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


Image from Getty Images

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Time For Some Republican Shaming


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

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

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

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

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

A CAIRing Ending

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Where The Anti-Semites Play


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

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

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

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

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

Unpacking The Left’s “Unpacking”


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

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

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


Image from DemocracyNow

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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




When Is One Investigation Ever Enough?


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Obviously Person A Is Trump and Person B Is Omar


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Aren’t They The Party Of Reason?


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

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

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

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

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

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


“Pfffft, whatever dudes” Image from Huffington Post

Democrats, Race, And The Electoral College’s Protections


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.


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?


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.


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


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


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


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?

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.


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.