else Joe said-

"That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with. 
What it says is, 'In order for your child with curly black hair, 
brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, 
he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.' 
That's racist! Who the hell do we think we are, 
that the only way a black man or woman can learn is 
if they rub shoulders with my white child?"

That’s a pretty damn woke argument for someone in the 70s, but hate-filled Kamala cares more about exploiting differences in order to win so naturally she’d characterize opposition Biden’s woke opposition as racist.

Kamala Harris turned any opposition to busing into an issue of race. You’re not just a bad parent if you want to send your child away, alone and helpless, you’re a racist! According to Harris, being a good parent and caring about kids is now racist. Harris openly said she wanted the federal government to force family separation (ironically, she opposes the real thing for illegal immigrants, so she’s fine splitting American families but thinks it’s a humanitarian disaster to do that to people that come here illegally- and yes, forcing a child to travel hours away from home, hours away from help, hours from security, is family separation! Just ask the kids and parents… except Harris, because as described above she seems to have been damaged by it all so she’d never admit it was wrong) Scarborough didn’t get into this much detail, but he was right with criticizing what many consider to be one of Harris’ crowning moments that evening.

And if you ask me, Kamala’s tale of being one of the kids bused explains a lot. As a prosecutor she made a career out of separating black families, ripping kids from parents, just like what happened to her.

Here’s a recent Bernie Sanders quote on busing:

"Does anybody think it's a good idea to put a kid on a bus, 
travel an hour to another school and to another neighborhood 
that he or she doesn't know? That's not the optimal. 
What is the optimal is to have great community 
schools which are integrated"

Kamala does not seem to agree, because by her stated measures in the debate all opposition to busing puts you on the racist wrong side of history. She did not allow for any nuance or reasons, it was a very rigid totalitarian “with me or against me”, the same attitude seen in her zealous prosecutions and the same attitude seen in her advocating for a dictatorship. Kamala’s surge in polls after the debate shows that the Democratic Party is ready for an absolutist dictator who’s ready to tell you you’re a racist even if she’s referencing a very unpopular policy.

Rigged System

Some candidates say their mics weren’t even on, and it’s clear Sen. Elizabeth Warren was the favorite of the debate hosts when planning for that first night. Echoes of 2016, when we learned the DNC was actively trying to squash non-Hillary candidates. Other candidates were out complaining that the rules to get onto the debate stage were too exclusive.



Will voters read the fine print? Image from EZ Link, an obvious model for the modern DNC (and if you really want to get into it, their renaming of socialism to social justice and Green living match EZ Link being renamed to Global Link just to fool a new set of people).

Harris came off as a racist fascist, all candidates seemed like they wanted an army of brown shirts attacking anyone opposed (afterwards, Mayor Buttigieg who can’t even handle race relations in his own city warned blacks that if the police weren’t abolished (I assume that’s what he meant by eliminate racist institutions, since liberals tell us the police are racist) and blacks didn’t get money for being black (reparations would not discriminate between blacks who arrived after slavery or blacks who had white slaveholder ancestors) then there’d be a new civil war which clearly violates laws about calling for insurrection), and they all (except Hickenlooper, who belongs on that stage as much in 2019 as Jim Webb belonged their in 2015- ie people I might actually vote for do not belong on the Democratic stage!) want to import millions of voters with open borders policies and then give them all free healthcare and free education without having any idea how to pay for it, in fact they actively trashed the one way they repeatedly cite for paying for it, so if they had their way and funded their programs by stealing profits they’d run out of money anyway by destroying that whole idea of profit.

In answer to the titular question of this post, they were debating how far Left each of them were. In other words, they were debating where they would fall on my convenient chart. For those looking for a chart like the one I’ve used earlier, that’s located under the convenient chart. Because it is very inconvenient. These charts are more about the victimhood points the candidates can claim as well as some of their positions. It doesn’t reflect how loud they can yell or how much media support they have.

dem presidential desirabilty in short



dem presidential desirabilty

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

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

The Game


From the Atari 7800 version

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

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

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

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

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

The Jungle

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

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

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

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

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


The Desert


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

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


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

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

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

What Do You Think?


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

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

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


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

Google Search Algorithms 2


At least it helped me plan the best vacation ever.

Six months on, and it’s time to check-in with Google.

You may recall last time I raised a fuss about Google’s results appearing to be biased a certain way. That will be the general theme of this piece. I will start with the issues I had, before working into news about the doings of our lively little tech megacorp right out of an 80s anticorporate movie.

  1. Guess how little “raul castro butcher” gave me about Raul Castro’s crimes. A few items from mainstream sources that touch on it, a few virtually unknown sources, and some Raul Castro love of course. Should I ever need similar info about the Bush family, I found that typing “george bush butcher” led to more useful results from Google than what I got from looking up Raul, and less love.
  2. “”bernie sanders” crisis at border” —Bernie stated on CBS Face The Nation, March 31 2019, that there was a humanitarian crisis at the border. Google apparently does not believe this as I did not find such a result. Set your results so that only stuff before June 9 shows up, because he said it again then and the media picked up on it. I guess because by that point the Left’s narrative had changed from total denial to acceptance.
  3. Trying to find anything on Lefties who said that Peter Thiel was not truly a gay man because he is Republican. Before my neurons failed to fire properly to access my memory that the exact quote was “not a gay man”, I wasted quite some time trying to locate the story. And even then I’m not too sure I got the right one, since what I originally saw was a Breitbart article covering the Leftist-sect of the LGBT community rejecting Peter Thiel’s homosexuality.
  4. In 1971, John Kerry came before the Senate to talk about how war is still war regardless of how people are killed, specifically mentioning killing “by remote control”, while in 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry tried to say that killing Syrians by remote control did not constitute a war. I know the 2013 source was Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s YouTube account, but Google did not seem to concur. Or maybe Paul for some reason deleted the video… sure. Also, I spent like half an hour trying to find something on this before I guess I stopped looking because I didn’t see it when I skimmed over my earlier posts nor searching the website via Google, but for this post I was ready because I found my original notes from 6 years ago that had Kerry’s contrasting positions.
  5. There is a movement among the most radical elements of the Left where people want to ban having birth. That is, all unapproved pregnancies would end in abortion. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) alluded to this by questioning the morality of having a child, but as you saw in an earlier post there’s mainstream Leftists with more extreme views.
  6. “obamacare supreme court ruling 2015 made up law” – what I wanted was Scalia’s dissenting opinion for King V Burwell, but I did not know how to phrase it so eloquently. The first page was entirely liberal results. Page 2 or 3 finally had one non-liberal result, from Forbes, but that didn’t have exactly what I was looking for.
  7. “cnn threatened trump supporter” – Remember when CNN threatened to dox the Trump supporter who published the picture of Trump attacking someone with “CNN” pasted over their head? Well, Google didn’t. In fact, the only results I got were ones talking about how CNN is being threatened by Trump and his supporters.
  8. “media threatens trump supporter” – same as above, except the first result was good. The rest weren’t.
  9. “”new york times” misquotes trump” – I was doing pretty good with “”new york times” misquotes”, but then when I added Trump the results shifted horribly. The result had nothing to do with misquotes at all, it was an NYT piece about Trump insulting people. The second result was also an NYT piece, this time attacking Trump’s claims that he was misquoted on something. Only two results actually related to NYT misquoting anything related to Trump, and both of those dealt with an incident in 2016 where the NYT misquoted a model who knew him.
  10. “democrat congressman threatens trump” – One result was about a Maine House Democrat, a video result from some random source. The rest of the results were about Trump threatening Democrats, at least on the first page of them.
  11. “democrats who have threatened trump” – This time, all results were about Trump threatening Democrats
  12. “democrats who have threatened violence against trump” finally had a mix of responses with the first two even being relevant, but still a lot of results that shouldn’t have been there for such a search; results showing the precise opposite of what I had typed a query for.
  13. “backlash against black republicans” gave me all kinds of stuff about how Republicans are racist and nothing about the racism liberals inflict upon members of the African American community who happen to be Republican, as mentioned in this post.
  14. “1920s democrat voter suppression” lead with a Washington Post article, but the rest on the page was irrelevant with one page even attacking the GOP for alleged voter suppression.
  15. “obama refused compromise” – Page One contained mostly liberal thought pieces about Republicans refusing to compromise with Obama. There was one blog entry and one statement from a Congressman that had anything to do with what I obviously was looking for. This happened only a week after I posted the first entry in this Google series. “obama refused to compromise” was better, though it ranked the result from reddit above National Review.
  16. “liberal twitter attack bush”, “liberal george bush twitter attack”, and “liberal george bush twitter reaction” – a similar search for Scalia got me an instant result, but these weren’t working. Obviously I was looking for liberals attacking George H.W. Bush after his passing, and Google was making the Left appear civilized by omitting the desired results.
  17. “liberal reaction mccain death” – same as above. But remember: Bush and McCain had their images extensively rehabilitated post-mortem by the Left. So it stands to reason either they marched lock-step or Google buried contrary results.
  18. I typed “are black fathers more likely to vote republican” and the first result was “Memo to black men: Stop voting Republican – The Boston Globe” and the third result down was “Kanye West Shows Why Black Conservatives Are Not Black … – NPR”, and then we have “The Diversity Of Black Political Views | FiveThirtyEight” (which is easily disproven given how I was able to predict with 72% accuracy that the Virginia Beach shooter voted for Obama twice, Hillary once, and voted Democrat in the 2018 midterms. If their views are so diverse, why is their ballot box performance so predictably homogeneous?). As you can see, none of the results I saw had any relevance to what I was looking for.
  19. This came up while I was writing this piece- for a section later where I condemn Google for legitimizing pedophilia as part of the LGBT movement, I tried to find information about the German Society for Human Rights (what it was renamed to, originally it had the name “Community of Free Spirits”) being the first group to characterize homosexuality as a human right. Google, who believes Pride started in 1969, has expunged this historic achievement, with only two rightwing books condemning homosexuality showing up in search results. (Yes, this group is related to Henry Gerber’s landmark group founded in 1924, but depending on your source it’s possible he and other group members were arrested for sexually abusing a minor, and my whole point was that there are non-pedo role models in the LGBT movement. To call me a bigot for trying to find non-pedo role models and things that aren’t linked to pedophiles would be saying that pedophilia is part of homosexuality, and you don’t want to be that bigoted do you? You would attack a rightwinger for trying to bring tolerance and understanding, and throw the LGBTQ community under the bus by accusing them all of being pedos, just to score points against me?). Those two books are the only sources I saw recognizing this group for seeing homosexuality as a human right. I took out all references to this group though because as you see in the Washington Post article I linked, they were a bit racist and misogynist. And the future leader of Hitler’s Brown Shirts was a member.

Liberals after Trump was elected, or me dealing with computers that don’t do what I tell them to? You decide. Images from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora

The preceding probably do not reflect the entirety of the issues I had with Google over the last 6 months; really it just shows what I bothered writing down. Mostly when I can’t get a search engine, or anything else electronic, to work correctly despite what I believe to be correct inputs, I am too busy screaming and cussing  and throwing things like a liberal the night Trump was elected to write something down.


Google’s Pattern

Some items that didn’t happen to me or are unrelated to searching:

  • On the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Google (possibly in a move to support the kind folks in China that they tried selling-out to) decided to celebrate the founding of the Pride movement in 1969 instead. They couldn’t celebrate unimpeachable milestones like the first gay rights organization, formed in 1860 by the real pioneer of the modern gay rights movement. They couldn’t memorialize the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square tragedy. Nope, they picked that time when pedophile-lover Harry Hay worked with some kindred spirits to start a movement full of pedophile-related missteps that probably added 30 years to the LGBT community’s struggle, missteps that almost certainly fueled homophobia/transphobia and backlash against inspiring victories for the LGBT community. Here is a piece by a trans activist talking about how this very thing would happen if pedos associate with the movement, while Google celebrates the moment those particular horses left long before the activist was even aware the barn door was broken.
  • Google labelled the Mueller Report as fiction, probably because it vindicates Trump.
  • A study caught Google suppressing rightwing news outlets (thus letting leftwing ones thrive). In fact, the study found that Google relied on CNN more than any other news source.
  • Google apparently buried results on Greenpeace’s co-founder after he spoke out against the green movement.
  • Google employees believe that it is homophobic to use the word “family” to refer to a unit of humans containing a parent or parents with children. Do you really think these people could or would make an unbiased search algorithm, or that such people would tell the truth if they did?

Bad Tree, Bad Fruit

Google owns YouTube, so I’ll note a few things about what they’ve been up to lately.

  • YouTube employees admit they manipulate search results to promote liberal values.
  • Just before a pro-life march, YouTube decided that a video showing Planned Parenthood employees ready to help pimps abuse little girls was removed and cited it as “hate speech”. Because exposing an organization as a promoter of pedophilia is hate speech. Hey… this kinda goes along with Google promoting that Pride pedo stuff I mentioned earlier, doesn’t it. All sorts of videos of hate speech Google could take down, but they take down one showing Lefties supporting pedophiles. All sorts of positive gay rights achievements Google can celebrate, and they pick the one that supports pedophiles. Huh. Should I invoke the Mueller precedent of “guilty until proven innocent” here?
  • YouTube demonetized a rightwinger for no legitimate reason according to YouTube’s own user guidelines. In other words, they decided that even though the rightwinger didn’t break any of their rules they could penalize him anyway. Didn’t I warn y’all that the Left was trying to do this with our legal system, with their activist judges?


A “cultural policy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War period following World War II, calling for stricter government control of art and promoting an extreme anti-Western bias.” No wonder Google allies like the NYT are out promoting the Soviet Union. Google is certainly doing a cultural purge. So is just about every part of the Left. Newsbusters.org covers what the news and Hollywood and tech corporations are up to if you want a one-stop source for all things zhdanovshchina. I merely provided in this post my own glimpse into Google’s participation, and will be back in 6 months with some more gems unearthed as I seek content and sources for what I post.


Democrats with a Soviet flag outside the DNC in 2016. Image from talkmedianews


Up In Arms About Impeachment


“We had enough time for Obamacare but not enough time for gun control and it wasn’t important anyway 10 years ago, and we’re not thinking of impeachment now… or maybe we are… or maybe we aren’t… what did the last poll say people wanted? Is Hamas still a humanitarian organization?” Image from wikimedia commons

“Arms” as in “guns”, it was a gun pun.

I guess I don’t have to really say anything about gun control after the Virginia Beach shooting afterall. Even though it was only a week and a half ago, it’s out of the news cycle unless you carefully watched CNN for this gem where we’re told it doesn’t matter if the gun control we’re told would stop shootings doesn’t actually do that. Anyway, recently there have been police shootings of blacks (The Root, who I won’t bother linking, made it a race issue of course and left out that it was a Hispanic officer in their coverage that I saw, and the angry Twitter crowd they cited left that out too), many shootings in Chicago, but instead the Left prefers to shoot off at the mouth about impeachment.

Or maybe it’s because this wasn’t a white mass shooter (race matters- Salon published an article titled “Mass shooters: Part of a larger epidemic of white male rage” despite how faulty the implied assertion that only whites do the violence is, an assertion fellow Leftwing outlet Slate debunked with its piece “Mass Shooters Aren’t Disproportionately White”). This was a black man, meaning there’s a 96% chance he voted for Obama in 2008, 94% chance he voted for Obama in 2012, 90.24% chance he voted for Obama both times, 89% chance he voted for Hillary, 80.3136% chance he voted twice for Obama and once for Hillary, and a 90% chance he voted Democrat in the midterm elections (thus a 72.33624% chance he voted Democrat for all four elections mentioned above). He passed a background check, legally obtained his guns, and had no history of mental illness.

So, to pursue a gun control narrative here, Democrats would have to admit that a black man who voted for them was insane when he bought the guns, insane when he used them, and therefore insane when he voted Democrat. Further, he was a government employee, so the Left would have to admit that its heroes in government, those bureaucrats liberals want to keep employed and create jobs for by expanding government, those solid citizens who earn most of the $100k per head that cities like Seattle spend on homeless people per year, are or can become insane.

Liberals faced this same problem when Leftwing YouTube HQ was shot up for not being Leftwing enough, shot up by a woman of color. That story vanished faster than if Flight 19 and the USS Proteus went searching for the USS Eldridge. And much like the Philadelphia Experiment, the media’s coverage of how gung-ho gun controller France has more mass shootings per person than we do is non-existent (since their gun control clearly does not work I suppose you’ll want to ban guns altogether, sort of like London… who now are banning knives because people use them instead of guns… and who think buying a hammer means you’re a criminal because people are using them instead of knives), just like their coverage of how the percentage of mass shootings the U.S. contributes to the worldwide stats is dropping.

Anyway, I’ll give this a bit of coverage many nationwide Leftwing media outlets left out and post a link to a page that talks about how to help the victims.

Back To The Main Course

The Democrats and their propaganda arm made the agenda clear enough- touch on gun control fast but impeachment is where it’s at. Hell, let’s look at what the media coverage was on the big Sunday Morning news shows just 48 hours after the shooting:

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on ABC’s This Week talking about impeaching Trump and attacking the Attorney General because he’s not a Democrat or something, followed by a roundtable discussion talking about everything BUT the shooting, subjects like “what’s Trump doing wrong” and “which Democrat will win against Trump”.
  • CBS’ Face The Nation’s roundtable discussion focusing on Mueller Vs. Attorney General Barr.
  • NBC’s Meet The Press talking about ex-Special Counsel Mueller talking, and opening with talk of impeachment.
  • And for a bonus- Barely an hour after the shooting, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) was on MSNBC joking that the only way he could get on TV was to talk about impeachment.
  • Bonus Bonus: when googling “virginia beach mass shooting”, the top 3 news items were all dated 1 week ago (placing them June 5), and just about all search results from sources outside Virginia Beach were from June 4 or before.

I didn’t mention Fox News since they’re biased and evil and not liberal and thus not relevant to this conversation, which is about how the Left who tells us they’re concerned about gun control (despite a 5 year lapse I might have mentioned before in which many people died from mass shootings while Democrats sat on their thumbs) and then ignore it in favor of impeachment, how impeachment is the one driving force of the Democratic Party right now. Their reaction to the shooting was most illustrative of that.

So, it’ll also be the driving force behind this post.


This is John Dean sitting before the House Judiciary Committee, but he looked a lot older in the video I saw of his testimony there. I guess it was just the lighting. Image from Huffington Post

On Monday we were treated to an interesting sight. John Dean, who was White House Counsel for Richard Nixon, who went to jail for his role in Watergate, was treated as a friend by the modern Democrats. Kind of odd since they wanted blood with Lt. Gen. Flynn (even going so far as having “fact checker” Politifact lie. Comey, head of the FBI, said that agents didn’t think Flynn was lying, so Politifact is either lying or playing fast and loose with semantics in its title and in reaching its verdict of false, something they fault Trump for doing) and all he did was seemingly not remember something that wasn’t even a crime, whereas Dean helped cover-up illegal activities by a Republican targeting Democrats. Dean wasn’t treated as an enemy though, since as  Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) pointed out he makes a career out of yelling that (Republican) Presidents are all reincarnations of Nixon. Democrats love that.

Gaetz also pointed out that while Dean couldn’t contribute anything about the Mueller Report, he was testifying at a hearing titled “Lessons From Mueller Report”. The only two lessons he seemed to have were that Trump was like Nixon, and that Special Counsel Mueller clearly wants Congress to impeach Trump. As Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) pointed out in his opening statement, that’s something we could’ve heard Dean say on TV, certainly not something to waste Congress’ time with.

Saying those things that the Democrat majority likes to hear is also why Dean will get away with lying to Congress. You may have noticed that during his answers to Gaetz he stated that he was not willingly out in public comparing Trump to Nixon, that he was forced to, that it was beyond his control. Yet on CNN that very night he says he’s out doing it because he wants to. Dean was disbarred and did jail time, so he has a record of being crooked, so I really can’t judge if he was lying just so CNN heard what they wanted to hear, or lying to Congress.

I can summarize the witness testimony for you, to save you four and a half hours: “impeach Trump!”. Gaetz hit the nail on the head- Democrats brought in Watergate man and all these federal attorneys to make it look like an impeachment hearing since they can’t actually do it yet. It’d fail in the Senate since not everyone is a Justin Amash Republican, it’d be a political mess, so they just want to keep the narrative alive.

They Need A Punching Bag

Someone to unleash their fury on, until impeachment happens. Hostility towards the President is what they figure will get them re-elected. And they’re right, as Gaetz said 70% of Democrats want Trump impeached so if their elected representatives don’t represent on that then they’re out of the job.

Attorney General Barr is the immediate punching bag. He and the DOJ finally came to an agreement with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on how to legally provide the full Mueller Report. I may have mentioned last week that certain legal complications were barring Barr from doing that. Well, this week after the agreement to provide the full report was announced House Dems voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress anyway because he did not break the law when they ordered him to. While they were busy inventing powers for themselves, case in point the power to order an Executive Branch official to break the law, Democrats in Congress had a lawsuit dismissed in part because they weren’t bothering to use the powers they already have to resolve the issue.


#HesWithHer Image from NBC

This seems to be a habit of Democrats. Give an inch and they take a yard… or rather, give a branch and they take the government (“Congress isn’t just a co-equal branch. We’re first among equals.” according to a Democrat, who said nothing of the kind when Obama was President and Republicans were fighting his unconstitutional activity). They only have control of the House, yet they act like they run the whole government (starting pretty much when they took office, with Pelosi cancelling the President’s State of the Union, obviously lying that it was due to a lack of funds for security since she was about to use said funds to fly across the ocean) with either Pelosi or Schumer as President (Pelosi I guess since she’s a woman, third in line for the Presidency, and is the one I see in the media a lot, and runs the only part of the government elected Democrats control). You’ll recall that with Obama in the White House, he ran the whole government too despite Republicans running the Legislative Branch. Aside from his recess appointments that the Supreme Court struck down as being unconstitutional because Obama was stealing powers from Congress, Obama also enacted “treaties that weren’t treaties” (that is, they were treated and referred to as being binding (no, it wasn’t illegal to withdraw from the JCPOA) like any treaty would be except they weren’t called treaties because that’s something Congress would need to be involved with, so I guess we can call them “Pen And Phone Treaties”- they were a semantic exercise so that Obama could get out of being accused of doing something illegal, similar to that semantic exercise where the FBI exchanged the crime “gross negligence” for legal synonyms “extreme carelessness” to get Hillary off the hook).

And If They Do Impeach?

They might be overplaying their hand, since the Mueller Report didn’t definitively give anything to impeach on. So far Democrats just said “see? It’s impeachable! Let’s do it!” in regards to Mueller alleging Trump obstructed justice. But, Trump was innocent, so there was no crime he was hiding, so he wasn’t obstructing anything. Trump can easily go out and say that all of his activity that an innocent man defending himself would engage in (some was mentioned last week) is what Democrats think is a crime. It might backfire entirely if he presses home that Democrats believe innocent people do not have a right to defend themselves. So really, he just has to cite this and Kavanaugh as repeated examples of Democrats trying to destroy innocent people and deny a right to a defense (well, this and that unconstitutional “no fly no buy” thing), and say “next time it could be YOU”, and that would certainly rally some Republicans like the Kavanaugh thing apparently did (that’s supposedly why Republicans kept the Senate in 2018). Take it a step up and refer to Democrat congressmen as fascist tribunals. Or say that Pelosi, Schumer, and the Democratic Presidential Candidate will form an American troika if they’re elected. Because, as we’ve seen, they will.


We all know what John Dean thinks of the Mueller Report, but what does JIMMY Dean think of it? As Rep. Gaetz might note, Jimmy’s opinion is just as relevant as Johnny’s. Image from the James Bond Wiki

The Emperor’s New Report


He looks creepy.

A little late, but revelations last week that begin casting doubt on the Mueller Report made it worth the wait. Plus, Mueller’s speech last week brought it back into the headlines anyway (I had considered running into gun control instead because of the Virginia Beach mass shooting, but the police didn’t release a motive yet so I’d like to wait, plus this story is older).

Kind of working from recent to earliest, I’ll start with what we learned Friday: Special Counsel Mueller edited a transcript in his report so that it would hint at obstruction of justice, instead of showing that it was merely a lawyer doing lawyer stuff with other lawyers who lawyer. Mueller seems to be of the “kill all the lawyers” school of thought, because he characterizes normal defense activity as “obstruction of justice”. Heaven forbid the legal system protect someone from the Left’s show trials and purges!

And Mueller certainly is all-in on the show trial thing. Remember- he told us that “If [he] had had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, [he] would have said so”. Which comes out to “guilty until proven innocent”, which is not the role of a prosecutor or special counsel or anyone in the DOJ. Democrats pounced on it as meaning “guilty”. Taking a look at the manifest of the Mueller Team, it’s no surprise he’d make such a political conclusion about what happened, nor is it a surprise that his report would edit the facts. Mueller loaded his team with Democrats, and found nothing, so this was the best he could say. Basically saying that if there is no evidence of a crime then it probably happened, a tactic employed by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid against Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. A tactic employed against Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats were very upset when the shoe was on the other foot re: Pizzagate, but they never did make the claim of being able to take what they dish out.


Not pictured- A Native American. Image from Vox

One of the rare occasions where I can say this, but Elizabeth Warren is absolutely right. If President Trump were the average citizen, did not have the protections that being President afforded him, then the Democrats’ witch hunt would’ve left him as being just another of Mueller’s falsely accused victims. This wasn’t Mueller’s first rodeo when it comes to burying exculpatory evidence (he even hired someone who withheld such evidence- for those who don’t know, you’re not supposed to do that, basically it means you’re withholding evidence that someone is innocent), and it should surprise no one if the Mueller Report is full of it.

But We Don’t Have The Full Report!

Pelosi is full of it, she can probably read the redacted parts if she wants to (she, Nadler mentioned below, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had access to a version of the Mueller Report where only the grand jury testimony- the stuff Attorney General Barr has no ability to disclose- was redacted. All the classified stuff was in it. None of these parties even bothered to view it, no Democrat on the approved list looked at it, but five of the six permitted Republicans did view it. All that was censored in this version was two full lines of text and parts of 7 other lines, that’s it, unless the lines read “this is all a lie, Trump is a Russian spy” then there’s no way there’s anything in it that Democrats would need to know to dispute Mueller’s conclusions outlined elsewhere in the report, and certainly not anything big on obstruction unless the lines read “Disregard our conclusion construction, because Trump is guilty of justice obstruction”). And by the way, Mueller wanted less of the report to be public! Attorney General Barr, accused of being just a Trump crony by concealing parts of the report, released MORE of it than Mueller himself had asked be released!


Rep. Adam Schiff left, Rep. Devin Nunes right, image from NY Post.

As for the redacted portions that everyone is complaining  about, let me first make the point that Democrats used to be very serious about redacting things. Remember when House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) chided Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) because his memo showing how fake the Russian investigation’s origins were “risks public exposure of sensitive sources and methods for no legitimate purpose”? (Ironically, that same memo involved Schiff trying to expose sensitive sources and methods simply to counter Nunes, something that’s not as legitimate as Nunes exposing wrongdoing by the government.) Here we have the DOJ- NOT Attorney General Barr, but Justice Department lawyers- telling them that the redacted portions can’t be revealed because of ongoing cases. Democrats now care as much about security threats or threats to ongoing court cases as they did when Hillary was passing classified info through her unsecured server (that may have been hacked, if Mueller’s statement about not having evidence means collusion took place then the FBI’s response that they have “not found any evidence the servers were compromised” certainly MUST also mean that Hillary’s servers WERE compromised.). In other words- they don’t care at all.

Speaking of things that Democrats don’t care about- as had been made apparent by Kavanaugh and even the attempt to use the “Do Not Fly” list to determine who gets to own a gun- we come to rule of law. Laws only matter if they help Democrats. It’s only the “law of the land” if it comes from a Democrat Administration. Remember all the times we heard how Obamacare was now “law of the land”? If they don’t like a “law of the land”, this suddenly unbreakable moral absolute is smeared and fought rabidly in court, usually the 9th Circuit where they’re guaranteed a favorable ruling, and still disobey when they lose as we see with anything immigration. And in some cases, they work to deprive others of its protections. I mentioned their efforts to destroy due process, now we have Democrats ordering AG Barr to break the law.

AG Barr does not have the authority to unredact the parts of the Mueller Report that Democrats want him to, as you saw in an earlier USA Today link. If he did unredact the items as requested (the grand jury items), he’d be breaking the law. Democrats legally cannot subpoena AG Barr to force him to break the law by handing over this material. So since AG Barr won’t break the law, Democrats will hold him in contempt of Congress. They’ve even talked of fining him, or imprisoning him. Why? Because he won’t break the law. Like Elizabeth Warren said- if Trump weren’t President, thanks to Democrats like her he’d be in jail. Probably for refusing to break the law, or for daring to have a lawyer since as mentioned before a lawyer doing legal lawyer stuff is now criminal and obstruction of justice.

It’s not the first time that Democrats tried to criminalize abiding by the law. Remember the Stormy Daniels thing, how Democrats said Trump should be impeached or arrested or whatever because he did not report the payoff as a campaign expense? Well, legally it WASN’T a campaign expense, it’s against the law to report hush money as a campaign expense, so Trump would’ve committed a crime if he had done what Democrats say he’s a criminal for NOT doing. Again, as Warren said, thanks to Democrats if Trump weren’t President he’d be in jail, for obeying the law.

Where The Title Comes From


_I was tempted to illustrate the idea of a naked man with a sexy image of Cloud given a joint appreciation the venerable originator of this blog and I have of his form, but that would be crossing the line so instead have a picture of Nikita Khrushchev from the back cover of Khrushchev Remembers.

“The Emperor’s New Cloak”- a fable about how some despot told a garment maker that he must sew the most beautiful cloak ever, so he faked it and said only the enlightened could see it, which led to the despot walking around naked and all the “wise” people claiming that they could see the beautiful non-existent cloak.

This cloak has been around for some time with Democrats- their “nuanced” arguments. Whenever a politician says it’s a nuanced argument (aside from some cases where they’re right, like when saying that their position is too nuanced to cover in 240 characters on Twitter or in a 30sec clip) they mean that they’re right and you’re too stupid to understand. Like when the Left tells us that the reason for ISIS is that not enough people in the Middle East have jobs (fun fact- medical workers and many others who had jobs in England and other parts of the world joined ISIS, hardly fitting for that “they have no jobs in the Middle East” explanation). If you don’t think unemployment and slight reduction in crop output is enough to cause folks to ground up children and feed them to their starving parents or behead people or set people on fire then you’re just an idiot and should surrender all control of your life to your elitist liberal betters! So goes the Left’s argument anyway, their “nuanced” argument about the origins of Islamic terrorism.

Regardless of if ISIS says they are Islamic or regardless of if ISIS says they’re at war with the U.S., they aren’t simply because our State Department under Obama decreed that they weren’t (as you see at this link– I was advised against using Breitbart because some of you all don’t like it, but this is a direct quote and I couldn’t find it anywhere else on a Google search and it is 4:41am and I have to work in 4 hours and I don’t have time to scour CSPAN for this!). As the Obama Administration said, it doesn’t matter what ISIS says or does, it just matters what they tell you about it. Afterall, the media overhypes terrorist attacks, said Obama, and a year later he decided to attend a baseball game with notorious butcher Raul Castro in the wake of an Islamic terror attack on an American ally. Imagine if Trump attended the Bolshoi Ballet with Putin after Brussels got bombed? It’s ok when Obama does such a thing, he’s a hero, but Trump is evil. Period.

But it’s fine. Terror is a-ok! Just ask AOC who defended Ilhan Omar. Omar is on the record about terrorism- she believes it’s a joke and laughs at how Americans are concerned about it after the attempted and successful attacks on us. She thinks it’s maybe xenophobia because we don’t like strange words, or maybe Islamophobia, or just racism. Certainly nothing to do with the many people killed by the terrorists that she joked about- afterall, she was recorded as saying that her worldview is that the American military is equal to terrorists who kill 200 civilians in a shopping mall. Omar believes al Qaeda has just as much a right to violence as any other country and we shouldn’t be criticizing them. I’m not spinning anything, that’s WHAT SHE SAID! And Democrats backed her 100%.

The people in her district that voted for her, her friends in Congress, her leaders in Congress and the Democratic Party who fight every effort opposed to her, and liberals like Stephen Colbert who invited Omar onto his program, all of them are obviously smarter than us by virtue of being Democrats, so surely they are aware of Omar’s views, and by trying to downplay or hide them they clearly A: believe in these views and B: KNOW they are wrong otherwise they’d be just like her and telling anyone within earshot what they really think, instead of burying it as best as they can.


Also, they spy on YOU.

Now, isn’t it fair to say that a political party that knowingly is aiding terrorism (supporting pro-terrorist Omar, refusing to combat Islamic extremism while attacking people who do, giving Iran billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear bomb to send to its terrorist allies) while obstructing the functions of the elected President of the United States and the Judicial Branch is a party of traitors? Or is there a nuanced argument to make in support of them? Because even if their is, murderers are still profiting by Democrats’ actions that Democrats MUST KNOW are aiding murderers (afterall, the Left is smarter!) so we still have thousands of cases of manslaughter against them.

“Nuanced” Report

That was a bit of a digression, but the nuances that Democrats see around the report all amount to one thing- they don’t believe the Mueller Report says what it says.

It’s interesting that folks like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who can see almost all of the report, refuse to even look at the lightly redacted version and then say that there was collusion with Russia. The Mueller Report states:

  • “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government”
  • “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation”- the IRA being Russia’s Internet Research Agency
  • At various other points Mueller’s report confirms that there was no link, to the point that some items parroted as fact by the media was entirely fake (such as claims that George Papadopolous and Carter Page were indicted for their ties to Russia and claims about meetings that didn’t happen).

Yet Nadler insists the report DID show there was collusion, in total contrast to what MUELLER said as you can read in the first bullet point above! Nadler outright says that no collusion is impeachable if proven true, or maybe he’s saying it’s impeachable if it’s proven true that Mueller had nothing for obstruction of justice. It’s hard to tell, Democrats think law-abiding behavior is impeachable, based on what we saw with AG Barr.

This is where the “nuanced” arguments come in. You have to be smart in order to understand that “did not establish” means “soooo much evidence for it happening that Trump should be shot”. Just ask Blumenthal who very clearly read the report and has high reading comprehension. Mueller said they could not establish that it took place, he doesn’t say that it DIDN’T take place, and the Left was clinging to lifelines like that, clinging desperately to the Left’s cherished idea of “a person is guilty if we say so”, until Mueller threw them a life vest last week.

Legally Bound

Mueller’s statements last week raised another question. He claimed that the DOJ rules would not allow him to prosecute Trump (fun fact- the attorney general says Mueller could’ve at least reached a conclusion on whether there was a crime if there was evidence for one) so he didn’t really try to find any crimes. If that is the case, didn’t he just waste a lot of time and money? If the conclusion Democrats took from this is accurate, that Mueller didn’t find evidence and didn’t bother investigating because he couldn’t charge, then that means Mueller’s investigation shouldn’t have even started unless Democrats like the idea of wasting $20 million just to keep a few ex-Clintonites employed.

Moreover, we were told in February of 2018 by lawyers who worked with Mueller’s team that Mueller could indict Trump. Other legal scholars said Mueller could indict. Pelosi said Trump could be indicted. MSNBC said that Mueller might ask the attorney general to indict Trump. That sure is a lot of people who thought Mueller had the power to indict, quite a few of whom would KNOW if Mueller could. Did they lie? Or did Mueller?

And, didn’t CNN already declare that Mueller’s Report cleared Trump so much that it was a “gift to the government of Russia”?


Anyone remember when Dems said Rod Rosenstein was a patriotic hero? Yet here he is saying there was no collusion and no obstruction while Dems ignore their hero’s words.

Democrats never stopped saying they have obvious indictable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Even though Mueller- with $25 million, 40 FBI agents, 18 Democrat attorneys, and 2 years- couldn’t show anything happened despite how thoroughly they examined everything right down to who tweeted what, Democrats have always been saying there was enough evidence of crimes taking place. The best they can do is say there’s a nuanced argument. Nixon was out on his ass. Clinton was impeached by the House. But the best Democrats these days have is a nuanced argument that only pundits can see, despite all of this evidence that should have indicted Trump cleanly.

And even though Mueller didn’t say in his remarks last week that he wanted impeachment, the media looked for more of these “nuanced” messages. To be fair we’ve established that Mueller probably does hate Trump and want him impeached so perhaps the Left’s attempts to parse his words have some basis in reality. Mueller, who likes hiding evidence so that innocent people are convicted, who was friend to antiTrump scoundrel Comey, and hired many partisan hacks to his team of investigators, certainly would be someone who’d want Trump out of office. Especially if Trump were to hurt his corrupt DOJ cronies, or any sweet deals Mueller has from his tenure.


Rep. Nadler, image from wikimedia commons

Of course, as mentioned with Nadler, Democrat politicians don’t even bother making a “nuanced” argument. They just outright lie about what the Mueller Report or speak like it doesn’t exist.. The narrative is so vital that they’re at the point of just saying that it happened and hoping you believe it. Between the press and Democrat politicians, billionaires, activists, etc. the Left has had a thousand times what Mueller brought to bear and still in two years found nothing, or are hiding their findings from Mueller. I mean, if they’re so confident it happened and say they have irrefutable evidence despite Mueller saying otherwise, they MUST be hiding evidence from the Mueller Probe, which ironically means that Democrats MUST be the ones obstructing justice. If we are to believe them, we must conclude they have evidence Mueller doesn’t have, thus we must conclude that they are obstructing justice by hiding it.

Of course, maybe sensing this argument, Mueller and Democrats came up with the previously mentioned “Mueller didn’t have the power to prosecute” line. Except he at least had the power to declare that crimes happened, and he wouldn’t have said he had no evidence of a crime if he had evidence of it, if he had the same evidence Adam Schiff must be hiding. To Mueller’s point about lacking the power to prosecute you definitely can’t prosecute someone if there is no evidence of a crime, unless you’re a Democrat. And Mueller said he had zero evidence to act on.

Mueller had no evidence of collusion, and only hints at obstruction of justice, at least as Mueller describes it. There can be no obstruction of justice if there is no crime. Mueller found no evidence of a crime thus justice could not have been obstructed. And for those of you saying that Trump’s obstruction succeeded in stopping Mueller from finding a crime- read the damn report. He says nothing of the kind. He does not link obstruction with not finding a crime. Or is that one of those nuanced argument bread crumb things we’re supposed to read into?

Misc. Annoyances

  • Nadler saying that asking AG Barr to break the law to give them the unredacted Mueller Report was a “good-faith” effort by Democrats to get the report.
  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) is a twit, or he just proved that the FBI had a partisan grudge. Blumenthal said that the investigation into Trump began with “credible” accusations about Russia spying on behalf of Trump. The FBI warned the DNC in 2015 that Russia was going to hack them, and Russia did hack them in March of 2016. Trump wasn’t even a certainty for the nomination until April of 2016 when Sen. Cruz dropped out. So, according to Blumenthal, the first thing the FBI did when they learned their warning from 2015 came to pass was to investigate Trump who wasn’t even a certainty to be the candidate during all of this? Or is Blumenthal saying that Russia was helping Trump all along, as far back as 2015 when we didn’t even know he’d be a contender?
  • Also, Blumenthal claims in the above link that investigating the origins of the probe that faked evidence (Comey himself said the evidence, the fake dossier, was unverified but told the FISA court judge it was verified, and that’s the least damning problem about it) to get a warrant and was full of biased operators is a distraction from the findings of the probe… that Trump colluded and obstructed (which is a total lie, it said no such thing, at best the Mueller Report left it open-ended on obstruction but was definite on collusion).
  • Let’s do some reading of our own. According to the logic of CNN’s Chris Cilliza, he admits freely that President Obama is to blame for Hillary Clinton not facing charges and for the fabrication of evidence against Trump to start an investigation. Or does the Left believe that “setting the tone” only works when a Republican does it? If so, the Left is admitting its leaders are very weak.
  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated that Trump engaged in a cover-up, totally contrary to the Mueller Report’s conclusions, and then was offended that Trump didn’t want to meet with her immediately after she lied about him. And while lying about the report, Pelosi accused Attorney General Barr of lying because he just said what Mueller said, rather than the lie Pelosi wants to hear. That’s right- Pelosi, in addition to holding Barr in contempt for NOT breaking the law, wants to punish Barr because he told the truth. This from the party of science and truth and justice… maybe this is what “social justice” looks like, what it looks like when everyone has their own truth. Also, does anyone else remember Pelosi demanding Hillary be punished for lying to Congress? Because if you remember that, you’re as much a liar as Pelosi.
  • I also want to point something else out. For all those talking of collusion (who were quiet when Bill Clinton repaid Chinese investors in his campaign by giving them ICBMs) as if it were fact and for those who say “well even if Trump is innocent, based on Mueller’s indictments he surrounded himself with bad people”, I’d like to point out that this is the closest look we’ve had at a Presidential campaign. If anyone else’s campaign were investigated, its members held to scrutiny, we’d find some pretty horrible things. Heck, even at the Congressional level we have Democrats hiding sexual assault by their staffers, so imagine what a Mueller-type investigation of them would show.

Lots of gripes here, but the long and short is Democrats are lying. They started the narrative, when nothing came of it they decided to keep it going. Why? Look at the massive Democratic field. Their front-runner has to hide himself, and the rest are only electable in the “glass of water” districts Pelosi spoke of. To paraphrase Obama when he was attacking Republicans- if you can’t paint yourself as someone to run towards, paint your enemy as someone to run from. So despite Mueller’s report, collusion still happened. Obstruction must have happened. The only bright light is that a few people seem not to be buying into this, based on the ratings plummeting for various liberal programs who dealt in this farce.


And despite giving away ICBMs, I still kinda like 90s Bill Clinton. Shows what a good personality can do I guess, or maybe I’m just a battered husband at heart. Image taken from FAS.org, but I assume it’s originally from whatever that writing in the lower right-hand corner says.


Where The Anti-Semites Play Part II: Tlaib’s Terror


Image from Getty Images

Part One, which I will link to and use evidence from without citing throughout this post, can be found here. Mostly because I only want to have to link back to one page when I cite this later.

Honestly, I debated waiting another week to see what other gems Democrats would give me. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) must have read what I wrote last week and said “HA! If he thinks that’s bad, let him see THIS!”. Because the day after Holocaust Remembrance Day. she stated that the Holocaust gives her a “calming feeling” because the Palestinians welcomed Jews fleeing the Holocaust with open arms. As you read last week, as anyone with any understanding of history knows, it took 30 years for the British to force the Arabs, Palestinians included, to accept a Jewish presence, and even at that the Arabs, Palestinians included, fought tooth and nail to STOP the Jews from living there immediately after the Holocaust, immediately after PALESTINIAN leadership promised Hitler they’d exterminate the Jews in their region (pictured here is the Palestinian leader meeting with Hitler, possibly that very meeting I just mentioned). And they continued fighting the Jewish presence for the next 71 years, and will keep fighting it longer. Tlaib is one of those fighting the Jewish presence, continuing the same anti-Semitic violence that her Palestinian ancestors greeted Jews with.


If it weren’t for this caption, you’d be hard-pressed to tell if this was during the Holocaust or during Palestinian resistance to Jews in 1947-1949. Either way, it gives Tlaib a “calming feeling”.

Now, Tlaib is catching flak for that first line about the “calming feeling”, sort of disconnecting it from the rest of the sentence which is as much a lie about history as when terrorist spokeswoman and fundraiser Ilhan Omar gave her speech to CAIR. I’ll defend Tlaib partly on that point- she makes it clear that it’s a calming feeling only in the context of the lie about her ancestors helping the Jews. So taken at face value, she didn’t really say anything wrong assuming everything in her statement is true. But A: she was lying through her teeth, the Palestinians wanted Jews dead then as much as now and B: YOU DON’T SAY ANY TRAGEDY GIVES YOU A CALMING FEELING! THAT’S POLITICS 101 YOU MEATHEAD!

“Slavery gives me a calming feeling because I think of how the Civil War showed whites were willing to fight for the freedom of people they thought were inferior” is equivalent to what Tlaib said and any Republican would be made a nonperson if they said it! In fact, what Steve King was exiled from the GOP for saying was equivalent to what Tlaib said. You’ll notice that Tlaib is still happily sitting on the “Oversight and Reform” and “Financial Services” committees in the House of Representatives while Democrats defend what she said (the managing editor at the mainstream polling firm Zogby said that attacking Omar and Tlaib over their anti-Semitism and pro-terrorist positions amounted to Islamophobia- which means either he doesn’t pay attention to what they say, or he believes all Muslims feel this way thus justifying anyone who really has Islamophobic beliefs… so he can either claim to be stupid or claim that Islamophobics are 100% correct, because those are the only two possible explanations behind his statement given the facts).

Maybe the rest of the Democratic Party gets a warm fuzzy feeling from Holocaust Denial stories? Because that’s almost what Tlaib said, separated only by 3 years. The Jews in Europe went from the Holocaust frying pan into the Arabic fire, the Palestinians wanted exactly what the Nazis wanted, and the Jews spent the next 71 years fireproofing themselves. Meanwhile, Tlaib STILL wants to finish that war from 1948 with her BDS support. THAT’S what Republicans should be focusing on, because without adding this further insight about how much of a lie what she says is, and just focusing on the “calming feeling” phrasing, they are doing exactly what Tlaib is accusing them of: twisting her words.

As for Tlaib’s claim that any opposition to her is racist: she’s the one participating in what I guess should be termed as post-Holocaust Denial. It goes worse than that- not only does she lie about the Palestinians slaughtering Jews, she says the JEWS are the evil ones in all this! The Palestinians tried to kill the Jews and carried out various pogroms even before the Jews were resettled to Israel, land which I’ll remind you again the Palestinians did NOT have control over anymore. But Tlaib tells you that the Palestinians welcomed the Jews, who then formed the Jewish State of Israel and started genocide or whatever against the Palestinians. Pick up a history book and you’ll see Tlaib is lying. And while Tlaib paints the Palestinazis (because remember- their leader agreed to work with Hitler to kill Jews) as saviors and Jews as villains, she is greeted with applause by the Democratic crowd that showed up for the taping of NBC’s Late Night with Seth Myers, an interview in which Tlaib literally says you are a stupid racist if you believe that the Palestinazis tried to exterminate the battered and broken Jews, rather than believing that the Jews tried to exterminate the happy and welcoming Palestinians. Based on the reception from the mainstream late night host and his crowd of Democrats, Tlaib’s pro-Palestinazi perversion of history is mainstream Democratic Party thinking. NBC executives didn’t can her appearance, the crowd laughed and cheered, the host was very welcoming, millions tuned in to watch it, companies did NOT boycott it, thus we can only conclude that millions of Democrats and billions of dollars BELIEVE Tlaib. Except, surprisingly, CNN who are now stupid and racist according to Tlaib.


Image from Wikimedia, showing how the Palestinians and their allies welcome the Jews after the Holocaust. Tlaib said this welcoming is why the Holocaust gives her a “calming feeling”.

The historical inaccuracy goes even further than what I was able to think of off the top of my head- Jews had been fleeing to that area for a long time before the Palestinians welcomed them post-Holocaust with open “arms”… well, “arms opening fire” is a better way to phrase it. In fact, Palestinians had been attacking Jews in the region for that whole time too, though it didn’t explode into open war until the late 1940s. A Jewish state was rejected for the region too, before the Holocaust. In actuality, it looks like the Palestinians barely tolerated the Jewish presence, killing Jews just before the Holocaust, supporting Nazis before the war, then their leader met with Hitler and pledged to exterminate the Jews (“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine & the Arab world” is what the Palestinian leader at the time wrote), then finally decided to do it themselves after the Nazis were defeated, killing a bunch of Jews even before a Jewish State was voted on at the U.N. So the time Tlaib is praising the Palestinians for acting during, it was that very time period where they became the MOST opposed to Jews being in the area. Also, Tlaib is speaking as if the Jews were a foreign intruder rather than the historical owners of that region- the Jews controlled that area until Tlaib’s ancestors raped and murdered the Jews living there. So even if what Tlaib said were true, her idea of generosity is tolerating a Jewish presence in an area that Tlaib’s ancestors stole from Jews by raping and murdering them. How kind of her. I suppose Indian Reservations give her a warm and fuzzy feeling about the Trail of Tears?

But you know, that point about how out of centuries of potential tolerance, Tlaib picks one of the most intolerant periods to glorify, it seems to be an overall pattern with Democrats that I mentioned last time– out of the many good Muslims in the country, Democrats rallied behind Omar and Tlaib instead. Democrats can’t seem to find a good Muslim anywhere though, last week they had an openly anti-Israel Imam deliver the House prayer. I guess that goes right along with the Dems in 2012 letting someone connected with the 9/11 attackers, someone whose son ran terrorist training camps, deliver the opening prayer for one of their events at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Which goes along thematically with letting the Taliban-praising homophobic father of the Orlando Nightclub shooter deliver an address at the Democratic National Convention, where Democrats praised him. That was 2016, when Democrats were still mainstream enough that Hillary Clinton could be their candidate, they’ve now spent 2 and a half years moving Leftward of that position where they thought the Taliban-lovin (the Taliban is, not coincidentally, seen as anti-Semitic)‘ homophobic Muslim was mainstream… so it’s no wonder they’re behind Tlaib and Omar.

As a quick aside- Tlaib tries to say that her support for a One-State Solution is different than groups like Hamas and BDS which she backs and defends… so pretty much she’s lying about that too, and very badly since she’s openly supported the very groups whose ideology she claims she does not support.

Time For Some Republican Shaming


Fake News CNN would never have such an accurate chyron. Original unedited image from CNN, edited one you see here from MS Paint

I looked all this up at 5:30am two days after it all went down. Washington Examiner gave a proper response describing the history around the topic, New York Post at least mentioned a sentence on it (in a piece cited earlier), whereas Rep. Lee Zeldin, Rep. Steve Scalise and Rep. Liz Cheney and Fox News… didn’t have diddly about it in their writings. That means CNN had a better response! Heck, the New York Times in its DEFENSE of Tlaib noted that she got the details on the Palestinians horribly wrong!

Zeldin SHOULD have noted like I did that Tlaib wants a Muslim majority controlling the Jews in the Middle East, and should have noted that Tlaib aligns with the anti-Semites who want that, and should have noted what would happen if the Jews no longer had control of their country in a region that has wanted them exterminated since the first Muslims raped and killed their way into controlling Jerusalem. Instead, we get a sort of foundationless statement- he tells us it is a problem but not WHY, so it just looks vaguely Islamophobic and definitely allows apologists of the anti-Semitic BDS movement room to spread their propaganda and further delegitimize their opponents.

Fox News, Scalise, and Cheney SHOULD have made statements including how fictitious Tlaib’s remarks were. Heck, at the least they could’ve said something like “Tlaib claims Holocaust gives her a “calming feeling” because of how Palestinians treated Jews during and after it. Palestinians MURDERED Jews during and after it.” That would’ve worked, there isn’t a lie in there, they did not twist her words. They merely summarize what she said and then add historical context. In that tweet-sized blurb Tlaib and her protectors would be forced to defend her lies about history. Instead, Republicans simply gave her an out by attacking her in a way that allowed her to say they were merely twisting her words.

I wonder though- was it an accident? Did Tlaib let her true feelings about the Holocaust slip out, then realizing the problem she went on to denounce it and give a false interpretation of history by lying about the Palestinian response, so that way if Republicans challenged her she could say either they twisted her words or that Palestinians didn’t attack Jews and everyone was lied to? Thus her slip-of-the-tongue serves to spread anti-Semitism while also becoming a tool to attack Republicans with, two goals she is more than happy to pursue.

A CAIRing Ending

I just want to touch a little more on CAIR here. Tlaib shared the stage with an Imam known for his hatred of women, LGBT folks, and Jews at an event designed to raise money for CAIR. CAIR CHOSE that speaker, and TLAIB agreed to share the stage with him at that event, to raise money for the organization that supports him and his views. A lot is made about how Trump even retweeting something from a white supremacist makes him one, well what the hell does this make Tlaib?! And what does it make CAIR?

Well, as I mentioned last time of CAIR we know Ilhan Omar lied about its founding. I can also add that more than a dozen leaders of the terrorist-linked group have been arrested for ties to terrorism. But there’s more than that. I came across it in this article about how Muslim children at a mosque in Philadelphia were singing about beheading people in Jerusalem. I’ll conclude with that, but as for CAIR I saw this paraphrase of a diatribe from CAIR’s founder and former co-chairman Omar Ahmad: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant… the only accepted religion on Earth”. He said that in 1998. Contrast that to Omar saying CAIR was founded in or after 2001 to advance the rights of Muslims that George W. Bush was oppressing even though as I said CAIR had PRAISED Bush for NOT suppressing Muslim rights. Literally nothing Omar said in her statement was true, except that line about those people who did stuff.

Another useful quote from CAIR’s current spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper, in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” Education like what Omar and Tlaib received no doubt.

So… CAIR has anti-Semitic speakers, ties with anti-Semitic terrorist groups (Hamas as mentioned previously being such a group), and as they themselves admit want to wipeout all other religions including Judaism, while Omar and Tlaib raise money for them and share the stage with anti-Semites, anti-woman, and anti-LGBT people. Tlaib and Omar also support the self-defined anti-Semitic BDS movement. Tlaib’s revision of Palestinian history paints the Jews as the villain and ignores the Palestinazis’ attempted 2nd Holocaust. And the Democratic Party backs these two in full. They get all sorts of soft interviews, defense form leading Dems, profiles in major magazines, appearances before cheering crowds and thrilled late-night hosts on major TV networks. The Democrats back CAIR just as much- heck, anytime there’s an accusation of Islamophobia against a Republican you can bet that the DNC media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) will have at least a quote from a CAIR representative if not a full-on interview with one. And then you turn around and say Republicans are the real anti-Semites. Look, meet me halfway: at least admit that Democrats aren’t any better!

As for the video: the Muslim American Society was fully aware of what those kids were singing about and did not care at all, they must’ve thought it was a good thing I guess, until it got translated into English. Then they suddenly found outrage… at the people who felt threatened by a mosque teaching its kids to murder. But they also said that the whole several minute long musical number was a mistake, just an oversight. Nobody pulled the plug on it as it was happening, the parents of those children did not object to the performance in the weeks it must’ve taken to put it together and even while it was happening, no one said anything about it until the video was translated. In other words- until it became a PR nightmare, they thought it was acceptable! Here’s the quote we get on it, from Amir Qasim Rashad of the United Muslim Masjid in South Philadelphia: ““Places of worship used to be sacred, but now they are the target,” Rashad said. “And it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s a mosque or synagogue or church.”

He DOES realize that this was all in response to a mosque teaching children to murder, right? Or maybe Amir has the Palestinian line of thinking that somehow hiding your murderous attacks behind something sacred or civilian should protect you from retribution? Because Amir’s statement that teaching murder in a mosque makes them immune from a response is no different than the Palestinian (and Democratic Party’s) reasoning that launching rocket attacks on Jewish civilians from a hospital or school or otherwise shielding yourself with an inoffensive non-target should make you immune from a counterattack and criticism (Not like the Palestinians need to, the media never had anything but sympathetic coverage for Hamas. CNN went so far as to say that all members of the Jewish State are fair targets and there’s no such thing as an Israeli civilian, and also asked a pro-Israeli teen if she was “brain dead”- the media is quite fond of Palestine and HATES Israel).


If were up to the people these two raise money for and share the stage with, the Jews would be extinct. Either Omar and Tlaib are absolute morons or dangerously anti-Semitic. AND WHY CAN’T DEMOCRATS FIND ANY GOOD MUSLIMS!? The best they had was Keith Ellison, whose only ties to anti-Semitism are his association with Farrakhan years ago. I KNOW a pretty cool Muslim who’s in politics and has no anti-Semitic ties (that I’m aware of, he’s certainly not an anti-Semite). If I, in my insular life, can meet one such person then surely the Democrats can field a candidate or two like that… right? Or is it because Ellison, Omar, and Tlaib represent the ideals of the party? The warm reception the Leftist media and audiences gives them indicates that to be the case. Image from Associated Press