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!

Stealth ATF (NES, 1989, residual from the War Games series)


Is it really “ATF”? It looks like “ACE” to me.

I don’t know what the “ATF” means. “Absolutely, Transparently Fictional”?


I don’t even know what jets these are supposed to be. They kinda look like Tornados but with just one engine.

In the game, you play as an F-117. The “F” stands for “Fighter”, but that was a bit of gimmickry to attract pilots since bombers and attack aircraft are for Herberts. Depending on who you ask, the “F” was also a bit of legal finaglery due to arms treaties controlling the number of bombers, or because Congress might’ve had a hard time approving a lightly-armed attack aircraft given that a bunch of better-armed ones were already in service and working just fine. The F-117 is designed solely to attack ground targets- it does not have any guns or air-to-air missiles. So… nothing in this game could possibly happen, but I guess in 1989 the publishers wouldn’t really have access to that info. They sure as heck WOULD have known that the ship can’t land or takeoff from an aircraft carrier!


I do not know what the hieroglyphs at the bottom mean.

Otherwise this game plays like any other fighter simulation that isn’t After Burner, meaning that when it comes time to land the aircraft I fail miserably. I apparently cost the fictional in-game U.S. government $255,600,000. They let you wrack up a tab of $127,800,000 before you get a game over. $213,000,000 was because I did not know how to land the plane, $42,600,000 is because I didn’t takeoff right on the first try. Every welfare recipient in the U.S. lost a dollar because of me.

The Political Stuff

Being a 1989 simulation, this certainly had Cold War potential. I didn’t get to the level, but there’s one set in Alaska so I can only assume the villain there is the Russkies unless the Eskimos allied with Snow Miser again (that’s what the REAL Aleutian campaign in WWII was about). Had I written for this instead of After Burner, it might’ve gone the same way as that, or the same way as the aforelinked “Flight of the Intruder” went. I’m just speculating; I don’t know where I would’ve gone with it. I know where I can go with it right now though.


This mission is no more real with Democrats than it is in the game… because you’d never send an F-117 to do that while sober.

The cries to bomb Russia have disappeared. The Left still believes Trump simultaneously exists in both a state of being an intellectually disabled failure of a businessman and a cunning Russian superspy who’s blood kin of Lavrentiy Beria.

In fact, the Democrats want us to be subservient to the Russians. They want Russia (or China, though as predicted that distinction is rapidly disappearing) to be the world’s only superpower. Their words of yore and actions at present bear this out.


  • Russia is not a threat.
  • We should reduce our missile defenses against Russian aggression
  • America needs to invest in Russia’s tech industry and help Russia dominate Silicon Valley
  • Uranium One
  • Paris Climate Agreement, which Democrats would adhere to by imposing its crippling effects on the U.S., at the same time as Russia and China (and other nations on it) would ignore the treaty they backed and fill the economic void left by our absence as producers.
  • It’s ok for Russia to interfere in our elections
  • It’s ok for Russia to take the lead in Syria
  • It’s ok for Russia to violate treaties.

At Present:

  • America should stop building and modernizing its nuclear arsenal as Russia expands its own, in violation of an Obama-era treaty which Democrats tell us our participating in would stop Russia from violating- in other words, Democrats tell you, as Russia violates the treaty, that Russia will only violate it if America stops adhering to it. Liberals are smarter than us, so this can only mean Democrats want Russia to get away with illegally expanding their arsenal while we continue to limit ours.
  • We should make it illegal for America to launch a first strike, a very peaceful and conciliatory move from the same Russia hawk party who claim they want a war, a move which would embolden Russia to attack in any non-nuclear way they can think of knowing that we’d never respond with something that mattered.

In other words, Democrats openly want to strip America of its defenses and economy while allowing Russia to expand its arsenal and polluting power. Does that sound like the same outraged anti-Russia party from 2 years ago, or the same pro-Russia party from over the past 100 years that I’ve discussed before?

Pro-Russia Side Effects

Not speaking to Russia directly, but we also  have the Green New Deal, which in one fell swoop with its extreme expense would eliminate the United States as a world power, or even make us a debt slave of China much as Africa is slowly becoming. But it gets better- Environmental groups are beholden to Russian and Chinese interests. Groups like the Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Foundation, and the League of Conservation Voters. Even without the Green New Deal, these groups are seeking to disrupt our energy industry’s challenge to Russian and Chinese dominance. In other words, liberals talk of war with Russia while trying to increase Russia’s income and decrease America’s fuel reserve which would be much needed for a war.


Not really relevant except that I link to more anti-Left stuff, but you’ll notice a familiar name for the director and programming.

And why do I say this is all deliberate? Well, liberals like to boast of their superior intellects, so if a knuckledragging nitwit like me can figure this out then most assuredly a liberal knows this is happening, thus they either do not care or even want it to happen. This is further easily merged with the Left’s attempts to strip America of its defenses as I’ve discussed before to create a terrifyingly obvious portrait of a political movement serving Chinese and Russian interests far better than Trump ever has, even if we hold the notion that he’s a Russian plant.

Democrats spent years allying with Russia, asking Russia to interfere in our elections, whitewashing Russia’s evils, destroy our ability to deter Russia or fight them, and even now are outright on Russia’s payroll to destroy our energy industry, at a time when Democrats promote agendas that would devastate America and leave us as a country worse-off than Russia, thus by default elevating Russia’s status in the world. They do all of this, and then you turn the TV on and hear them complaining that Trump is the real Russian agent.

Let me put it another way: we have messages sent to a hitman about a job, we have paychecks sent to a hitman to carry out the job, we have the hitman boasting about how smart he is, we have a history of the hitman saying they wanted to do the job, we have the hitman’s arsenal in evidence, but whenever the hitman is asked he says those weapons are for something else and the hitman regularly and publicly says that the guy paying him is really paying his target to kill himself. Would you believe it? If you vote “D” but don’t hate America and don’t have a taste for borscht, you sure seem to.


Democrats And The National Emergency


Not this one, it’s only a statewide emergency. Image from USA Today

So… remember in 2012 and 2016 when far right bloggers were called crazy conspiracy nuts because they thought President Obama could declare a national emergency and suspend elections? Remember as far back as 2008 when far Left bloggers were called crazy by the NYT for thinking President Bush would do that? Remember how we were crazy for thinking anything bad about Obama’s power-grabbing National Defense Resources Preparedness document where he could seize everything in the country for himself while suspending elections?

Well, now the crazy Leftwing bloggers have the rest of the party with them on that particular warpath but this time they tell us that what was a lie 3-7 years ago is now the truth simply because the guy in the Oval Office is from a different political party. Of course we all know that if President Trump didn’t use a national emergency and the many Lincoln Administration-esque powers it gives the President, then the next Democrat in office probably would if a Republican Congress obstructed them. Look at the 2020 lineup and lie to me that any of them wouldn’t do that. Some of them are the same Senators telling us they’d end the filibuster in the Senate if they were in a position to, to squelch any resistance from Republicans. All of them praised Obama’s use of his pen and phone to get around obstructionists.


I’m not blaming Bush, I was just too lazy to look up what Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, the other Roosevelt, McKinley, etc. did.

It’s a pattern, if you look at it, where the next ones in power build upon the powers that their predecessors seized for themselves. President Bush used executive orders, Obama condemned him but then issued orders of his own that brazenly ran against the law, and now we have Trump using his pen and phone to fund the border wall. It’s not just with Presidents either. The filibuster in the Senate- first Democrats end it in certain circumstances, Republicans expand on that, and finally Democrats say that if they’re in power they’ll end it altogether. I’ve complained already that Republicans should beat them to the punch and ram through their agenda now; I’m glad Trump is at least doing that with his national emergency power.

And as for Democrat threats that their President will use national emergency powers? Well, they already did. Recall that Obama used his national emergency powers when he used the excuse of a total lie (as discussed before) to begin his assault on Libya, an action cheered on by warmonger Hillary Clinton. A Democrat already used a national emergency to topple a foreign government he didn’t like; the question is why wouldn’t a future Democrat use one to topple our government which they also don’t particularly like (and as referenced in the third paragraph at this link, make opposition illegal)? Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but at a time when every Presidential candidate on the Democrat side is backing the Green New Deal which will cause basically a soft-toppling (or not, liberals are smart enough to know that something like the Green New Deal would destroy the economy, and thus the country, like Venezuela or the former USSR. Except now electricity will be so expensive and families will be so poor that America will be sent back to 1900. Maybe America might be saved by a severe balkanization, leaving us like the current Russian Republic? At least that way liberals will finally have total control, even if its only of the Democratic Peoples’ Republics of New York and California and Ginsburg (because let’s be honest, they would change the name of Washington State to something not related to a slave-holding white man) who are reduced to such a carbon-friendly level that the horse and buggy is as much science fiction as a flying saucer) of our government by turning it communist, we have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) threatening that their next Democrat President will use a national emergency declaration to handle climate change. Or maybe they’ll declare a national emergency to destroy border security, allowing 37 million new Democrats into the country to make sure that from there on only Democrats ever have the power to declare national emergencies, or really do anything else in government.

As a microcosm of this, let’s look at San Diego. Illegal border crossings dropped 95% after their walls went up. Democrats want to tear down those walls. Do you know what’s on the other side of that border? Tijuana, the murder capital of Mexico… which is saying something in the cartel country. Now is when someone will argue that the Tijuana murders are just a turf war. Well, what do you think will happen when new turf to the north opens?

Your Personal Security


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) hid his NYC apartment behind locked doors, police officers, and small metal barriers when protesters pestered him. That’s more protection that he wants for you. Image from New York Magazine

You know, liberal, I couldn’t help but notice that in cities you put bars on your windows to keep criminals out. But you insist walls are ineffective, so wouldn’t such things as bars on the windows and locked doors also be ineffective? If walls are immoral for keeping desperate people away from the money they are entitled to, according to you, then aren’t your doors and window bars also just as immoral as they are ineffective? And what about the folks at MSNBC and on Capitol Hill who preach to us from behind not only walls and locked doors but also an army of armed guards? They tell us we’re not allowed to have guns and not allowed to have walls, from behind the protection of those very things. They tell us that the military is terrorizing poor desperate immigrants, from behind a militia of their own designed to terrorize people.

Liberals are smarter than us as mentioned above, so obviously they are aware of this hypocrisy, and since they keep getting votes I totally understand why they believe the public is stupid, but their intelligence also means they know that borders are necessary. So we are led to the question of why they want to get rid of them. Easy answer- 37 million Democrats to keep them in power perpetually. They gave up on convincing Americans to vote for them and decided just to import a welfare class that will vote for the Big Government umbilical cord, operated at our expense.

As for those of you who aren’t hypocrites and genuinely believe in open borders, do this and I will take you seriously: move into the worst part of town, leave your doors unlocked and windows open, take every cent of your money (cash out all of your investments too, anything that could create money) and put it in your house, then put a big neon sign outside your door that says “OPEN”. Live that way for the rest of your life. That’s the only way you aren’t a hypocrite on open borders.

Other Freudian Slips


I think she’s as prone to Freudian slips as Joe Biden. Image from wikimedia commons

Pelosi commented that the next Democrat President might declare a national emergency on guns, in a way she thought was a proportional response to Trump’s national emergency on the border. Like if I shove you and you shove me back. Except she believes that a President unilaterally exterminating the 2nd Amendment is the same as a President rerouting money. Worse, she believes the right of a foreigner to vote Democrat and receive welfare without contributing to the U.S. is equal to all of your Constitutional rights.

As you saw above with Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness, a President would have the power to do that. In fact, if a Democrat declared that anyone with a gun was in open rebellion and Democrats have their way with the Supreme Court, then they would be able to use Lincoln’s Administration as precedence for severe unconstitutional actions like that. In other words, Pelosi’s threat should be taken seriously, especially in light of the Left’s openly anti-gun agenda. And remember, as we saw in the UK, knives and hammers will be next.

Speaking of Californian Pelosi believing that the right of people being here illegally is of equal weight to your rights under the law, we have another Californian showing off their priorities. The governor believes that using the national guard to fight illegal marijuana growth is more important than using the national guard to deter illegal drugs from entering the country. Gov. Newsom (D) took a hefty sum of money from the Mary Jane industry, and wants to use the military to protect it from those participating illegally. Now isn’t that interesting? Democrats want to use the military to stop illegal pot growth at the behest of their donors in the legal pot industry, while at the same time they DON’T want to use the military to stop people from coming into the U.S. illegally who would use their illegal votes to help Democrats. Follow the money and follow the votes too I guess.

Trump And I Are One On Democrat Obstruction

How did it come to the point of the National Emergency? Weak-kneed Republicans as I keep complaining about, but also Democrats. They are absolutely dedicated to not letting Trump get anything done. Remember when 700,000 DACA recipients faced a humanitarian crisis, but Democrats refused a solution that would help not just them but also another 1.1 Million who hadn’t even applied for DACA solely because it came from Trump? Trump just wanted border security in return, something those Democrats supported, but because it was Trump who wanted it Democrats now refused.

Democrats are not now, nor have ever been, inclined to negotiate with Trump. I’ve mentioned before that they mock his negotiator abilities, but in addition to what I said before about party survival I’ll add here that Trump’s failure is also what Democrats want, no matter how many lives are hurt by it. His failure means less Republican voter turnout.

It’s tempting to simply blame Democrat incivility on Trump, to say that Democrats won’t negotiate  and will obstruct only because they hate Trump or because Trump is insulting or because Trump is a bigot or whatever, to say that if it were any other Republican then Democrats wouldn’t be so vicious. Nope. Remember under Obama, how Democrats weren’t inclined to deal with Republicans (Remember: Republicans are political terrorists for not adhering to Democrat demands when Democrats have the power, while Democrats are saviors for not adhering to Republican demands when Republicans have the power)? They said “win elections if you want your policies to pass”. Republicans did that, and instead of adhering to their words Democrats decided to oppose everything Republicans do… so, business as usual. How do you negotiate with someone dedicated to your destruction?