A Liberal Environment


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

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

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


Om nom nom nom! Image from Dictionary.com

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

Stewards Of The Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



Well it’s uhm… it’s green.

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


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

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

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

The Numbers


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

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

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

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

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

Tax The Rich!


Image of a cool song from wikimedia

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

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

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

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

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

Where Will The Money Come From?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

The Political Stuff

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


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

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

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


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

At Present:

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

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

Pro-Russia Side Effects

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


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

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

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

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


Democrats And The National Emergency


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Your Personal Security


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

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

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

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

Other Freudian Slips


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

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

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

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

Trump And I Are One On Democrat Obstruction

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

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

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