Democrats And The National Emergency

Fairfax-Herring-Northam-USAToday

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.

georgewbush

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

Chuck_Schumer-protest-nypd-aftermath-NYMAG

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

Nancy_Pelosi_2012-wikimedia

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?

Advertisements

Democrats, Race, And The Electoral College’s Protections

Ocasio-Cortez_Tlaib_Omar_CNN

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Why does “diversity” mean “elect anti-Semites”? Image from CNN.

Democrats are supposed to be the pro-Israel anti-anti-Semite party, right? Republicans are the ones who will destroy Israel and hate Jews in general, right? Well… Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) might disagree. I’d add Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) but she does not strike me as being intelligent enough to understand the views she espouses. She’s the embodiment of those slogan communists Nikita Khrushchev condemned in his memoir as being all bark and no brain.

 

Aside from anti-Semitism, and the long list of racism we’ve discussed before, we now have some new developments to look at. Before we get to blackface, let’s start with redface. While the blackface discussed below was merely to mock people, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) faked Native American ancestry on various documents to pass as one, much like certain white people creating fictionalized racist incidents and pretending to be black (gotta love CNN though, they tell you that two universities touted her as part of their diversity but say she did not benefit from her status, even though her presence at Harvard clearly was from her ancestry, and yet despite Harvard itself touting her status CBS gives us the headline “Harvard didn’t consider Elizabeth Warren as Native American, report says”). The embarrassing results of her DNA test only emboldened her supporters, but eventually Warren relented (well after the damage had been done, and in ways that wouldn’t matter according to Native Americans) and just blamed her family for the whole thing. After parading them in front of herself in a campaign video, she threw them under the bus. Par for the course for the pro-choice crowd I guess. Just as an aside, this same Warren who supports the Green New Deal and wants to destroy the wealthy is herself worth $10 million. Let me put that into perspective- accounting for inflation, Sen. Warren has enough money to pay Francisco Scaramanga to kill two people.

Have you noticed how as more white Democrats are caught being racist, liberal thought leaders want to redefine what racism is? “You’re not racist as long as you help blacks” says the opinion piece from CNN, where Trump who brought black unemployment to its lowest point in decades is routinely called racist (look at this piece by the Washington Post- they outright say that CNN’s logic doesn’t apply to Trump! Only Democrats I guess, and black voters agree with their support of Northam’s 1980s Michael Jackson minstrel show). What if it came out that prominent Democrats were mentored by KKK members, would that mean the KKK is no longer racist? Isn’t racism an absolute? Isn’t that what we are told? Why are you letting a bunch of whites tell you that because a bunch of whites are racist, racism isn’t racism and you must tolerate what these whites do?

Racing Through The Chaff

The venerable founder of this blog had asked me a few weeks ago to write about the racism behind abolishing the electoral college as well as previous attempts by Democrats to engage in racist voter disenfranchisement measures. Largely due to the parallels to today’s environment, this ended up being a brief study of Democrats during Reconstruction as you’ll see later. As for right now, Democrats gave me the perfect setup to begin a conversation on race so let’s start with what a fun week it was last week. Although I laughed at it, the laugh wasn’t out of a partisan “serves them right” at first, it was instead of a “seriously?” nature.

Fairfax-Herring-Northam-USAToday

VA Lt. Gov. Fairfax (D), VA State AG Herring (D), and VA Gov. Northam (D). I almost had a picture like this for the three Democrat superstars at the top, but from the angle I couldn’t tell if it was really Omar or not, the lower part of the face looked too compressed, so I went with CNN’s. Image from USA Today.

At the front of it all we have Democrat Virginia Governor Northam. The one who argued for legalizing infanticide, which based on abortion statistics would disparately impact people of color. The one who referred to black slaves as “indentured servants”. That same Northam has a picture on his yearbook page from college showing someone in blackface and someone in a KKK hood. His defense? He says he does not remember doing that, and he totally would remember doing that because he remembers doing other naughty things like… dressing in blackface for a Michael Jackson-themed competition. That’d be like if when Brett Kavanaugh presented his social calendar, it had “rape party without Dr. Ford” penciled-in. Speaking of Kavanaugh, how come the media so readily found his high school yearbook but NOBODY knew about Northam’s college yearbook? There’s a criticism here beyond just the media letting Democrats get a pass: where were Northam’s opponents in the primaries and the election? This should’ve been the first thing they found!

Northam refuses to step down, but if he does Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) would take his place. Fairfax is at the moment defending himself from sexual assault and rape allegations. Anyone else remember Kavanaugh? Remember when we were told that even if he was innocent, he’s still too tarnished so we should’ve moved on to someone else? Remember when we were told that men accused by women of anything were guilty and should just admit it? Remember that women should always be believed when making these accusations? Remember that women don’t make this stuff up? Remember that there is no presumption of innocence? Glad you remember, because Democrats sure don’t! “F#@$ that B%&#%” is what Fairfax allegedly said about his accuser behind closed doors. Remember when alleged comments by Trump became fact for the media and Democrats? Remember when the media attacked Kavanaugh merely for defending himself against accusations, saying that his heated defense clearly showed his guilt? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS were silent on Fairfax’s alleged remark (Washington Post was silent on something more important- they were made aware of one sexual assault long before it became public but decided that women accusing Democrats were liars and declined to investigate). Worse, while ignoring those remarks ABC said the real crisis stemming from the Virginia situation is that it could lead to a Republican governor, because it’s not just the governor and second-in-line for governor who’s found themselves in controversy.

Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, is third in line for governor, if Fairfax and Northam become too unviable. Well, after Herring condemned Northam for being in blackface, we learned that it was literally the pot calling the kettle black, because Herring wore blackface in college too. Democrats said that if a Republican won the governorship in Virginia, it would be such a racist act that it would lead to minority kids being ran over in the streets for sport. Yet the only acts of racism at the top levels of Virginia politics have originated from Democrats, and the media and Democrats which claim to be on your side are burying them and burying the sexual assault allegations… or rather I should say, treating the sexual assault allegations as they should be treated: innocent until proven guilty. But that means all the talk about victims’ rights and believing all women gets thrown under the bus along with the women that Democrats claim to work on behalf of. Like we saw with the accusations against DNC Deputy Chair Ellison that ran concurrently with the Kavanaugh media circus, with prominent Democrats ignoring pleas that all women should be believed and all women accusers are telling the truth by saying “I do not believe her”.

What’s With Sanctimonious Liberals And Blackface Anyway?

Jimmy-Kimmel-Blackface-247Sports

This would be Jimmy Kimmel. I’m pretty sure Al Jolson’s act wasn’t as offensive, if only because he wasn’t mocking anyone. Image from 247Sports.

Joy Behar, Jimmy Kimmel who was smart enough to know he was putting on a minstrel show, Jimmy Fallon who doesn’t act smart enough to know that he hosts a show, Sarah Silverman who isn’t really relevant to anything, Gov. Ralph Northam, State Attorney General Mark Herring. Then you have Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) pretending to be Native American, and I don’t know if dressing in blackface is worse than pretending to be another race just to reap the rewards. That’s a question that a liberal governor and a liberal front-runner for President gave us through their actions. Seems like the people you want protecting your rights, right citizen minority?

 

Here’s another question, directed at outlets like Washington Post telling us democracy will die without them- where the hell were you guys on situations like this? Or do you have the same definition of “democracy” as the “Democratic Republic of Korea”? I know you folks in the liberal media love supporting dictatorships, at least ones that Democrats support. So which of us is really making sure democracy dies in the dark?

Time For Cortez

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) might get off easy on anti-Semitism, but not when it comes to being a racial supremacist. She believes Latinos deserve special rights, all Latinos. She even thinks that all Latinos worldwide originated in the land that is now the United States and so are entitled to come and occupy land here if they like, without legally immigrating. A: that is a total lie. At best there are a couple of people in Canada and the northern parts of Mexico that can make such a claim. B: if all Latinos had free movement, including the MS-13 members who hate blacks and murdered people in her own district (to be fair, by letting MS-13 murderers and rapists into the country Ocasio-Cortez technically is representing people in her district like she is supposed to), then we’d have a much bigger problem for the black community by way of overburdened safety nets. Democrats already told you that supporting illegal immigrants would hurt you, now you vote for them to go and do that. With illegals that hate you.

Ocasio-Cortez said only Latinos deserved special rights. Native Americans ought to take note- we got the Latino race because the whites conquered the native ancestors and stole the women of the ones they did not outright kill. Now Cortez is at it again, and wants a Latino wave to sweep you out of the country (couldn’t resist the hyperbolic historical callback). Mexico has no Indian Reservations, and the cartels would surely want in on whatever businesses you do run on your lands, and of course your casinos.

Congresswoman_Ocasio-Cortez_Daily-Caller

She’s going to be a lot of fun. We’re going to have a lot of fun with this one. It’s like Joe Biden without a filter. Image from the Daily Caller

Cortez wants to see a country that looks like her. To the blacks who Democrats take for granted, your skin color is a little darker than what she wants. How do I know this? Why else is she taking actions that her own party said would devastate your communities? Why else would she say that Latinos, but not blacks, had a right to go anywhere they want? She didn’t say this was YOUR land, the land your ancestors were enslaved on, the land your ancestors developed, the only land your ancestors knew. She said it was HER land, the land her Latino ancestors never set foot on.

 

Let me ask you to do some simple math here. Where is the money coming from? 37,000,000 people in Latin America want to immigrate to the U.S., and those numbers are from 2017 when Venezuela wasn’t in such bad shape. 13.4% of the U.S. population- 43.8 million- are black without any Latino ancestry. In 2012, 41.6% of African Americans relied on the social safety nets that Barack Obama told us illegal immigrants would destroy. At the time he made this observation 13 years ago, there were only 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. How many more are there now? You’ll notice that immigrants in general, legal and illegal, tend to go for welfare (yes, I know illegal citizens are unable to apply for most forms of welfare, but if they have a child within the U.S., ie an anchor baby, then that child is eligible). So under Ocasio-Cortez, we can assume the reforms to citizenship would mean at least 63% of those 37,000,000 coming in would have some form of government assistance coming into the house. 18.2 million blacks are on welfare, and Obama was already warning that the social safety nets are strained by the 11 million illegal immigrants here, and now Ocasio-Cortez wants 23.31 million people added to welfare.

You might notice how the welfare programs already aren’t supporting you and your families and friends, how are they going to support more than double that? Ocasio-Cortez also wants reforms that will over 10 years cost twice as much as the U.S. has spent on its military in 200 years. The population under Ocasio-Cortez would already be increasing by 10% with the 37 million coming in, how could we hope to support welfare and her expensive programs? Answer: we can’t. And with Latinos free to migrate back to where they came from, and blacks stuck in America, and as you believe whites too rich to be affected by it, this means that only black people will pay for Ocasio-Cortez’s Brown Supremacist schemes. And remember: the chairman of your party, Tom Perez, told you that Ocasio-Cortez was your future.

But we’re not done yet! There’s also her Green New Deal. There is no way to pay for it, period. There probably isn’t enough money on the planet to pay for it. So who WILL pay for it? Poor blacks and whites too poor to flee the U.S. Latinos will simply pack up and head back to the countries they are still citizens of, countries which they’d be sending money to. Mexico alone gets several billion dollars from its citizens who live in the U.S., imagine another 37 million people sending money that could be taxed and fund welfare programs back to their home countries. Does it really sound like the Democrats have your interests at heart? Heck, their Green New Deal pretty much calls for printing

Weimar-1922-hyperinflation-RareHistoricalPhotos

Maybe Democrats got confused and thought that people needed a lot of money (aka dough) to make bread? Images of 1922 Weimar Germany from Rare Historical Photos.

money, which was enough to even make white people dirt poor when the Germans did that in the 1920s and 1930s. You’d need a wheelbarrow full of dollars just to buy a loaf of bread, and you know your employers aren’t going to pay you in wheelbarrows. Venezuela is what will happen here, and blacks will be stuck with it while Ocasio-Cortez’s Latino coalition will simply leave the country. Her homeland that she is so proud of is Puerto Rico- she’d just move there and then become a citizen once Puerto Rico became wealthier than the U.S. (by default, they would simply renounce protectorate status once America became too poor), she has no stake in this. You, on the other hand African-American reader, are stuck in this.

 

Maybe you think they’re allied with you, but if so why does she only work for Latinos? She made it clear her Green New Deal is largely about taking stuff from whites and giving it to nonwhites, with Latinos getting preferred spots as outlined below and above, so what will she do if white people run out of stuff? Latinos will still want more, and blacks will have a lot more to give. Blacks may have been enslaved here, but Cortez made it clear she only cares about people native to here. Maybe it will start as an extra penalty simply for living on her soil, but when the money from whites stops she’ll turn on you to feed her Latino supporters. And right now there are already many more of them than there are of you. But I guess Black Lives Don’t Matter.

Well, maybe not. Afterall, the Green New Deal is guaranteed to kick you out of your home (while it’s being “updated“, quite a project for the projects) while making sure Latinos are the ones in charge (Cortez says the Green New Deal gives “indigenous peoples… a leadership role in in [sic] where we’re moving as a country”, and as you saw above she defines all “Latinos” as indigenous, so lookout African Americans, you’re being thrown out of your homes and under the bus. You keep being told that Republicans want you to stay in the backseat of the bus, but I daresay the backseat of the bus looks pretty attractive as the wheels of it speed towards your head when Democrats drive it). Once you’re roving the street homeless, maybe you can wander into Canada and get a job. Claim refugee status, or claim to be an undocumented Canadian. Good luck.

Stopping This At The Ballot

Andrew_Cuomo_NY_WAMC

At least Democrats in NY are consistent- they care as much for the voting rights of the newly born as they do for anyone else’s. Image of NY Gov Cuomo (D) from WAMC

Democrats don’t want any resistance to their agenda. They want to stop you from voting against them, or at least stop your vote from counting, whether it’s by creating a law that makes it so that the Democrat-controlled government chooses who is allowed to be a candidate, or by abolishing the electoral college, or by making sure that these 37,000,000 incoming Latinos are all allowed to vote. Or by doing what New York State does and make voting extremely complex (they have the 2nd lowest voter turnout in the country), certainly much more than a simple voter ID law would.

 

We need electoral college, as these leftwingers told us in 2016 after Trump was elected. As they point out, all you’d have to do is win the white vote in some key parts of the country and you’d win the Presidency. With the 37 million new arrivals, you’d just need the white and the Latino vote. So… what happens to black voters? You have 37 million people who probably hate you, a party that is trying to say wearing blackface is ok just to save its white leaders, and a party that admitted that its open borders policies would hurt African American communities while gaining favor with Latinos. Heck, Democrats are already pushing black voters aside, so I guess at this stage abolishing the electoral college would mean nothing, right?

LGBTQ folks- don’t think you’re left out of this either. Minorities tend to be just as bad as whites, so it doesn’t matter if your oppressed Latino “allies” or even your oppressed blackallies” get into power. The boot stomping on you is always the same color, regardless of who wears it.

Looks like intersectionality is breaking down. So what happens when the electoral college is gone and all a candidate has to do is appeal to some combination of heterosexual whites and Latinos? Since Democrats have been gunning for the electoral college for much of their history, maybe their anti-Trump drive is just a way to get support from the people who need the electoral college most.

This Is Nothing New

wp-1473803210459.jpg

One of the articles I link above says no President has done more to help blacks than LBJ. Don’t his quotes sound a lot like what I’ve been arguing this whole time that Dems were up to?

The Democrats have a bad history with race. They used to favor the whites, they then pretended to favor blacks while really everywhere that blacks and dems got together things went south… so to speak. And do you want to see what real racism looks like? Look at what blacks who try to fight Democrats face. Now you want to get rid of the electoral college to make sure this fight doesn’t matter (Jefferson Davis coincidentally complained about Abraham Lincoln winning with the help of the electoral college). Wouldn’t be the first time Democrats tried to disenfranchise minority voters.

 

  • Ex Parte Garland– former Confederate officials were allowed back into the U.S. government… remember that the Confederacy was largely comprised of angry Democrats. The five judges who decided to permit this were Democrats (at that time). The ones opposing it were Republicans (at that time). A very partisan divide, and if letting Confederates back into government isn’t racist then I don’t know what is (aside from Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson segregating the government).
  • 1866 New Orleans Massacre– a mob of Democrats attacks Republicans… mostly black Republicans. When else have we seen mobs of Democrats on the attack? 44 blacks were killed, blacks who merely wanted to have the right to vote. As I said above, Democrats found a happy medium for the process: give the right to vote, but make sure it doesn’t count.
  • Knights of the White Camelia– Democrat terrorists trying to stop blacks from voting. Democrats seem fond of terrorists, but to be fair Democrats think our own military is a terrorist organization. The Oxford Dictionary defines a terrorist as “A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Seems like a good description of Maxine Waters’ calls for mob action or really Antifa in general, and the post-election riots.
  • New Departure– this is an example of Democrats taking up the banner of “friend to the minority” in order to whitewash their pro-slavery past that, technically, cost them a whole country. Except they did this in 1865, when people still kinda remembered the Civil War. So recent was the Civil War that many Democrats opposed this strategy, still clinging to the idea that the South would rise again I suppose. Republicans publicly pushed the obvious conclusion that this was merely politicking on the parts of Democrats trying to win elections. Basically like Democrat Vice President Joe Biden telling blacks that Republicans would put them in chains, when Biden himself was a segregationist and was part of an administration that was quite harmful to the black community. And now we see something similar in Virginia, where Democrats are trying to show that the blackfaced Governor and State Attorney General are totally ok now.
  • Kirk-Holden War of 1870– KKK (Democrats, it was formed to #Resist Republicans) killed pro-black government officials, tried to conquer a local town, and fought a government militia. Sounds like Democrats in Portland, minus the murder and trade racism against blacks for racism against whites.
  • Meridian Riot of 1871– In Meridian, MS, the town refused for years to stop the KKK, and when they finally arrested someone related to all that it was… a black guy. Chaos ensued, 30 blacks were killed, the Republican mayor fled the town, and no one was charged for anything. Sounds kind of like the reverse of Maxine Waters’ lovefest LA Riots where about 40% of the murders went without justice. Or what I mentioned was going on in Portland, only sans homicide. Definitely gotta mention the Baltimore riots.
  • Amnesty Act of 1872– Some of the soldiers fighting in the Civil War got their experience fighting Mexico, so no this had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Like Ex Parte Garland, this was forgiveness to Confederates and reduction to legal barriers erected against them having positions of power, only now 7 years after the Civil War we see Republicans and Democrats both uniting on this.
  • Louisiana Gubernatorial Election of 1872– Democrats were running with #NotMyGovernor, so federal troops had to come in and force them to accept a Republican leader.
  • Colfax Massacre of 1873– A lethal version of what Democrats today are trying to do with the Mueller Probe and riots and mobbing public officials, Democrats in Louisiana who weren’t happy with the outcome of the governor’s race formed a small army and killed 150 blacks. There were many violent incidents that sprung from Democrats refusing to accept the results of an election (surprise surprise surprise!) but this one was the biggest.
  • White LeagueAntifa’s ancestor? It was a group formed to get Republicans out of office and intimidate Republican supporters. Mostly blacks, but you get the idea by now. Like Antifa, they were even once described as “the military arm of the progressive movement”, which means Democrats.
  • Coushatta Massacre– the White League proved its no Antifa and actually killed people. A couple of Republicans, and a lot more blacks.
  • Eufaula Alabama Coup of 1874– another act by the Democrat White League, wherein they killed several black voters and chased away a thousand more. Then they chased away the Republican candidates and declared Democrats the winners. Today the approach is more refined- until Trump came along, the media was successful at chasing away squeamish Republicans and declaring Democrats the winner. They still did half of that in 2016. Am I the only one looking at Democrats chasing Republicans out of office, and thinking of KKK-mentored Hillary Clinton’s words that civility can only return once Democrats are in power?
  • 1876 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election– Democrats worked to intimidate Republicans, again like Maxine Waters suggested. Because if it worked for Johnny Reb, it’ll work for Democrats today right? Nationwide, the compromise at the end of the 1876 elections marked the end of Reconstruction. Democrats in the South began reasserting their control without soldiers around to stop them.
  • The Red Shirts– Too bad for the sake of blacks these weren’t the guys in Star Trek. This was another Democrat terrorist group. Interesting how Wikipedia describes them as a militant group of Democrats trying to regain power for the party, much like Antifa was post-Trump’s election, much like some Democrats called for. I’m detecting a certain parallel here: Democrats riot when they lose and intimidate everyone until they get their way, whether it’s during the Reconstruction years or the post-Trump years. Where were the violent riots when Republicans lost in 2008? The worst anyone ever came up with is alleging that Tea Party people yelled racial slurs. Then Democrats get ousted, and 10 months later Occupy Wall Street protests are breaking windows. Then Democrats lose in 2016, and we see fires and their leaders say don’t be civil until we are in control again.
  • 1876 Presidential Election and Compromise of 1877– As mentioned earlier, this meant the end to Reconstruction, thus the beginning of Democrats taking the South back as close legally as it could get to pre-Civil War status. The Compromise came about because several states (good ol’ unreliable Florida among them) had disputed outcomes and both sides accused the other of fraud and intimidation, so Republicans met with moderate Democrats to hash out a deal: withdraw troops from the South in exchange for the Republican candidate becoming President. Oh, and note how Democrats who promised to protect black rights when it was politically convenient suddenly turned on them. Wasn’t that exactly what I have been arguing all along? Isn’t that why I hashed out the importance of the electoral college?
Democrat-Website-Screenshot

From the Democratic Party’s website. Gonna go ahead and say that their “more than 200 years” line is in dispute.

What a proud history that is! The Electoral College stopped Democrats from simply using violence and voter fraud to seize power, and their motivation now is pretty much the same thing. They don’t care about the black vote, removing the electoral college would make sure they never had to worry about the black vote again. Even though they don’t already- Obama said that if Democrats did what they’re doing now they’d hurt blacks, and guess what- Obama led the charge to do what they’re doing now. And Ocasio-Cortez is leading the reconquista charge which will run right over blacks as an influx of racists are brought in.

 

Does This All Sound Racist?

I mean aside from Democrats cynically favoring and exploiting one race over another while masking that by saying both should hate Republicans. And Don Lemon said it’s not ok to not see color, so if he’s ok with this then I don’t see the problem.

Am I stoking fear of Latinos? No, I merely collate data. Fact: Ocasio-Cortez wants a brown wave. Fact: her words reflect reconquista thinking. Fact: Democrat Presidential candidates are flocking to support her. Fact: the people coming in hate blacks. Fact: abolishing the electoral college removes the last weapon in the African-American community’s electoral arsenal to fight oppressive majorities, whether they be white or Latino. Fact: democrats believed that by embracing Latino illegal immigrants they would hurt black communities. What conclusion can you draw, other than they discovered that there were more Latinos in the U.S. than blacks and even more illegal ones waiting to vote Democrat, so they shifted their strategy to favor the group with the largest numbers. Their calls to abolish the electoral college and only use the popular vote show that Democrats only favor the majority. Not the minority. Also, if Steve King said something like what Cortez did (arguably he has) you’d be picking bits of his flesh out of your teeth by now.

Obama-Farrakhan-talkingpointsmemo

I never did and never will call for genocide or say one race is inferior to another, and I certainly haven’t been photographed with or supported people who do. Image from Talking Points Memo

I thought it would be most helpful to illustrate my points on Democrats and their history of racism against blacks by showing that the pattern is still continuing, that blacks cannot take the party’s support for granted, that historically and presently the Democratic Party has not really cared about black communities. It just happens that their minority of choice now were Latinos. If we were facing an influx of whites then this piece’s theme would be the traditional black v. white dynamic, and that would’ve really been ideal because it would fit totally within the historical parameters set by the Democratic Party’s past. But alas the shift was from black to brown, so white had to go by the wayside and only be mentioned occasionally as the taken-for-granted-universal-oppressive-force that it is. Heck, I even tell blacks to hate white Democrats earlier on.

 

And really, if I am going to assail the narrative about intersectionality (that anyone not Republican and not a white Republican has common cause against those two groups and so can unite based on the bond of their shared oppression), I have to do it from the point of view of those affected by it, in this case by showing that the African American community is in direct conflict with the Latino American community, with Obama noting that the Latino immigrants are hurting black employment and black welfare, and with Ocasio-Cortez taking on the position that Latinos deserve to be here because this is their native soil… which can only mean that they deserve what non-native groups, like blacks, have. But I’m not surprised that smashing the intersectionality narrative by showing that humans naturally are in conflict with each other would lead to a charge of racism, anymore than I’d be surprised to see everything I wrote dismissed out of hand as Hispaniphobic, because the last thing Democrats want is people noticing what they’re up to so they’ll use any handy smokescreen.

Liberals On The Move

soviet-union-flag-dnc-convention-2016-talkmedianews

Bernie Sanders supporters outside the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Even if the Trump-Russia collusion story turns out true, I don’t see why liberals are so upset. Lefties like Ocasio-Cortez (whom the Democrats are racing to catch up with) hated Clinton and love the Soviet Union, while Trump stopped Clinton and works for an ex-KGB agent. Maybe they hate Trump because they’re jealous? Image from talkmedianews

Quick flashback to last week’s piece- it happened again!

Reactions to Trump’s State of the Union address  are a good way to start this off. We have CBS’ unbiased neutral journalists disturbed by Trump talking about the need for a wall, with one host mocking the notion that illegal immigrants come into this country and kill people. She obviously wasn’t aware that someone who lost there parents from the very thing she denies happening was a guest that evening. Or maybe she knew and didn’t care, it’s hard to tell. She also tried to justify their entry into this country by saying they just want a better life.

Well so do we, but as Obama himself noted in his Grammy-winning audiobook if we take in all of these people wanting a better life we won’t be able to provide one for our own citizens, let alone the illegals. 13 years later, Democrats sit and stare when Trump says much the same thing that their Grammy-winning messiah said. Democrats outright refuted their messiah (whom they hold in such high regard as to wonder if they’ll have “another Obama” for 2020) in their response- they believe letting in everyone makes the country strong, not border security (I’m not deliberately misreading her statement- first of all, for all the times Democrats conflate “illegal” and “legal” immigrants its their own fault that their words can be interpreted this way. Second, she says walls- border security- does not make the country strong but immigrants- letting people in- does. She says border security makes us weak and letting anyone in makes us strong. How am I wrong?).

Onward to abortion- as you’re aware, Democrats are looking to get infanticide legalized in the name of protecting a woman’s body and her right to choose. I’m not referring to in-womb abortion, I mean VA Gov. Northam (D) said that legalizing the killing of a living baby outside of the womb was all about giving a woman the right to decide what happens to her body. So what would that new legal definition mean? If your mother decided to slash your throat, rape you, drown you, or put you in an oven that it’d be legal because she’s just doing that to her own body? Afterall, if you as a baby outside the womb are considered part of her body as Northam said, at what age would you suddenly not be part of her body?

20 years ago, Democrats already were very open about their position on this issue. Sen. Rick Santorum (R) questioned Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) about this. Boxer said the child was not considered born until the parents brought it home and the family accepted it. So if let’s say a week after being born the parents decided they didn’t like the child, in Boxer’s own words the child could be legally killed. And what if the child is never accepted by the family and lives until 3 years old before the parents finally decided to kill it? Would we be hearing liberals arguing how the parents were shamed by society into not acting even with abortion now being legal past birth, and how we need to give them their right to rid the world of a problem child? Brian Williams complained that Trump was graphic in his rather sterile State of the Union remarks about abortion; I assure Mr. Williams that I would have given him something graphic if I were up there. Williams must know what late-term and post-birth abortion entails, as a liberal he is smarter than me and surely wouldn’t support positions without understanding them, so why is he so scared about the American public hearing what smart people already know?

Do I really have to say it? The networks loved the Democratic response more than anything Trump said and chose to bias their coverage. The press just defended a Democrat who believes in killing babies and wearing blackface, so should we at all be surprised by this too? They’re about to get their butts sued off for libeling teenagers and generating a rage mob that led to those kids’ school getting shutdown, all because of lies. Lies that a Democrat Congresswoman knowingly promoted (she tried to spread the false narrative days after the truth was known, and then deleted the tweet immediately after a lawyer for the kids threatened to sue.. and while the media loves talking about the death threats it receives, they have yet to report on the death threat against the lawyer who’s going after them).

journalists-wiki-tw

Most “Mainstream Media” Outlets colluded with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Election. This list is only expanding.

The Worst Is Yet To Come

You can expect more of the above, now amplified to heights unimagined in the past as the vast field of liberal hopefuls try to drown each other’s voices out. Here are some prospective 2020 Democratic candidates, though Wikipedia has over 150 potentials as of the time of this typing.

  • Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) (and we’re supposed to believe she didn’t know of this? She wouldn’t be the first Democrat to want to bury such things)
  • Beto O’Rourke (failed Democratic Senate candidate for Texas)
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – but he’s too white and too male according to Dems
  • Pete Buttgieg (mayor of South Bend, Indiana)
  • Julian Castro (former HUD Secretary)
  • Congressman John Delaney (D-MD)
  • Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) – I kinda like her, not bad for a Democrat.
  • Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Let’s be honest here… Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) too despite Constitutional limits the Left wants to do-away with. Even if she’s not running this year, her policies are on the ticket.
  • Joe Biden (fmr VP, fmr Segregationist)
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
  • Eric Holder (first AG to be held in contempt of Congress, criminally, civilly, and bipartisanly)
  • Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Now, to be fair, a lot of these probably know they have no chance and just want the money and fame… maybe. They’re delusional enough to believe the below, so maybe they believe they have a chance too. Hard to say.

thousand-dollar-dessert-howtocookthat

I was going to say that the above candidates all want their piece of the pie, but pie is so 1975. Image from howtocookthat

Here are some beliefs the party has

  • It’s ok to put the lives of teenagers in danger if they support Trump but didn’t do anything wrong
  • It’s ok for the DOJ to apparently collude with the media to allow a raid on a Trump associate to be filmed, so that everyone associated with Trump can be publicly intimidated
  • Democrats in government should be allowed to use the government’s counterintelligence agencies to investigate political campaigns, because that does not enable dictators.
  • The media should be used exclusively for targeting Republicans, even if evidence has to be buried or fabricated. (think Covington, or really anything anti-Trump)
  • White people are untermensch to be purged
  • If a woman accuses a male of anything, the male has no right to a defense or investigation and must be terminated immediately. No questions asked. (unless you’re an important Democrat)
  • If the Left accuses Trump supporters of anything, they have no right to a defense and must be terminated immediately. No questions asked.
  • Hatred for Trump trumps anything else (even your job, regardless of who you voted for)
  • Trump supporters deserve violence and death
  • White women do not deserve a voice
  • Women’s health doesn’t matter- they want abortions to be done by anyone, even people that aren’t doctors. If you’ll recall the left warned that making abortion illegal would be terrible and lead to women dying precisely because they’d have to go to people that weren’t doctors.
  • Jews and Christians should be purged.
  • America has no right to a border; we should pay for anyone who wants to be here on welfare regardless of what it does to native citizens of any race or origin.
  • Weaponizing law enforcement to intimidate dissent (what do you call these open displays of power that not even the worst serial killers and pimps are subjected to?)
  • Killing babies, in and out of the womb, is no problem. Caterpillars have more of a right to live than a baby that has been outside the womb for days, according to liberals. (Anyone remember the simple days when their excuse for murder was merely that it was a woman’s body and the child’s right to survive didn’t matter, and how we were all crazy for thinking that liberals would want to extend their death penalty to outside the woman’s body? Stuff they wouldn’t even do to animals, they’re happy to do to humans that can’t vote yet, and then they tell us they care about the suffering of people at our border whom liberals refuse to aid in their countries of origin just to force them to come here and vote for them here.)
  • Being associated with Trump automatically means everything you did in the past is evil, even if liberals supported it.
  • You’re a racist merely for voting for someone that isn’t a Democrat. (Trump lowered the unemployment rate for the black community, is trying to curb illegal immigration which Obama said in his Grammy-winning audiobook would benefit the black community, and he tried to reform food stamp programs to deliver healthy foods to blacks as liberals complain  about blacks not having access to healthy foods (and they also complained in that HuffPost piece that only 2 of the 14 members of the dietary guidelines advisory group were black… about 14%, and blacks make up 14% of the population so they are actually represented equally, but then again it is never about true equality). With Trump in office though, they want welfare benefits for blacks to decrease, and want blacks to eat bad foods, and deny that Trump is increasing black employment)
  • America has no right to lead in the world, we should cede this to other countries like Russia
  • We need to cut spending for defense at the same time Russia and China have built weapons we can’t defend against, at the same time Russia is violating an arms treaty, at the same time the Democratic Party wants a war with Russia. (Because of the optics, I found it funny that a Muslim Congresswoman in hijab was saying that we spent too much on defense after 9/11)

These are the platforms the Left is running on, what they want codified into law. And they will win the Presidency in 2020 since Trump has caved on the border wall. Republicans will be out of the Senate too, since they did nothing to help. Which means the only thing stopping the above agenda items is the Supreme Court, except with the Executive and Legislative Branches under their control, Democrats can easily add enough liberal judges to the court to make it give them the outcomes they want.

Does this seem like desperate fearmongering? Have you read the links? Democrats openly believe -mainstream Democrats, loyal to the party, powerful in the party, followed by millions, voted for by millions- the points I outlined above. Saying that Democrats do not believe in this is like saying the KKK doesn’t hate blacks. Saying that Democrats don’t actually know their leaders believe this is like saying a Klansman only dons the hood and pays their dues because they like the networking opportunity but didn’t read any of the literature when joining.

severed head

They complain that Trump is dividing us, then threaten everyone opposed to them.

John Madden Football (Panasonic 3DO, 1994)

john_madden_football_3do-titleSuper Bowl Sunday is… well, Sunday. So let’s take a break from ramming our political views down your throat and unite around football, where everyone is one and there is no intrigue or politics or… well doggone it. Look, it’s either this or I try to spin the shutdown ending one way or the other and talk about the Left eviscerating the Covington kids despite them being the real victims, with the Left as usual taking pleasure in endangering the lives of teenagers… not so surprising there really since they like endangering babies too. Anyone who can’t vote or doesn’t vote for them doesn’t matter, it seems.

I’m not much of a football fan. I vaguely identify with the Buffalo Bills and their perpetual inability to deliver significant wins (it’s like looking in a mirror I tells ya!), and that was chosen by higher authorities as my favorite team a little over 11 years ago. I watch the Super Bowls, and bits and pieces of a handful of games during the season. All that said, it’s amazing that on the morning of January 12th I managed to narrow down my Super Bowl picks to being either the Dallas Cowboys or the Los Angeles Rams. I just looked up who the top teams were though and guessed the Cowboys for some reason. I knew the Patriots would be in it, EVERYONE knew the Patriots will be in it. That was known back in August. Too bad the only time I ever rooted for the Patriots was in the 2017 Super Bowl, when the media tried to make the Super Bowl into a referendum on white people and Trump. Fun fact: in a contest of athleticism and strategy, it’s totally racist if white athletes end up besting black athletes. Here are some headlines from 2017.

  • New York Magazine: There Are So Many Reasons to Root Against ‘Trump’s Team’ in the Super Bowl
  • NBC Sports: Curran: Patriots’ Super Bowl win is America’s nightmare
  • The Root: The Trap House vs. the White House: Why Black America Needed the Falcons to Win (they say that the Patriots are “racist-adjacent”, and say that their logo is of a white guy though he looks more like Chief Crazy Horse to me)
  • Colorlines: How the Super Bowl Became a Battle for America’s Soul The subtle—and not-so subtle—roles race, xenophobia and Islamophobia played in Super Bowl LI.

And then the reactions on social media were quite pretty. “I hate seeing white people happy”. Hitler only wishes the Jews gave him that much ammo to fuel hate against them, and then these people spewing their own hate wonder why they in turn are hated. Gotta love these vicious self-feeding cycles; whoever said perpetual motion machines are impossible never tried to transform the human capacity for hatred into an energy source. Just take two people, make them hate each other, then watch as they fuel it themselves! It’s more than a perpetual motion machine; it’s a perpetual motion machine that gets faster and faster! And yes, I am condemning both sides. The whites who randomly hate nonwhites, the nonwhites who randomly hate whites, and the ones like me who think hating the other people because all or some hate you is a useful response.

But I did get a kick out one of the Northeast’s most liberal cities, Boston, being declared the most racist city that a certain comedian ever went to. When the Left turn on each other it’s always fun.

The Game Please…

Like with watching football games, I’m usually not one for football video games. I can piece together what the plays do based on the diagrams, but I have no idea when to use what. It’s a miracle I know which side of the field to run to. Also, they’re all the same. I’ve played Madden ’97 and Madden ’98 on the Sega Saturn (they were the first, and for a while only, games I had on the system so I developed a slight nostalgia for them), one of the 2000s Maddens on my brother’s Xbox 360, and NFL Quarterback Club on the Sega 32X. They all felt the same as each other, the same as this game. RealSports Football on the Atari 2600 though, that was a unique experience. Maybe that will be for next year.

My Stone Cold Lock Of The Century Of The Week

john_madden_football-3do-final_scoreAfter running a simulation on my super-advanced simulating machine so advanced it goes by the symbols “3DO”, I determined that the Dallas Cowboys would beat the New England Patriots at the Super Bowl this year with a score of 35-7. Fortunately since it ended up being the LA Rams, I can still claim that if the Cowboys had made it to the Super Bowl they would have defeated the Patriots 35-7 and never worry about being disproven. As for the real game… oh I dunno… I’ll make up a number. 31-28, Patriots win. I’ll probably end up doing this year what I did in 2017 too- I’ll think the game starts at 8pm and sleep until then, only to tune in during halftime.

The Simulation

john_madden_football-3doOutside of the graphics, this could have been any Madden game or even NFL Quarterback Club game up through I think 2006 (I’m just guessing on when that Xbox 360 Madden game I played came out). And if the formula hasn’t changed after that, it’s entirely possible this is the exact game I’d be playing if I laid down $60 at the store tomorrow. But I’d bet dollars to donuts that the flashy new games don’t come with the ridiculous amount of paper that this had. Look at that play chart!

john_madden_football-3do-packaged-materials

This is why the Amazon faces deforestation.

How The Game Goes, In Pictures!

john_madden_football_3do-kickoff

Start with the kickoff

john_madden_football-3do-plays

Choose your plays. I have no freakin’ idea when any of this is appropriate to use. Sometimes I’d just mash a random combination of A, B, and C until the game started. Other times for some reason I had only 2 seconds to decide before the decision was made for me.

john_madden_football_3do-passing

Pass your ball if you picked a passing play. Otherwise just run around towards the football like a chicken with its head cutoff. I don’t recall the Sega Saturn games doing this for passes though- as far as I remember, the other football games zoom out and put an icon over the people you can pass to, while as you see here this game just splits your screen 4 ways.

john_madden_football_3do-interception

Have the guy you throw to either fail to catch it, or have the other team catch it. Usually for this game, my guy only failed to catch the ball if I took control of the player catching it. Pressing one of the buttons lets you change which player you control, I assume like every other football game. Usually it was my computer-controlled player intercepting the computerized-opponent’s ball.

john_madden_football-3do-alone

Run up the field all by yourself, because the Patriots might as well not have a defensive line.

john_madden_football_3do-touchdown-dance

Watch your player do his touchdown dance because this is 1994 and the NFL has not decided to penalize players for this yet.

john_madden_football_3do-field-goal-kick

Kick that field goal!

john_madden_football_3do-field_goal

Watch as the ball soars over the clearly 2-dimensional goal post!

john_madden_football-3do-negative-yards

Review your stats either at halftime or at the end, and ponder how you beat the other team 35-7 when you just mashed random buttons and got only -1 yards average per run.

The Game In Video

Remember, this is in 1994 when full-motion video in a video game was a novelty. And when it took forever to load! It was a conscious decision to have valuable chunks of my time used to load these video clips that generally lasted only a couple of seconds, sometimes the loading time was longer than the video!

john_madden_football_3do-video-coin_toss

Start with the coin toss

john_madden_football-3do-video-penalty

Flag on the play!

 

 

 

 

 

 

john_madden_football_3do-video-measuring

Is this a first down? I don’t know! Let’s stop the game for an hour to show a 5 second clip of us checking!

john_madden_football_3do-video-touchdown

Touchdown!

 

john_madden_football_3do-video-touchdown_crowd

The early 1990’s cheers for you.

john_madden_football_3do-video-field_goal

His arms are in the shape of the field goal posts to signal your field goal is good.

 

john_madden_football-3do-video-field_goal_missed

And sometimes your field goal kick does not make it.

john_madden_football_3do-video-halftime-madden

John Madden drops in at the beginning, halftime, and end of your game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Was It?

I only wanted to play half a game. I needed to only play half a game. I needed to go to bed because I had a long day ahead. Instead I stayed up an extra half hour to finish the game. So I liked playing it. Like I said though- it felt like any other modern football game, except for the cutscene loading times. But FMV was novel in a video game, and I guess they liked showing it off. Probably was a selling point too.

 

So… enjoy your Super Ball! Go spend Sunday watching burly men toss pig skin around.

john_madden_football-3do-game_over

 

 

It’s Solely and Singularly About Stopping Border Security

chuck-schumer-nancy-pelosi-nbc

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

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

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

us-mexico-border-cnn

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

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

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

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

world-physical-map-geology

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

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

And As For Federal Workers

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

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

United_States_Capitol_-_west_front

So… much… wealth… Image from wikimedia.org

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

Does Pelosi Speak For The Party?

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

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

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

I have a question though…

make-america-mexico-again-pinterest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald-Trump-protesters-Hispanic-theyucantimes

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

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

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

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

make-america-mexico-again-flickr

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

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

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

It’s About The Latino Vote

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

Some Cleanup

honduran-caravan-reuters

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

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

Sometimes You Just Feel Like Shutting Down

senator-robert-menendez-puerto-rico-twitchy

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

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

 

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

No, Trump Is The Problem! (Really?)

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

berlin-wall-1961-university-of-southern-california

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

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

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

And What About The Republican Majority?

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

Congresswoman_Ocasio-Cortez_Daily-Caller

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

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

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

 

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

Is It All Trump’s Doing?

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

cnn-ana-navarro-files-nails

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

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

cnn-jim-acosta-wall

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

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

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

 

So Cowardly?

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

Positive Spin?

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

journalists-wiki-tw

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

PSP UMD, GBA Video, And The Future

umd-vs-gba videoOk, I broke my promise to myself and did a political thing for both Christmas and New Year’s. There were seasonal issues I felt had to be looked at. So here’s something different.

Home Video Game Units

You may be wondering: “why just those two? Didn’t the CD-I have its own video format?” Well, yes, but it also played generic video cd’s, and the CD-I video format itself was actually just an MPEG file with the file extension changed to something else. I think it said “.DAT” instead of “.MPEG”. Copying it onto my laptop and relabelling it would give me access to the video if my CD-I were not around, which is like half the time because I have one of the gigantic models and I am not lugging that thing up and down the East Coast!

philips_cd-1_james_bond_collection_uk_release

The Philips CD-I was region-free, which allowed me to cheaply snatch-up and watch this collection of James Bond movies.

But since I brought it up, and since it’s a precursor to our modern consoles that double as home video players, I’ll just note that as far as I could tell the CD-I videos looked exactly like VHS tapes, but without a sort of haze subtly graying things out a little. While the image is sharper in that regard, you also get some artifacting in there.

While CD-I was on the maybe pile because of its early CD-I exclusive format that was only exclusive because they changed a filename on the disc otherwise it’d work in any VCD player, there are some units definitely in the “not at all” pile for this post. That’d be things like the PS2, Xbox, Gamecube (Panasonic Q to be specific), PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. While these play DVDs and Blu-Rays, there AREN’T home videos released exclusively for formats that only those units can play. Same thing for the Pioneer LaserActive which one day shall be mine. As my earlier post might indicate, I do have me some laserdiscs. And spellcheck for WordPress indicates that “laserdisc” is not a real word… how much we forget in 19 years!

Game Boy Advance Video

If you didn’t know what I meant by “artifacting” when talking about CD-I videos, you’ll see in these screenshots. It looks terrible, but they had to make some sacrifices to fit them onto cartridges. Besides, Game Boy Advance Video came out early in 2004. At that time, the best you could get is whatever image the frontlit SP provided.

gba-video-artifacting-spongebob

“Mumblin’ Morays Mermaid Man, one of the aliens from Space Invaders consumed my foot and has latched to my chest!” Image from SpongeBob Squarepants episode “Mermaid Man”.

There is a small library of Game Boy Advance Video titles, compared to UMD releases. 34 cartridges by my count. All of them are children/pre-teen shows. Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Pokemon dubs, things like that. I just bought ’em up for the SpongeBob episodes, though I think I got my Cartoon Network one for free. I wasn’t disappointed- it meant I got an episode of Courage The Cowardly Dog.

Nintendo entrusted this endeavor to Majesco (except the Pokemon releases, Nintendo handled that differently). This seemed like a bad choice to me, after my most recent experience with a Majesco product. A product that surely would’ve been on Nintendo’s mind and on Majesco’s resume, since it came out less than 6 years before Game Boy Advance Video hit the marketplace.

gba-video-majesco-logoMajesco was responsible for releasing the Sega Genesis Model 3 in 1998. No Sega CD compatibility, no Sega 32X compatibility, didn’t work with some Sega Genesis games, and they’re prone to rusting. I have an Atari 2600 that runs smooth and looks new despite being purchased in the 70’s and having spent 20 years in my dad’s closet, yet both of the Model 3’s I got looked like someone drizzled salt water in them and they only turned 20 this year. The cashiers at the shop I bought the first one from noted that Model 3’s were notorious for their unreliability and lack of durability. But hey, as long as it works, right?

UMD

gba-video-not-compatible

Can’t say they didn’t warn you

UMD is just the general title for PSP discs. This got way more traction as far as putting videos on it went. The videos looked better, like DVDs. Evidently there was 900MB-1.8GB of space to work with on the discs. Unlike with the Game Boy Advance Video format which had lockouts preventing you from playing your movie on the TV (in case you wanted to pirate the pixelated mess), the PSP has no such lockout and can plug directly into your TV. Or at least mine could.

The video selection is much more vast. Soooooo many discs. Family Guy seasons 1-3 come to mind right away (because I bought them off a friend, who threw away their original cases and had them in specially-bought UMD cases that I had to sort through). The first time I saw some movies, like Godzilla: Final Wars, it was on the UMD release. But as you can tell just by Family Guy and Godzilla being mentioned, UMD discs had a pretty broad set of videos put on them… and upon looking at my collection when desperately trying to reunite a loose UMD with its case, I found some films I didn’t remember having, one of which the venerable founder of this blog referenced to me a few times but I never understood because I never saw it.

Not A Fair Comparison

aqua-teen-hunger-force-volume-4-dvd-psp

No reason to include a UMD screenshot since it was basically the same as you’d get on a DVD, but here is a picture comparing UMD to DVD anyway. All that we say and do is right.

Yes, the PSP was principally in competition with the Nintendo DS. But Nintendo did not make any DS-Video releases, and as point of fact UMD movies only started coming out in 2004, the same year as Game Boy Advance Video. Nintendo’s next video attempt didn’t hit until the 3DS. This was called “Nintendo Video”, but didn’t seem to go far (and had content from notorious Leftwingers CollegeHumor, but this was in the pre-Trump time so maybe it wasn’t so bad). Since then video content has been relegated to stuff in Nintendo’s eShop, but by now with Netflix and the like available on your consoles (my mother’s friend uses her Wii for Netflix of all things) I guess stuff like UMDs and Game Boy Advance Video are going the way of the CD-I video.

Why’d They Do It Anyway?

Sony had the discs, Nintendo had the cartridges, and people like movies on the go. This was before Wi-Fi was everywhere. I in fact bought the PSP and some movies in part because I was going on a long trip, so I guess that means those reached their target audience of travelling teens. UMD allowed for quality transfers, and had more content than just programs aimed at younger audiences, so it makes sense that’d takeoff. It was also a cheaper alternative to portable DVD players- it cost me $50 in 2008 to buy one from a pawn shop, whereas that much money got me probably two UMD movies in 2006. Since people already had the hardware, why not take some movies on the go in a convenient travel size?

gba-video-spongebob-borgnine-conway

If we’re going to dig deep and be honest with ourselves, we’d find that the largest flaw with GBA Video is they did not also include something where Tim Conway was doing his best to make the other actors break character with unscripted acts, like puppetry.

Now, this kind of thing wouldn’t make any sense today. And questions on the future of gaming are raised- what is the fate of having your own disc copy? Will we eventually just be playing Xbox games from Microsoft’s server farm, with the Xbox Three being merely a box with an internet connection? Enter your card, play online and pay as much as you would for the discs? It cuts down on distribution, for sure! Given the controversies about excessive paywalls in games and paid extra content, why wouldn’t we expect gaming companies to cut disc production from their expenses? With the popularity of outlets like Steam, and doing stuff like just buying the games online and downloading them to your console (I remember when I bought Rare Replay for the Xbox One and watched in horror as it simply downloaded the games to suck up memory space on my console, the disc contained almost nothing on it).

Its Future Is History

This will pose a major problem for game collectors in the future. Take this hypothetical: Lloyd Bridges Games creates Super A Walk In The Sun. We play it, it’s a good game, but it’s entirely online. The company goes out of business. All bonus content that was stored in their servers- GONE! All your save files stored in their servers- GONE! The game itself can’t be played anymore- GONE!

lloyd_bridges_imdb

The only reason I’m not mad at Lloyd Bridges Games’ Founder is that he turned down the role of Captain Kirk, allowing William Shatner to fulfill his destiny.

Or how about the problem with something like Rare Replay, where the disc only contained download codes. What if my Xbox One didn’t connect to the store? What if this is 20 years from now and Lloyd Bridges Games had put Microsoft out of business? Rare Replay would be worthless.

I saw an example of this in the store a few weeks ago. Final Fantasy XI. Unless you transferred to a Windows PC (not Apple, apparently) then all that time you spent on your console version meant nothing, and video game stores are full of copies of the game that are now unplayable. There is no single-player campaign in it, it’s entirely online. So what happens when Square dumps the Windows version too? I guess the same thing that happened to all of those PS2/Xbox 360 owners who only had Apple computers available or didn’t have the money to get a copy of Windows. Final Fantasy XI, part of one of the longest-running video game franchises, will be consigned to the depths of LostMediaWiki despite millions having played it and invested years in it.

Same can be said for any online game like that, such as ones for the Sega Dreamcast, but this was the first example that popped into my mind.