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

Where The Anti-Semites Play


Barack Obama meets with noted anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, probably just before attending one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic sermons. Image from Talking Points Memo

Predictably, the media’s head is so far up its butt that they don’t know Right from Left. I refer you to how the Washington Post labelled anti-Semitic Democratic hero Louis Farrakhan as a rightwinger. The very next day, CNN made the same mistake. With the New York Times’ history of anti-Semitism and publication of two anti-Semitic cartoons (they published one, explained how it happened, eventually apologized for it, then published a second one, all within a couple of days, much like Rep. Ilhan Omar’s pattern of making terrible statements, apologizing, then doing it again not too long after that will be discussed later).

To be fair, it could be a mistake. The reporters might be so biased that they just assumed anyone who is anti-Semitic belongs to The Enemy. But then it also could be a coverup- they know anti-Semite Farrakhan (who believes Hitler was a great person for what he did) is tied heavily to Democrats as you read above, especially black Democrats, so they want to hide it by telling their readers he’s really a rightwinger and thus only people in Trump country would like him… even though he leads the Nation of Islam, which judging by its name the islamophobic Trumpster fires would wish to avoid. And then there’s the third possibility, a very slim one- the reporters know that Democrats are thoroughly in bed with this anti-Semite, so to try and roust them they’re hoping a far-right label will stick, thus any Democrats tied to him would also earn the far-right label, be too scared to sully the party’s reputation like that, and cut ties with him.

Nah, reporters aren’t the brightest of bulbs these days (just ask Obama Admin official Ben Rhodes), so likely Washington Post and CNN just read “anti-Semitic” and assumed “Trump Supporter”. No need for fact checking because in their world you pretty much can’t be one without being the other.

Which creates a little problem for them- what to do about the black Democrats tied to anti-Semitism. Denial, that’s what. And even praise- take a look at the litany of laurels foisted upon Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) by Leftwing news outlets, compared to her attacks on Jewish people. She is a pro-terrorist anti-Israeli celebrity to liberals. So Democrats have Omar and Farrakhan on their side, have had Farrakhan for decades but now have Omar too. How can they claim to oppose anti-Semitism?

Unpacking The Left’s “Unpacking”


I keep shaking my head at these two- soooooo many Muslims in America that are perfectly good people, and we get two anti-Semites, where the one in hijab is basically a terrorist spokeswoman and the Palestinian one met with associates of a Palestinian terrorist group. Democrats: this is NOT how you combat Islamophobia, this is how you CREATE it. Image from The Economist

Now, you may try to claim like Democrats that there is a distinction between “Jew” and “Israel” in your defenses of Omar (Farrakhan has made far more clearer statements about his hatred of Jews). For one thing, Omar and the later-mentioned Rashida Tlaib support the BDS movement. As you can see BDS’ own words, they’re out to deprive Jews of power. Notice that they say “Jew” a lot, criticizing Israel as a “Jewish State”. The BDS movement makes it clear that it wants Jews out of power and accuses Jews of oppressing other peoples in Israel, even though Israeli Arabs are freer than any other Arab in that region. Aside from the obvious “how can it be a Jewish State but not Jewish, and how can they hate Jews for having the power but not hate Jews themselves?” question that people trying to separate Omar and Tlaib’s views from anti-Semitism have, there’s more work to be done.

Remember Omar’s anti-Semitic trope about money in politics (you should be defining it as anti-Semitic, liberal, you thought something so mundane as Dave Brat beating Jewish Eric Cantor in a Congressional race was anti-Semitic)? Her allegedly heartfelt apology and how House Speaker Pelosi spoke with her? Turns out this wasn’t her first time. A year before, Jewish community leaders got together to talk with her about her use of anti-Semitic language. Now, either she is very dense thus too stupid to be a Congresswoman, or she is deliberately invoking anti-Semitic stereotypes. As you saw in the link, according to community leaders who were present, they picked up that Omar wasn’t going to avoid anti-Semitism.


Image from DemocracyNow

Looking at the tweet Omar sent to apologize for her Jews/money remark, you’ll notice that she says a bipartisan group working on behalf of Israel is the real problem. She doesn’t mention CAIR as a problem too, she only singles out the Jews. CAIR as you know was where she spread terrorist propaganda and was a group founded by terrorists as their U.S. propaganda arm. So… CAIR is ok according to Omar, CAIR has “Islamic” right in the title so it’s clearly tying religion and terrorism together, while the organization representing the JEWISH State is the real problem according to Omar. And as I said, she tried to distinguish between Jew and Israel, which leads to another problem- she doesn’t make a distinction between CAIR and Muslims, she raised money for CAIR, in her speech she said CAIR was founded to help Muslims, she didn’t even make a distinction between her own beliefs and CAIR’s, so… is she saying that Muslims can’t be separated from terrorism the way Jews can be separated from a Jewish State? Does she believe a terrorist-backed organization is less of a threat than an organization working in favor of a Jewish State?

Want to hear further? She wants to destroy the Jewish State, but wants to protect the government of Venezuela which is inflicting a humanitarian crisis on its population. But Omar blames the U.S. for that of course. Interesting how she always sides with oppressors and terrorists, never siding with the country she immigrated to. Moreover, when she says that the U.S.’s “bullying” is behind the crisis in Venezuela, it makes you wonder: what does she think would happen if BDS became mainstream? Similar “bullying” would be inflicted on Israel. If indeed it truly is an apartheid regime then BDS would just inflict even more suffering on the Arabs that Omar wants controlling the country. Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, I guess. Or maybe she just hates the “Jewish State” more than she cares about the Arabic peoples it allegedly oppresses.

Also, she retweeted something about Jews having hook-noses. For those of you who don’t know, that’s a racist stereotype, it’s like if Trump were to say that Obama looked like a monkey. Understand now? What more does she need to do to prove anti-Semitism, propose legislation that all Jews need to have a Star of David stitched onto their clothing?

I know I’ll never convince you people who still claim Israel occupies Palestine. A little history- Palestine REJECTED offers for piece. Now, there was an occupation after years of war and terrorism, but the Israelis relented and pulled out. The Palestinians responded by attacking the Israelis. After that, after the Israelis had conceded and withdrew, after the Palestinians attacked them after getting some land back, the Palestinians VOTED for the political party most dedicated to exterminating Jews- Hamas. The same group who founded CAIR, where Omar gave her terrorist propaganda speech (so it’s no surprise that Omar and Tlaib would defend Hamas as they fire rockets at the women and children of the Jewish State- neither Tlaib nor Omar have condemned Hamas’ terrorism. They’ve defended it. Tlaib outright said that the Palestinian murderers are happy-go-lucky innocent people and telling the truth about what they do only oppresses them. By the way- Hamas is very much against Jews as a religion, and wants to run Jews out of Israel- not “end the Jewish State”, but end the presence of Jews, and Omar and Tlaib SUPPORT this).  Israel hasn’t had a day since at least the 1970s- when an acquaintance of mine lived there- where rockets weren’t raining down on Jews from Palestinian sources (said acquaintance lost two friends, and almost her own life, in one such attack). And what was the root cause of all this? Britain gave Jews some land in the Middle East after almost 30 years of trying, and Arabs did not want Jews anywhere near them (their leadership conferred with Hitler on removing Jews from the Middle East, just 7 years before more Jews would be dumped in their laps). The very cause that Omar and Tlaib strive for and try to separate from anti-Semitism is rooted deeply in anti-Semitism!

So a bunch of lambs were dumped in a den of wolves after surviving an earlier campaign of extermination, and we’re supposed to think that these lambs are evil because they actually managed the miracle of living. That’s what Omar, Tlaib, and the modern Democratic Party backing them would have you believe. Moreover, those enemies that wanted the lambs dead are treated better in ISRAEL than anywhere else in the Middle East. Omar sees this as a problem, and what she supports clearly indicates she believes JEWS are the source of this problem.

It’s not the combined Israeli Jew/Israeli Arab government that works in cooperation every day that Omar targets, it’s the JEWISH state that she hates. It’s not terrorist-lovin’ CAIR nor Islamic terrorists that she sees as being a problem, it’s Jewish State-lovin’ AIPAC and soldiers from the Jewish State-lovin’ U.S. that she criticizes. And she invokes anti-Semitic stereotypes to support her hate. And Democrats defend her statements- they don’t say she’s an anti-Semite, they say she has a legitimate point but just phrased it poorly. They couldn’t even pass a resolution condemning her remarks as anti-Semitic, they tried to protect her, and still have Omar serving on the House Committee on Foreign Policy.


For those not in the know, David Duke was a Grand Wizard with the KKK, and he’s sided with both Omar and Tlaib. Image from Politico

Unlike Republicans who ousted Steve King. And remember when Donald Trump had to denounce David Duke more than a hundred times otherwise he was a white supremacist (he denounced Duke, then two days later did the CNN interview that caused the media to claim he was pro-KKK because of what is likely a faulty earpiece given his prior record of denouncements)… and then the Left simply denied that Trump denounced any hate groups? David Duke supports Omar, and not once has the liberal media asked her about it, nor have her Democratic colleagues mentioned it. Almost like they don’t mind it.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at all this- she misused campaign funds and probably married her brother in order to become a U.S. citizen (which you’ll note from the links that the Obama Administration did not look into).


I will assume that AOC is just too stupid to know what’s going on, since she admitted it herself. And with Tlaib and Omar as her educators, it’s no wonder she’s coming off as just another Latina Jew Hater. Goes with the company she keeps and defends (Tlaib also defended Omar’s verifiable terrorist lies, saying she was telling the truth). And to counter Cortez’s point– who the heck aside from King in Congress runs with racism like Omar does? I mean, aside from Latinx Supremacist Cortez herself. Image from CNN

In addition to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) we have Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) (Some will give AOC a pass, but I won’t. Even the DSA now gives her guilt by association). I keep saying- everyone on both sides of the aisle condemned Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for his alleged white supremacist remarks (I say alleged because we don’t have the tape, and as you saw above the NYT isn’t particularly reliable) and King was kicked off his committees, but NOT ONE DEMOCRAT has condemned Tlaib for her map showing “Palestine” in place of Israel, and while Omar faced a small slap on the wrist for one of her remarks, she was DEFENDED for spreading terrorist propaganda as I mentioned in an earlier post, and that slap on the wrist didn’t even address her casual anti-Semitism except to make an excuse to cover it up (Pelosi’s “she didn’t know what she was saying” line). Republicans didn’t make an excuse for King like I did just a moment ago, they ousted him. But when Democrats are confronted with Omar or even Farrakhan? They make excuses. They haven’t even bothered addressing Tlaib.

Meanwhile, we’re supposed to believe that Republicans hate Jews. Republicans have DEMONSTRABLY attacked anti-Semites like Omar, Farrakhan, and Tlaib and white nationalists like David Duke and even people like Steve King who appear to be white nationalist, while Democrats have been caught DEFENDING AND COLLUDING with anti-Semites.

I got sidetracked- onto Tlaib. She is part of the BDS movement which is directed against the JEWISH state and openly wants to put a MUSLIM state in its place as you saw in earlier link, and has a map in her office where there is no more JEWISH homeland. How could it be any more clear that there is no distinction between “destroy Israel” and “destroy the Jewish State” and “destroy the Jews”- the idea to put a Muslim state in Israel’s place clearly shows it’s a conflict over which religion Tlaib (and Omar) thinks should run the area. Furthermore, one of Tlaib’s big fundraising friends is very much anti-Semitic. If Trump is a white nationalist for not denouncing David Duke 101 times, if Steve Scalise is a racist because he spoke at an event that was in the same hotel as a KKK meeting later in the day, and if Republicans hate Jews because they happened to vote one out of office, and if Republicans are all owned by their big business campaign contributors, then SURELY an anti-Semitic fundraiser for Tlaib must reflect her own anti-Semitism, if for no other reason than by the same standard you apply to your enemies of what constitutes hatred.


Much like Omar who wants to destroy the Jewish State in Israel but believes we shouldn’t do anything to Venezuela, Tlaib (believes that too) thinks it’s ok to boycott Israel but not ok for anyone to boycott those whom boycott Israel. Tlaib and Omar only favor things that attack Jews and Israel, and dismiss those very items if used on actual human rights abusers. Tlaib wants to DESTROY Israel, but then she and Omar get mad when Trump supports the guy in Venezuela who isn’t a dictator and say it’s a coup like it’s a bad thing that the strongman would be ousted (and Tlaib is very clear that she wants to oust Trump too- Tlaib wants to change the governments of the U.S. and Israel, but loves Venezuela as it is- think about that). If it were a coup of Muslims in Israel, their support for BDS indicates they would be onboard with that. Again- supports human rights abusers in Venezuela, but attacks the “Jewish State” and wants a coup of their own against it. Image from Daily Mail

So what if we took it a step further and found that Scalise was following a white nationalist Instagram page? Well, Tlaib follows an anti-Semitic one and Democrats do not care. “The account Tlaib follows shares posts comparing Jews to vermin and Hitler, posts asserting Jews wield an enormous amount of power, and posts claiming Israel “did” 9/11 and supports ISIS.” The same woman who has a map without Israel in her office, who supports the anti-Jew BDS, follows an Instagram page saying all those things. But she’s not anti-Semitic?

Tlaib, in her attacks on the Jewish State, wants to destroy what happens to be the country with the largest Jewish population. Just like Omar. And both have been caught making anti-Semitic remarks while openly supporting attacks on the JEWISH State. They have not been disciplined, no resolutions passed against them, and they still serve on their committees. It’s really starting to look like the Republicans overreacted to Steve King, given how little has happened to Omar and Tlaib, and to bring it on home how little has happened to Democratic supporters of noted anti-Semite Farrakhan.

So, which party is really home of the anti-Semites? Isn’t it really the party of the New York Times, Omar, Tlaib, and Farrakhan (and now Valerie Plame) that harbors and encourages this ideology? A party that seems to be getting more in touch with its roots in hatred? A party that now says you can’t even call out people for the hatreds they express, if they happen to be anti-Semitic and Muslim or anti-Semitic and a minority? Maybe you believe Republicans are anti-Semitic, but unless you have decided that the real world doesn’t exist there’s no way you’re not asking questions about liberals now too! I’d suggest you turn to the Libertarians: the alt-Right and anti-Semitic Far Left hate them so they can’t be all that bad right?




When Is One Investigation Ever Enough?


Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) addresses CAIR. Image From DemocracyNow

Let’s see if I have this right, Democrats.  We have two people here:

  • Person A: cleared of being influenced by a foreign power by a 2 year $40 Million law enforcement probe that could access anything it wanted. In that time, billions of dollars and millions of people were also able to investigate Person A, and they too found nothing otherwise the law enforcement probe would have used it.


  • Person B: Representative elected to represent the terrorist recruitment capital of this country, came here from a terrorist hotbed just like the terrorist recruits in their community, thinks Hamas the terrorist organization is heroic compared to its victim the nation of Israel, says terrorism only happens because America has influence in the world, courts campaign money from funders of terrorism, blamed the U.S. media and discrimination against the Arabic language for belief that terrorist groups are evil while saying that the only reason groups like al-Qaeda are illegitimate is that they weren’t elected (and note that while Person B said al-Qaeda would be legitimate if it were elected, she said Israel was evil for its less-severe actions in fighting terrorist group, meaning Omar clearly only has heart for terrorists  and is just saying whatever she thinks will get support for them), laughed and joked about America’s post-USS Cole/post-911/post-WTC bombings/post-Embassy bombings/post-attempted-attacks-on-U.S.-soil concerns about al Qaeda,  raised money for a terrorist-linked group, voted to allow terrorists that kill Americans to hold life insurance policies, demanded that a terrorist be released from jail, believes 9/11 was merely when “some people did something” and Muslims were oppressed because of it which codifies the traditional narrative used  when recruiting terrorists (one that’s a total lie mind you- the organization Person B claims was founded to fight President Bush’s alleged attacks on Muslim civil liberties actually COMPLIMENTED Bush for how he handled Muslim relations after 9/11), and Person B spread this narrative while speaking to/praising a group that was labelled by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist group and according to America is an unindicted co-conspirator with a known terrorist organization, claiming that this group was founded to advance Muslim rights thus implying Muslims should blindly follow this terrorist-associated group (which was founded 8 years prior to when Person B claims, and was founded in part by a terrorist organization to advance Islamic extremism) that covers for terrorists, and Person B believes that referring to al-Qaeda should elicit the same reaction in Americans as referring to the U.S. Army thus meaning Person B finds these institutions to be equal (also a conclusion drawn from her statements referenced earlier).

Yet, according to Democrats, Person A is the enemy. Person B merely speaks truth to power and you are racist if you criticize her, in fact criticizing her means you want people to kill her, thus your very act of criticizing Person B constitutes a physical threat to her life. Actually, the Democrat head of the House Committee on Homeland Security said there was nothing wrong with Person B’s speech which A: encouraged belief in a terrorist recruitment lie, B: downplayed the largest terrorist attack on this country, and C: lied about the founding of a terrorist-linked organization in a way that encouraged devotion to that organization and its often radicalizing messaging (remember- the same party who made that man Homeland Security chairman and defends Person B’s pro-terrorist rantings also believes in open borders, so take whatever you want from that implication!).


Person A. Not to be confused with “Persona“. Image from wikimedia.org

In fact, while rushing to defend Person B, Person A is so deplorable to Democrats that they’ll attack anyone associated with him, and encourage mobs to form around government officials that work with him. They will defend Person B’s statements and beliefs, but demand Person A be charged with obstruction of justice for his words, and openly claim that Person A’s words are an attack on the media and incite violence. Violence like what Person B’s words encourage, which I guess Democrats are ok with since they openly support her (I’ll get into Kavanaugh later, but here we have an anachronistic point: much as Democrats support Omar’s violence but hate Trump’s, we have Democrats demanding that threats against Dr. Ford be investigated while ignoring threats against Kavanaugh, clearly meaning that they must tacitly approve of them, it’s not like the threats were unknown).

Oh, and while the Left throws its pity party for the threats on Person B, aside from the obvious Bernie Sanders supporter who shot Republicans let’s look at some other instances of violence against the Right that the media deems unimportant, or laudable. Obviously they approve otherwise they’d go after their perpetrators and folks like Former Democrat VP Candidate Tim Kaine and former Democrat Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Obviously Person A Is Trump and Person B Is Omar


Well… this image WAS taken in San Francisco, which Democrat Leader and second-in-line for the Presidency Nancy Pelosi represents part of… image from Marquette Warrior

If Omar weren’t basically on Hamas’ payroll, I might agree with her on sentiments like this (they hadn’t committed any acts of terror yet, and honestly the FBI basically creates radicals to arrest). But now I can’t since it seems the only people who believe it are folks like her who think America is the problem and think we’re hypocrites for being upset about 9/11 (and it’s an easily reached conclusion that she thinks that- combine her belief that the U.S. Army should elicit the same reaction as al-Qaeda and bafflement that it doesn’t, her belief that 9/11 wasn’t that big a deal, and her statements about how terrorists are just like elected governments, and her belief that terrorist groups are not the threats that we believe them to be). If I give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. If calling someone a liar on one issue hurts their credibility on other issues (lawyers discredit witnesses with this all the time), then it follows that admitting someone is right on one issue opens the door to believing them in other areas, and makes for headlines like “Bipartisan Agreement that Omar is Right”.

And Democrats are obviously never going to stop investigating Person A. I guess it’s justified that Democrats would want their own investigations into Trump. Afterall, according to them the FBI never looked at him in 2016, and the Mueller Probe never even happened depending on who you ask.

It wasn’t until I was writing last week’s piece that I made the connection, that I realized why I should’ve realized that no matter what the Mueller Probe was not going to satisfy liberals. Sure, liberals said that if The Probe (if all that ever comes of my writings is that one person can no longer think of the Mueller Probe without making that association, then my life’s work is complete) came back with a negative conclusion then they’d accept it and it’d even be a “reckoning“, but they say a lot of things. In fact, with headlines like “Scenario as crazy as Trump: President fires Mueller and orchestrates own impeachment for power grab” (from Salon) I daresay someone who believed the Left was in for a reckoning was in the minority or a conservative prone to flights of fancy. For once, my least favorite olive-head actually told the truth when saying he wouldn’t accept Mueller’s findings if they cleared Trump, so I will give credit where credit is due.  But keep in mind also that was in the waning days of the probe when the media started the “it will be anticlimacticnarrative.

How did that compare to Kavanaugh? Well, we were told that if the FBI investigated and found nothing (regardless of the fact that it wasn’t the FBI’s job and if Dr. Ford had simply filed a police report with the relevant department her case would’ve been investigated- l) then they’d accept it. But of course we learned that they didn’t like how the FBI worked it even though they would have known that would be the case, and we learned that despite months of Democrats sitting on the report, weeks of having it out in the open, having Congressional subpoena power and being able to investigate for themselves, and months of digging up everything they could on Kavanaugh (with the assistance of the press, who were so eager to help they buried evidence that would help Kavanaugh) the Left still wasn’t satisfied that Kavanaugh was clear. Not satisfied with their own investigating, not satisfied with the FBI’s, because they just couldn’t get the answer they wanted. Just like with Mueller.


The late Antonin Scalia already looked kinda weird, but this guy looks like someone took a wax figure of Scalia and melted it! Guess the brain melted too, based on his reaction to the Mueller report. Image from wikimedia.

Listen to them talk. “If the president cannot be indicted … as a matter of law, then the only way to hold the president accountable is for Congress to consider it and act, if warranted… Congress can only do that if it has the information… For the department to take the position that, ‘We’re not going to give information because he’s not indicted, like a normal person who’s not indicted because of lack of evidence,’ is equivalent to a cover-up and subverts the only ability to hold the president accountable.” In other words: “if you didn’t indict because Trump didn’t do anything, give us all the information you do have so that we can impeach him, otherwise we’ll say this is a cover-up and take you down with Trump!”

They KNOW collusion happened, and they freely admit they don’t understand why there were no indictments from Mueller. They pretty much openly stated that the idea that Trump cheated with Russia to beat Hillary is beyond their ability to comprehend. This probably stems from the fact that Hillary’s loss is still equally as incomprehensible to them. It’s like every Democrat saw Hillary win on election night, then woke up the next day to find Trump as President. Desperate to find a reason that makes sense, they dug into their subconscious and pulled up the old Russian boogeyman from the Cold War as the best monster to scare the American people into believing their narrative with. He was never legitimate to them (Nadler got uppity in that clip about Trump insulting John Lewis, but I guess Indians don’t matter to him because Hillary insulted Gandhi).

Aren’t They The Party Of Reason?


Is anyone going to probe why John Kerry looks like Robert Mueller (pictured)… if every one of Mueller’s facial muscles were injected with Novocaine?

The Mueller Probe, loaded with Democrats who had plenty of reason to be sour after losing 2016 and backed by millions of dollars, could not find collusion by Trump or even by his campaign. Period. But Democrats refuse to accept this outcome.

Kind of like how they believe Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist despite Congress and the FBI investigating. In fact, not finding evidence means it MUST have happened (like how Mueller saying that Trump did not collude with Russia meant that he did, and Attorney General Barr lied when he quoted the report or something). Just look at what the party of science and reason takes as evidence for the truth these days (stole the list from here, verified on my own):

  1. Years of therapy didn’t give her attacker a name (the notes indicated that she only mentioned being attacked by boys  from an elitist school- and as for the polygraph she passed, well…), address, month, or even year. But then as soon as Kavanaugh, who had media exposure in 2012, pretty much is chosen as the next SCOTUS Justice she remembers everything. Meanwhile Kavanaugh kept a detailed record of the time this occurred and no such party is found in that record.
  2. The memories she recovered over years of therapy concluded there were 4 men present in the room, but after Kavanaugh is nominated and possibly after meeting with Democrats (as Senate Majority Leader McConnell describes, this Democrat activist wrote to her Representatives who then got her a Democrat law firm that hid from her the Senate’s offers about interviewing her at her convenience- something only a shady partisan law firm would do, something which implies they at least had low enough moral standards that they’d tweak her testimony for her) her memory narrowed it down to two plus she suddenly remembered that her best friend at the time was there. Her friend flatly denied being at the party as Dr. Ford alleged and none of the people Dr. Ford named as being there said that they were present. Interesting too how she not only remembered Kavanaugh’s name, but her friend’s name and the name of the other boy who was there.
  3. People were quick to pounce on the idea that the party matched an entry in Kavanaugh’s calendar, but it didn’t. Besides, no one remembers driving her to any such party. Offhand before she pinned a date down she could have said she drove herself. Yet the party they’ve seized on would mean she was 15 at the time, meaning she could NOT have driven herself due to her age, and it was a 7 mile hike to get there from her house. Worse, her family surely would have noticed over the next 3 years before she went to college that SOMETHING was different about her. So far her family hasn’t corroborated any part of the story.
  4. After the sudden shocking memory came to her, she couldn’t remember if she was in Delaware or New Hampshire when relating her tale to Democrats, and doesn’t know how the Washington Post got her confidential story months prior to its leak. Now, you’d think Ford would remember being in New Hampshire or Delaware because the rape allegedly left her too terrified to board an airplane as she said when asking for the hearing to be delayed (her lawyers asked for the delay, and during that delay two bogus Kavanaugh accusers popped up- I can say that offhand because Dr. Ford is the one with the most solid accusation), thus she would have driven from California to those states or taken a train out to them. Many days of travel for that. Yet she doesn’t remember! Probably because she lied about that- in fact, she flew, and flies quite frequently, a regular globetrotter she is! Even said in the hearing it’s not so bad when doing it for vacations. But then it came out that she’s not really much afraid of flying at all, with her attorneys saying they never said that, even though in the hearing Dr. Ford totally ran with the idea and CBS even tried to show why she would only be scared to fly some of the time. Talk about much ado about nothing if she never expressed a fear of flight!
  5. Ford, who hitherto had not been able to put a name to her attacker, or so the therapy notes told us, mentions that she was upset when Trump won in 2016 because Kavanaugh was one of the judges he might pick for the Supreme Court with the Washington Post saying that she remembered Kavanaugh’s name for years by that point. She only had a therapy session in 2012, and did not recall anyone’s name during it, and at that time still thought it was 4 attackers.
  6. She can’t remember details about the recent week or the past summer but she knows for a fact she had just one beer at the party, that EVERYONE had one beer, that it was Kavanaugh and his friend who showed up already drunk, and she knew no one there despite being invited and despite living so far she needed to be driven… except she later says her friend was there and  she could somehow identify Kavanaugh and his friend. Also, before she was done testifying, we learn Kavanaugh was the one who had just one beer, not her despite her earlier crystal clear recollection.
  7. Ford wanted her story to get out there badly, yet refused to tell it under oath at first.
  8. Somehow, she remembers the following about this party she hitherto had only minor recollections about: loud music played by her assaulters (there was music already playing in an empty room for some unknown reason, the ONLY music in the house, which her attackers turned up the volume on, and then according to her turned the volume down on once she left the room and hid in the bathroom, and instead of continuing the “rape” they ignored her and went downstairs and talked like nothing happened (or didn’t talk because Dr. Ford first claimed they did but then wasn’t sure), meaning anyone of the 3 people downstairs including her lifelong friend would have heard Dr. Ford running into the bathroom and slamming the door, would have noticed that she disappeared, and would have (especially her friend) inquired about what happened right then and there and definitely would have referenced the party to her later- I don’t know about you, but as far as I know NO ONE doesn’t talk with their friends who were there about the party the night before unless Ford never saw any of them again ever even though A: one was a lifelong friend and B: she DATED one of Kavanaugh’s friends for a few months and remained “distant friends” with him, yet he was the one that she says introduced her to Kavanaugh! Show of hands for how many people would stay friends with your rapist’s friend that introduced you to said rapist. She says she and Kavanaugh had other acquaintances in common too that she was on friendly terms with- all of them plus the friend that introduced her to Kavanaugh were at the country club where she routinely went swimming. So you go swimming in front of your rapist’s friends and are friendly to them, and are comfortable getting naked to change into your swimsuit around them. She said she was likely picked up from the country club where she gets naked to change into her swimsuit and swims. She has a fear of flying/panic attacks/claustrophobia because of Kavanaugh, but had no problem getting naked and swimming around his friends in the place where her evening of Hell started! In fact, years later after she remembers the incident, she still tried to PROTECT Garrett by not revealing his name as you read in the testimony I linked to! So… this man is friends with a rapist and introduced her to a rapist, and she still wants to protect him even after coming out to take down Kavanaugh. Moreover, if this were the July 1 1982 party mentioned above then this man Dr. Ford is protecting might well have been there!) to cover her screams, but doesn’t know if it was turned on or off or was playing during the conversations she remembers/doesn’t remember hearing after the incident.
  9. She claimed to have added a door to her house which led to a disagreement with her husband and the 2012 therapy session because she was so traumatized. Except she had the door built 4 years prior as part of an addition that has been used by a marriage counselling business and renters thus depriving her of ready access to this safety door, and she bought a summer house in 2007 which she made no plans to build a second door for. Also worth noting in that link is that the first time she allegedly named Kavanaugh, to her husband and anonymously described in the therapy session, was after Kavanaugh was announced as a possible Mitt Romney SCOTUS nominee. Regardless of if the rape took place, Dr. Ford still would have known Kavanaugh or known of him through common friends. And around that time Herman Cain was being taken down by accusations of sexual misconduct and affairs. Dr. Ford is a registered Democrat, donor (including to far Left Bernie Sanders at a time when he was more of a fringe and Hillary Clinton was more mainstream), attended an anti-Trump march, and planned to attend another one.
  10. She went in for the polygraph the same day her grandmother’s funeral was held or the day after. Unless she hated her grandma, that would certainly screw up the results and this is a thing polygraph takers don’t do (unless that was the idea- if she couldn’t fake it good she’d just blame the death in her family).
  11. She claims she was driven back home, a 20 minute drive, after sneaking out of the house. In 1982, with no cell phones, and at age 15. She does not mention using a pay phone, or really how she did any of this.

So, Democrats, what does logic and reason tell you? About Kavanaugh, about Mueller, about Omar? All we got from you on Dr. Ford was that we should believe her because she has a uterus, and outlining any flaws in her testimony is just a sexist attack on a poor traumatized girl. And as for Mueller? You’ve said for two years that the evidence was obvious, yet someone with a record of false convictions couldn’t even get a grand jury to indict based on it when that’s the easiest kind of jury to get an indictment out of! And Omar? You stood with her after the towers fell.

…hey wait, didn’t Democrats promise to probe the allegations against Kavanaugh?


“Pfffft, whatever dudes” Image from Huffington Post



I’d say offhand Biden’s accusers had a point, if he didn’t do this to everybody. I assume that’s him doing it to himself, but honestly one or more people photoshopped here could be Anderson Cooper. If Biden groped me and police had a lineup with Cooper, I might end up pointing to Cooper by mistake. Image from New York Magazine, originally from Trump’s twitter feed.

Joe Biden was doing great in the polls. Joe Biden had a chance in Hell of beating Trump. So naturally, much like with the Democrat Dr. Ford and other accusers and enablers, a vindictive person with a reason to want Biden out of the way was dug up to throw unproven accusations his way. Yes, that’s right, Biden has the same presumption of innocence as Kavanaugh… even though unlike Kavanaugh who had tonly one serious allegation against him (as you see in the links, the others were easily dismissed), Uncle Joe probably touches women more than he touches himself and cameras are often around for it. Sure I might enjoy seeing the guy falling victim to the monster he helped his party create, but I still don’t know if he actually did what he’s accused of doing in this specific instance. And honestly- by that point the Left had been defending Biden for years, surely Flores should have known what was coming. The legal system refers to this as “Assumption of Risk“, and Biden could probably win a court case with that defense.


The modern feminist has strong ideas on where men (cis-white men in particular) should be kept and how they should appear in public. Image grabbed from Daily Mail who grabbed it from Universal Pictures’ “The Silence of the Lambs”.

Also, as I learned from a FEMALE professor, some people are just huggers and always look to make tactile contact with someone else, like said FEMALE professor. You might say she was ok to do this since she was just taking power back from the cis-male-white-patriarchy (CiMWhiP), but that doesn’t neutralize the fact that some folks are wired to just compulsively platonically touch other people. But we’re talking about the same crew that thinks men should only be allowed in public in straight-jackets, so when that’s your standard it really doesn’t matter what a white man does because it’ll always be wrong.

Speaking of wrong I’ll derail here and throw a few snide remarks at another Democratic Presidential Hopeful… well Hopeless in her case. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was out bashing how Congress doesn’t take sexual assault seriously. I guess she was asleep when Democrats rioted over Kavanaugh, and maybe Sen. Hirono’s remarks were just pleasant white noise or something. Maybe she also slept through it when S.3749 passed, which helped force Congress to take something like that a little more seriously. Though she can be forgiven for missing it- she tried and failed to get anything done for it, but then 7 months later Sen. Klobuchar managed to get it through. Speaking of sleeping, it seems like she was Kirsten Van Winkle here. What S.3749 addressed was a very old problem, yet Gillibrand didn’t act on it until after she’d been in the Senate for 9 years! She only began speaking out about issues like this in 2017, 8 years after she was elected. 8 years is a long time, two terms as President as a matter of fact, so will she be napping during that time too if elected?

Anyway, now we watch as Progressives leap to defend Joe Biden while others try to tear him down. The same party that just 6 months ago was unified behind the “believe all women, all unwanted contact is sexual assault (even looking like a man who sexually assaulted a woman thousands of miles away should lead to an innocent man being investigated and treated like a predator), and all men are guilty (unless their name is Keith Ellison)” narrative is now split two ways. Either Biden is guilty period, or Biden is innocent and this is a political hitjob. And Democrats believe not all women are telling the truth, contrary to what Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) claimed. I guess Democrats also can’t face the idea that women don’t sit around making this stuff up, eh Hirono?

By the way Democrats- if this was a hitjob it didn’t work. So… does that mean you’re sexist? No one believed Keith Ellison’s accuser, and Biden would still be a winner for you. You already say that Republicans are sexist because Trump won; what about these guys in your own party?


Democrats used to defend Biden’s behavior. 6 years later he’s now a candidate for the Sex Offender Registry. So what does that mean for the people who protected him, especially the ones who are suddenly seeing a problem? Image from PJMedia

What I like is this reaction. The Leftists at MSNBC just love it when Uncle Joe creepily gropes them. Then we get the NYT saying it’s not so bad, I guess with an implied “so shut yo’ whiny face woman!”. Whereas with Trump it’s sexual assault even if it’s consensual. Remember: all Trump said is that if you’re famous women willingly let you do a lot to them- something any rock star, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and the most popular football player of any team is all too familiar with. But it does warm me ol’ heart to see that Democrats are finally happy to prey on each other, especially after they’ve all but ignored the allegations that State Attorney General Keith Ellison and Lt. Gov.  Justin Fairfax assaulted women. Or maybe Joe Biden has to go the way of Al Franken because he’s white and blocking more progressive members of the party?


A Different Kind Of Election Count

I alluded to it earlier when I wondered if Biden was only being attacked because he’s a white person blocking progressive and even minority candidates (his accuser is a big Sanders supporter, and Sanders is definitely Leftward of Biden). Biden himself once argued that he should not be elected because he’s white.

Democrats seem intent on overlooking qualifications and electability in favor of Leftyness and Oppression Points. Look at their reaction to Buttigieg. They can’t figure out if being gay overrides his status as a privileged white male. Even Bernie has been told that despite his ideals being 100% what they’re looking for, liberals see him as too white so that disqualifies him. Nothing about “what will they do” or “what have they done”, rather it’s “how white are they?”. I haven’t seen such attacks on Beto O’Rourke, except from people on the Right mocking the lack of such attacks, but the day is young.


How can someone with all these liberal accolades be a racist, unless your whole party is racist? That’s like accusing her of protecting sexual harassers! Image from wikimedia commons

And yes, being white is a problem, it’s an official Democratic Party stance. And no, racism is not new to the party. Just look at how Democrat-ran Twitter treats a racist insult hurled at a black conservative, compared to their hair-trigger blocking of people they politically disagree with. And, if you ask Rep. Ayanna Pressley, the Democratic Party is STILL racist against non-whites because of their effort to stop officeholders from being removed by new and upcoming Democrats. Pressley of course sees racism where there is none- A: any Democrat will tell you their party isn’t racist unlike those evil Republicans and B: this is clearly just a power grab by Establishment Democrats and has nothing to do with race except in the sense that the established order they’re struggling to protect just happens to be white. If it were more diverse they’d still pass something like this because it’s about not becoming another Joe  Crowley or Hillary Clinton, because they know that once they’re out of power they’re worthless.

Actually, this race to be most Progressive and have the most victim points led to (GASP!) people actually checking qualifications… in the most race-based way possible. Kamala Harris apparently has a problem with black men. But that’s ok, all intra-party fighting is due to Russian bots and not people with legitimate issues. That’s why House Democrats were able to unify and pass a budget… oh wait. Well… have fun with that circular firing squad.

Below is a handy chart demonstrating how Democrats determine the ethos of an individual. This comes from 11 years of following politics. The farther to the Left you fall on each line, the more credible the Left believes you to be and the more qualified they think you are to speak on an issue. That must be the case- how many times do you hear someone say “As a woman I believe x” or “As a trans I think y” or “As a nonwhite I can factually claim Trump is racist”?



Chart from Microsoft Excel


  • White Hatred- the speech Biden gave that I referenced above put him on the map. Kamala Harris I just assumed was already there. They both got 30 points for being “I’ll hate as much as you want me to” kind of people in my opinion. I don’t know about Buttigieg, so I just assumed since he was a Democrat running for President he had that somewhere in his resume, or will in the future.
  • Immigration Spectrum- Buttigieg is open borders, while Biden and Kamala are happy with the “secure” border we had under Obama.
  • Economic-climate-hcare = What’s their solution to these problems? Increase government interference to the point of government takeover, European-style soft socialism, or the standard capitalism Republicans might be inclined to accept. Green New Deal support maxes out Buttigieg and Kamala.
  • Political Spectrum- Kamala and Buttigieg want to get rid of the electoral college, Biden doesn’t seem to have said anything about that.
  • Sexuality Spectrum- this is why the Left can’t make up its mind on Buttigieg. He’s the only candidate out of the three here, and possibly the only major candidate so far, who is not heterosexual.
  • Gender Spectrum- 0 points for male Biden and male Buttigieg. 10 for female Kamala.
  • Color Spectrum- As we all know, skin color is very important unlike what a certain non-progressive Reverend once said, and African-Americans had to endure the holocaust here (which makes them better than Africans in Africa or something) so naturally Kamala gets the max number of points for being black. Remember- like with Obama, it doesn’t matter that your ancestors weren’t even here (or weren’t even all black in Obama’s case), you’re still African-American.

I’ve been wanting for over a year to make a chart like this. I laid it all out in a spreadsheet, so expect more of these. I wanted some kind of generic thing that I always pictured as being a bunch of Venn-diagrams, but maybe some other time.

Obviously, the ideal liberal candidate will score 60 points in every category. So if Ocasio-Cortez were to become a man, but still love men, and then become a Muslim, and maybe turn the dial up on her anti-white statements a notch she’d be good to go for winning, based on my 100% accurate fool-proof assessment of the Left’s political purity/victimhood litmus tests. You’ll notice abortion isn’t on here. Michael Moore made the party’s stance on that clear.

Baby We’ll Just Have To Have A Ham Sandwich Instead


Image from “Slick Hare”, property of Warner Bros.

I’ll summarize the Mueller Report here: no collusion, and nothing with the obstruction charge (exoneration is what you do if someone has been accused of a crime; by default Trump can’t be exonerated if he’s never accused of a crime to begin with. That’s like if I said you were exonerated from raping someone- you’ve never been charged, how can you be exonerated? And the AP article above explains it as there not being sufficient evidence to prosecute with, which could mean there was nothing at all to use or just barely something to use).

They said a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Granted, I think Trump is quite hammy, but certainly no sandwich! And so we learn through the Attorney General that the Mueller Probe has no indictments of Trump or his family, and no indictments for collusion or obstruction of justice.

That’s not the story anyone on the Left was expecting, as you know by now (I love Chris Matthews’ reaction, he basically angrily shouted “how can the narrative we’ve been pushing be true if no one was indicted?”). Washington Post said Mueller should indict Trump if for any other reason than to make his report go public. Media outlets have been divining clues in earlier Mueller indictments that there is collusion afoot. Insiders on Mueller’s team even said there would be indictments against Trump. New York Magazine even says outright that Mueller found collusion, citing indictments that in fact had nothing to do with collusion, which I can say without debunking each claim individually since Mueller’s probe determined outright there was no collusion. Unless New York Magazine plans to argue that the very body indicting these people didn’t know what it indicted them for.

Of course, it was a miracle that the investigation even concluded. Trump must have fired Mueller a million times according to frantic news reports. Trump was dead-set on stopping Mueller from investigating anything and obstructing all the way!

Then we have Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) saying Trump will be indicted, if not for collusion then for many unspecified crimes and the one solid one of “obstruction of justice”.


Obstructed on the Clinton email probe, spied on Trump’s campaign, spied on journalists, spied on Congress, and certainly attacked the First Amendment. If Trump did this, Democrats would have impeached him or at least demanded it. Image from evil.news

Let me break that down for you- Democrats define Trump’s verbal/written opposition to the Mueller Probe and firing of FBI Director James Comey as obstruction of justice. Now, if we aren’t allowed to oppose with our words or tweets an active investigation (while not actually blocking it), then someone explain why Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D-VA) is still in office? Or how about Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (Democrat, now isn’t that scary- according to the Left’s standard he’s guilty of both domestic violence and obstruction of justice and he’s an attorney general!)? And Obama most assuredly interfered in an active investigation when he said Hillary Clinton was not guilty of anything months before the investigation concluded. Well… all of these points would hold true if Democrats didn’t have two definitions of “obstruction of justice”. Their first definition is the legal one, which they apply to themselves. Their second definition is “you beat Hillary Clinton”, which they applied to President Trump.

And as for firing Comey? Rod Rosenstein, the guy who ordered Mueller to investigate if Trump firing Comey was obstruction of justice, that same Rosenstein TOLD Trump that he should fire Comey. So… it’s obstruction of justice to do what the DOJ recommends? I learn something new every day, thank you Senator Blumenthal.

Adding to obstruction, there was a brief spat over something in Michael Cohen’s testimony, where Democrats said it would absolutely be obstruction if it were true. Mueller’s team said at the time it wasn’t, and based on a lack of indictments still believe that to be the case. It wouldn’t fall into the “maybe” category that Mueller allegedly left open; the way Democrats phrased it there was no question that it was obstruction of justice. Also, they claim that Trump lying to the American people is obstruction of justice… and Democrats believe saying “I did not collude with Russia” counts as a lie, even after the Mueller Report as we’ll discuss below.

As an aside, let me quote part of Rosenstein’s letter. “As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.” Doesn’t that sound like he wants someone to leave? If my boss told me that about an intern, I’d let the intern go because that’s what I’m being told to do! But here’s the thing- liberals immediately jumped on how Rosenstein was “shaken” and “felt used” because these words were used by Trump to justify firing Comey. “I want you to fire this guy. Oh you fired him? Now I’m mad that you did and I feel used because you did what I told you!”

It’s Like We Never Ate


Democrats are finished playing nice with ex-savior Mueller. Image also from “Slick Hare”.

As you probably expected, Democrats aren’t too happy with Mueller. Anger and denial (lots and lots and lots of denial) are generally what we see now. One plucky ABC pundit noted that Trump hasn’t been subject to ANY investigations in the past two years. Mueller whisked away to oblivion! In fact, Democrats are so mixed that they deny they even played up the idea of collusion.

An Interesting Take On Who Mueller Has Indicted

If Democrats parsed the previous indictments as carefully as they’ve been parsing the Mueller information to keep their narrative alive, they might’ve noticed something awry. Basically, the Mueller Probe declared of the alleged Russian interference (legally we’ll always have to say alleged, since Putin isn’t going to be sending anyone over for trial anytime soon). The most that can be said of them is that if what Russia did constituted collusion, then Hillary Clinton is just as guilty as Trump because Russia allegedly was playing both sides of the field. But, as I’ve mentioned before, Democrats like colluding with Russia so maybe all their anger is like that of someone coming home to find their wife in bed with their rival?


Image of Democrats waving an olde Russian flag, from Talk Media News.

Hacking Away At Collusion


Did playing as Che Guevara to liberate Cuba on behalf of Soviet-backed communists count as Russian Collusion? I might have a problem here…

So we have CNN complaining that President Trump is trying to de-legitimize the 2020 election. (We also have CNN complaining that Trump is a Luddite for his commentary on planes at the same time CNN supports banning most forms of transportation including planes so go figure. And since I have no better place for it I’ll address it here- Cortez wanted Modern Monetary Theory to explain where we get $90 Trillion for her stuff, but the problem is even MMT believes in hyperinflation if money is printed too fast, which is PRECISELY what the Green New Deal calls for. As for those of you who think it’s ok for money to not be tethered to any physical measure like GDP or gold or whatever, let me tell you the tale of woe that is Bitcoin. It’s no coincidence that the Green New Deal is supported mostly by people who hate the United States.. Also, this little nugget from 2015 where we are told that MMT is the only solution to the economic malaise under Obama kind of aged poorly thanks to our 4% growth without it.) Basically, CNN believes that because Trump and his team are out there saying there’s no legitimate way Democrats can win, that means Trump and his team are convincing their voters that Democrats will rig the system. CNN goes on to talk about how Trump said much the same thing in 2016. They are rather critical of the President.

The only problem is… this is CNN criticizing Republicans for doing exactly what CNN (and Hillary Clinton as you read in the link above) has been doing since the second Hillary lost in 2016. 99% of CNN’s viewers have been convinced by the network that Trump is lying about colluding with Russia to cheat Hillary Clinton out of her victory (vs. 76% of MSNBC viewers). In other words, CNN has de-legitimized the 2016 election in the eyes of 99% of its viewers. Well, makes sense I guess, Fake News CNN prefers a lie to the truth so naturally they’d lie to themselves about being hypocrites too.


In CNN’s defense, in 2016 we learned what it looks like when Democrats can’t accept defeat, so unless they want to change their name to “The History Channel” they kinda haveta speculate on what a Trump loss would look like. Images of “sad” Hillary supporters from AP, RWC, Fox News, and Quora

And now CNN is also asking what will happen if Trump doesn’t accept defeat in 2020… like CNN and Hillary in 2016 (even Washington Post called her out for lying about voter suppression… at an event commemorating the Civil Rights movement no less!). I touched on how such conspiracies came up from the far right under Obama and the far Left under Bush and how now they’re gaining legitimacy in mainstream outlets. It also is worth noting that CNN never asked “what would happen if Hillary/we did not accept defeat” in 2016, though it’s academic at this point because we’ve seen exactly what they’d do: pretend that someone stole the election and de-legitimize it, which CNN believes right now in 2019 would be bad for Trump to do. But ok for them to do, I guess like how Blacks can say the n-word but I can’t.

Endless Investigations

The venerable founder of this blog has expressed before how the notion of Russia hacking the DNC was probably a lie, and here wwfr0ce have someone else lay out a similar case. As for Mueller’s indictments of hacking: they never have to show evidence for their claims because the accused Russians will never stand trial, and even if they did it’s not like breaching the DNC was particularly hard to do so it still could’ve been anybody who actually leaked the stuff- that is, even IF I concede Russia was in there when Democrats say they were (impossible to know since Democrats got the same shady law firm behind the Steele Dossier to cover-up the server troubles, and the FBI never examined the servers to see who got in- Democrats REFUSED to let them! Democrats destroyed the servers before any investigation could happen. “A burglar broke into my house, so I burned it down after he left, but this guy that my friend bribed said it was totally a Russian working on behalf of this neighbor I hate” is basically what Democrats are saying.)

And as the Mueller Probe comes to a close almost certainly without finding any links between Trump and Russia (because there are none otherwise billionaires/millionaires/anti-Trump celebrities and their billion followers/media companies/journalists/Democrats/Democrat staffers/millions of anti-Trump fanatics would’ve found something by now) we see Democrats in Congress taking the torch from Mueller like this was a relay. The Democrat-controlled House is now starting its own endless investigations, like the ones they always hated Republicans for doing against Hillary Clinton and said Republicans were evil for doing. In defense of Republican investigations, so far Trump hasn’t been accused of letting American diplomats and soldiers die, so really Democrats are working with less here because they’re the ones who paid lawyers to create the collusion narrative in the first place after destroying any evidence that could’ve proved it one way or the other.


I read Premiere Khrushchev’s memoirs and War and Peace… does that mean Mueller will be sending me a subpoena… crap, I’m 17% Russian too! I’ll be the one deportation Democrats are in favor of…

Think about it- Democrats come out and say they have evidence of collusion, all this evidence of stuff, yet after 2 years there hasn’t been an indictment of anyone in the Trump Campaign for colluding with Russia. They might’ve been able to get something conclusive from the DNC server breach, but Democrats destroyed some of the very evidence they claim is so important, before anyone outside of people they bribed could’ve looked at it!

You know who else they should investigate, since we haven’t had an AOC hate minute yet (GND and AOC are separate entities)… she ran a PAC for her campaign. The issue with that being that is totally illegal- a candidate can have hidden back alley ties to a PAC helping their campaign, but they can’t actually have their name listed as a board member. Unlike AOC, who if she were any one of the proletariat she claims to represent would be in prison by now. But she has privilege, despite any rantings to the contrary.

Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Investigation

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is leading a charge in the House. I used to be sort of ok with him, not bad for a Democrat, but then I saw an 8 minute interview on CNN. Off the top of my head I was able to dissect it thus (sources were added later):

  • Nadledick (laws beyond partisanship demanded that this name be given; bullies probably used it on him in school) stated that Trump is launching”attacks on the norms to maintain a democratic government”, which apparently includes propaganda organs like CNN so biased that 99% of their audience believes Trump lied about colluding with Russia, while 78% of Democrats (who watch this stuff, mind you) believe the Russians altered vote counts in the computer systems to make Trump win.
  • Nadler complained that Trump has been attacking the core functions of our democracy, yet Democrats have HR1 which is designed to limit funding to third parties (even the lefty Green Party hates it), limit the number of non-government entities that can speak about the government, and makes sure many more Democrat voters are legally able to vote (rapists and illegal immigrants are among the demographic Democrats would be courting with this). And of course Democrats in the House are working on exterminating the electoral college.
  • Nadler stated that Congress is supposed to hold the White House accountable, whining about the “dictatorial authority” of Trump… yet he was pretty quiet under Obama’s excesses.
  • This exchange, right here- CNN host: “Why is that not what you’re doing?” Nadler: “Because it’s not!”. Wow.
  • Nadler said Trump is launching a sustained attack against his critics like the biased liberal media and the Mueller Probe as if that’s a bad thing. So what? You’re allowed to speak out if the courts are looking at you. Besides,how many times was Obama speaking of active investigations or disappointed in law enforcement or condemning bad court decisions or attacking (and spying on) Fox News?
  • Nadler mentions “all [Trump’s] interference in the Mueller investigation”. WHAT interference? When Trump got a lawyer like any citizen is entitled to? Because other than badmouthing the Mueller team, that’s all Trump’s done. The probe is still going, it still has funding, Trump hasn’t pressured anyone to stop it, so WHAT interference? And where was Nadler when Obama cleared Hillary of any charges, with the FBI using his exact same phrasing despite Obama issuing his proclamation in the middle of the FBI’s investigation?
    if badmouthing law enforcement is obstruction of justice, then Obama certainly “acted stupidly”
  • And I will note that Nadler says that they need more than the obvious obstruction on Mueller to impeach Trump- NO YOU DON’T. He says obstruction is an impeachable crime, he says it is obvious to anyone that Trump obstructed Mueller, YOU DON’T NEED TO FIND MORE PROOF IF IT”S SO OBVIOUS! “Oh we know that Jeffrey Dahmer ate someone, but we have to find some other people he ate before we can charge him with cannibalism and murder.” That is exactly what Nadler, A LAWYER, said!
  • in other words, he has no evidence of obstruction of justice and is telling a convenient lie, maybe to get votes, maybe just to shut up the protesters that Erin Burnett mentioned.
  • Nadler wants to protect the government from being used for personal enrichment. Uhhhh… he’s a little late on that! How much money has HE made off the government? Look at how much the Clintons made from peddling influence. Look at Nancy Pelosi! How many prominent and powerful politicians are poor? Why is DC the richest area of the country? Yeah, a LOT of people are getting rich off the government. Based on how the general DC area is also largely Democrat, I wonder which party is really enriching itself from government.

Here’s another interview Nadler did, for ABC. The day before. I like how on ABC he had a list of 60 people, but a day later on CNN it was at 81. He should find a way to keep his numbers straight. Note the gem in that clip, where Nadler states again that the government’s role is to protect the press… of course, what it considers press and worthy of protection is subject to change. Democrats, as Obama’s Communications Director told us, believe Fox is not a legitimate news organization. Democrats believe that the aforementioned biased CNN, with 99% of its viewers convinced that Trump is a colluder as opposed to 76% for MSNBC, is the press. Whereas Fox News with a paltry 12% is not. In other words, the DNC-ran media is the press that deserves protection, and spying on even supposedly neutral outlets like the AP is acceptable. But if CNN gets attacked according to Nadler, then the government has to step in to protect the press!

As To Collusion Itself…


Quick reminder: DEMOCRATS were the ones waving Russian flags in 2016… old school ones, but still Russian. Image from talkmedianews

Let me see if I have their argument straight… the Clintons pay Fusion GPS who pays Chris Steele who pays Russian oligarchs (do you really believe they’d just give him info for free?) for information. These Russian oligarchs are Putin loyalists, otherwise they wouldn’t BE oligarchs. So Putin loyalists give information to the Clinton Campaign that the DNC and Obama’s Administration ultimately obtain. So the Democrats, and the Obama Administration, used information from PUTIN to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign and the MEDIA used information from PUTIN to smear Trump. Then they turn around and say TRUMP is the one that was working for Russia?

Moreover, the same Democrats and media repeating Putin’s talking points for free are also trying to cripple our economy, leave our borders unguarded, and cripple our military while dividing us by race and gender against each other, and the rise of socialism basically ensures America will be a Soviet puppet state. So… who is really working for the Russians here? The President who ordered 200 Russians murdered in airstrikes, or the Democrats who are repeating Russian talking points and causing so much harm to our country that Russia by default is elevated above us as the new dominant superpower?

For The Sake Of Fairness…

I’ll go ahead and say I’m not too bothered by Democrats and their investigations. Republicans laid into the IRS and Hillary Clinton big time while Democrats protested every document request. And apparently all we got out of Benghazi was Hillary lying to Congress about her emails, and let’s be honest she probably told the same lie to the FBI too. Under the Flynn precedent they should have pursued her in court until she went bankrupt, so that right there is indication enough of how sleazy DOJ became under Obama. Remember: if you think it’s bad under Trump, your side started it and Trump would be an idiot not to continue with it. An idiot like Republicans in the Senate who won’t get rid of the filibuster, almost like they WANT to help Democrats with their agenda and lose the Senate in 2020. In other words, everyone is after the other side of the aisle.


We’re all about fairness, right Mr. Millionaire 3-house Bernie who tells us how terrible capitalism is? Khrushchev noted that true socialists like totally do not have more than one house. Image from Buzzfeed



Well it’s uhm… it’s green.

I thought i’d just create a consistent reference for why spending $100 Trillion over 10 years with only 2 years- if we’re to meet Ocasio-Cortez’s “world’s gonna end in 12 years” deadline- of planning for building cross-country high-speed railways and tearing down every building in the country and maintaining our current level of electricity access despite losing 83% of our power supply is a bad idea. (You want wind and solar farms? Forget it, they’re horrible for the environment even with as few of them as we have, now you want that damage to be multiplied no less than 5 times? It gets worse if you build them in the wrong place. I wonder if when they took into account the Green New Deal’s price tag, did they also count the subsidies that wind and solar energy companies need? Or does Cortez plan to wage a classist war on the poor by making electricity unaffordable?) According to liberals, most Americans believe this is in fact a wonderful idea. Maybe the average American is getting the facts from Politifact, who for a fact claimed that the Green New Deal literally does not say what it says.


Boy, if I had a nickle for every apocalypse I lived through! Totally been there before. Minus the part about strangling a 14 year old girl (though with all the women talking down to me in 2016 and beyond I just might snap next time). Image from the movie “End of Evangelion”.

First of all, I’ll dispute that 12 year timeline like I have earlier with alarmist memes. In 1989 we had 10 years to act before irreversible damage with dire consequences 30 years in the future would happen. It’s 2019, and we’ve seen no such thing. Wildfires in California are from liberal policies, California droughts are from liberal idiocy, and even the anti-Capitalists on the UN’s climate panel can’t prove hurricanes are impacted in the slightest by global warming (despite an NBC reporter telling us that the Paris Climate Accord was designed to end hurricanes, because according to NBC decreasing the rate of temperature increase by half a degree Celsius, not even stopping the temperature increase but merely slowing it down, will end all hurricanes- and read Ron Allen’s words, don’t look at the coverage because some outlets try to say he was only talking about superstorms when his words clearly show he was talking hurricanes in general).  And once again we have claims that not giving into one person’s demand that they alone (she is the boss, and was inaugurated, and her racist Green New Deal solely puts Latinos like her in charge, rather than say a black man or an Asian woman, and you’re a sexist if you dispute her attempts to control you) control where you work/how you live/what you eat/what you’re allowed to say will doom us all. I’m beginning to suspect that Cortez here, with her claim that men are scared of her because she’s as powerful as a man, has contracted toxic masculinity, more precisely she’s sick like Stalin.

Also, she is the future of the Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates are taking their cues from her, and then the media complains that male conservatives are obsessing too much over her. You guys obsess over Trump because he’s our leader, we obsess over Cortez because she’s your leader. Fair is fair. The real question is why are you trying to pretend that she isn’t? Are you also scared that a woman has the same power as a man? Afterall- in 2008 you voted in your primaries to stop a woman from becoming President, then voted again later that year to stop a woman from becoming Vice President, in 2012 you voted for a boy’s club that didn’t pay women equally, and in 2016 you voted for someone who does not believe all women should be believed when they claim sexual assault (apparently feminists too in the 1990s shared Hillary’s belief in disbelief).

The Numbers


Didn’t really know what else to put here for numbers, but hey look the Patriots had more apple turnovers than the Cowboys! Yummy!

The Green New Deal’s FAQ states “The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction”. The Presidential contenders on the Democratic side are increasingly embracing this notion that cost and funding does not matter. Try telling that to the IRS next time you owe taxes, or the court next time they fine you, or the bank next time you need to take out a loan to keep your roof over your head!

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) complained that the price tag of over $90 Trillion came from “lazy assumptions”, but in the deal itself they don’t even bother putting in the effort to make a lazy assumption! If Ocasio-Cortez is correct in her statement that she has total moral authority and a moral imperative to act since no one else is, then certainly in the absence of any Green New Dealer making a financial assessment of it we thus have the same indisputable moral authority and moral imperative when we take action and determine that it costs over $90 Trillion. Unless you want to say that acting rashly and stupidly doesn’t mean you’re acting rightly, but you’ll never admit that.

So since our number is right by virtue of us being the only ones to have a number, again according to Cortez’s logic so to dispute us is to dispute her and that would be sexist of you, we’ll run with the $90 Trillion figure. Tax revenue for the 10 year period of 2008-2018 was 27.18 Trillion dollars. Wee need to triple that in order to get anywhere near affording the Green New Deal. Our total GDP for that same 10 year period was $164.9 Trillion. No problem, just seize more than half the GDP and you’ll fund the Green New Deal! Except that will SHRINK the GDP and you’ll run out of money pretty quick.

If your small business is making $2,000 per day and suddenly you lose more than half of that, plus you have to pay for new electric cars and new green-compliant stuff, what do you think that will do to your productivity and sales? You won’t be able to spend money on quality items or the right quantity of items to keep yourself in business. And if we go to a Socialist system where no one is in private business, where the government forces everyone to work… that still doesn’t work. The Soviet Union was indisputably socialist, yet they collapsed because they ran out of money, just like we would with the Green New Deal. Maybe that’s the point?

Tax The Rich!


Image of a cool song from wikimedia

Speaking of socialists- they say tax the billionaires? Take every cent they got! When we’re talking tens of trillions, how far does a few billion go? When you need your full cup of Starbucks, liberal, do you really think a tiny sip is enough? Besides, don’t you need to tax the rich to pay for medicare-for-all, free college, and all that other free gifts you promise to bribe people to vote for you?

Moreover, let’s look at those billionaires- the One Percenters. Until you get to the top 0.001%, you’re earning less than $59.4 million. MILLION. Not even a hundred million! How far is THAT going to go even for Ocasio-Cortez’s medicare-for-all which will cost $40 Trillion over 10 years? And to Sen. Markey’s point about lazy assumptions- if medicare-for-all is $40 Triilion over 10 years, how cheap does he think the much larger Green New Deal’s spending will be? The more enlightened ivy leaguers and Presidential candidates endorsing this stuff seem to have forgotten what numbers are.

The average top 0.001% person makes $152 million per year. Let’s make a lazy assumption and assume that out of a population of 325,000,000 we can say that 325,000 people are in the top 0.001%, and so we can milk them for $49.4 Trillion each year. So we just take a fifth of their money every year for 10 years and Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is fully funded. In fantasyland.

That top 0.001% already pays 3.25% of total taxes collected in this country. And as it turns out, only 1,412 taxable groups (households, individuals, etc) are in that category. So 1,412 entities with an average wealth of $152 million per year means that if we took EVERYTHING they had for 10 years, we’d only get a about $2.15 Trillion. So… like 2% of what Ocasio-Cortez wants to do. So much for taxing the billionaires! And by the way- we already get 23.93% of their annual income anyway.

So let’s expand to the whole One Percent, who are already giving us 27.1% of their income (well, 99.9% of them give 27.1%). Let’s up it so we kill them like this was any other Leftwing revolution and the government takes every cent that they’d be getting if they were still alive. To be in the top 1%, you need an income of just $422,000. On average, One Percenters earn an average of $1.32 million each. Let’s do another “lazy assumption” and take One Percenter literally. One Percent of the population, 3.25 million people, make on average $1.32 million each. That means killing them and having the government be the sole recipient of their earnings each year gives the government… $4.29 Trillion. Huh. Well, at least then we’d be able to fund Ocasio-Cortez’s medicare-for-all (all except the deceased top 1%). By the way- Salon (in their deliberately unlinked piece “1 percent of households are $2.5 million richer in the past year”, unlinked but it was either this or a Quora discussion that gives how many households are in the 1% so here we all are) states that there are 1.26 million households in the One Percent, not that wonderful 3.25 million figure. For those of you who can do math (ie no one who supports the Green New Deal), I don’t have to tell you that it means we don’t even get to fund Medicare-For-All.

Where Will The Money Come From?

47% of American households pay no money to the federal government. Either Cortez plans on ravaging the poor (let’s be honest: the poor who aren’t Latino), or she plans on simply robbing everyone so that we all fall into that “too poor to pay taxes” category, in which case at least income inequality will have been solved! Though I doubt Cortez will give up her $174k per year, her crooked campaign chief of staff that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, and her gasguzzling-high-polluting lifestyle. While she gets to tweet all she wants about how wonderful life is, you’ll only be able to see them when you’re using your allotted ration of electricity for the day.


To paraphrase the man above, Ocasio-Cortez is The Stylin’, profilin’, limousine riding, gas-guzzling, high-polluting, wheelin’ n’ dealin’ child of wealth! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!