Pounded Paul Pelosi

I’ll get right to the point: what happened was either a freaky sex thing gone sideways, or it’s because Nancy felt sending Paul to the doghouse just wasn’t enough after he embarrassed her earlier this year.

What Happened?

Police are refusing to release bodycam footage, and any requests for information won’t be answered until well after the Midterms. Conveniently, Democrats are using this as a campaign issue, claiming it was an average Republican that stormed the Pelosi Capitol.

Here are the events:

  • A homeless-nudist-illegal-immigrant-Black Lives Matter-supporter was found naked except for underwear in Paul Pelosi’s house, and so was Paul (of course that story changed)
  • Paul’s house and neighborhood are protected by private security, and surrounded by cameras, yet there is no footage of the assailant entering (allegedly Capitol Police weren’t watching, like Epstein’s jail guards) and there was no security guarding the house
  • The alleged entry point into the house is so small that the assailant couldn’t get in without tearing himself apart on the glass, and apparently couldn’t enter without setting off an alarm. In fact, originally it was reported that he entered the back door, and the only visible glass was OUTSIDE the house in a pattern indicating the window was broken out, not broken in.
  • When police arrived, they reported THREE people in the house, with no one injured at that time, and Paul Pelosi was the one with the hammer. But over time the story changed (much like the FBI’s tales after their bosses told them to lie)
  • Somehow, Paul and the assailant ended up injured. In fact, the government alleges that Paul was brutally beaten after police arrived.
  • The assailant is an insane drug addict, there is no footage of him espousing conservative views, and he lives in a school bus, yet it is alleged he was sane enough to start and run a website.
  • There is no record of the assailant’s website until some time after the incident took place, and it was erased from the internet shortly afterwards.
  • Federal charges were filed, ensuring the case would be treated like the Mar-A-Lago raid in that the public will only receive selective details leaked by Democrat-affiliated DOJ officials disguised as “anonymous sources”.

As you can see, there are a few questions here. In fact, taken altogether, only two conclusions are reasonable.

  1. Paul knew his attacker (as indicated in the first link, that’s what police said) and invited him in for purposes unknown, though based on them both being in their underwear and a third person present, it was probably not anything platonic. The attempt to paint a homeless Canadian illegal immigrant nudist as a Republican happened after the fact to hide yet another Pelosi embarrassment.
  2. Nancy wanted an October Surprise because no one cared about the January 6 stuff and the Mar-A-Lago raid, so she told her husband to take a dive and found some crazy guy no one would remember. Her husband owed her after she bailed him out of his DUI earlier this year.

It clearly didn’t happen the way we are told. What happened defies logic. Somehow the archetypical San Francisco liberal (illegal immigrant nudist living in a school bus) radicalized overnight (based on the only known record of his website it could not have been around long) and immediately went to attack Nancy Pelosi at her house that somehow he had the address of and somehow bypassed security to get into by I guess imploding the window so it scattered backwards and somehow entered through the resultant hole that was too small for him?

I will add- look at how quick and ready Democrats are to blame this on Republicans. They’re even trying to get Republicans to stop running ads against their Democrat opponents, in the name of some fake “civility”. This was obviously not a random Trump supporter, it was either a politically-motivated quick fix for another Paul screwup or it was a hoax from start to finish, one that Paul had to get a little bruised for.

Where Is The Real Violence?

Since Democrats are saying that anything anti-Pelosi or anything questioning the 2020 Election’s legitimacy (meanwhile most Democrats still believe Russia hacked into our computer systems to alter the election totals in 2016, and still are saying elections are being stolen) led to this violence (and that not only must people stop saying things Democrats don’t like because anything a Democrat doesn’t like hearing leads to violence against Democrats, but also anyone who DOES say something Democrats don’t like needs to be punished for saying such things), then it would seem Democrats believe that words of public figures and actions of citizens are directly linked. The court ruling against Alex Jones wherein he had to pay $965,000,000 for questioning the official narrative because a handful of his followers decided to non-violently act after hearing information he provided shows what kind of consequences Democrats have in mind. I don’t doubt they will use that precedent to go after anyone else who says things they dislike if someone acts on it (and they know that Republicans can’t do that- Republican judges know such an action is unconstitutional and garbage so they’d throw out any cases like that, while liberal judges would just throw out any case like that which didn’t help the Democratic Party). And what a coincidence it is that this thing with Paul Pelosi and the demands from major news networks and politicians to silence and punish those saying words they disagree with came right after the Alex Jones ruling which provides a precedent for just such a punishment!

If Conservative judges also tore up the Constitution and allowed a case like that to go through, here is a list of violence by Democrats this year alone, all from articles I’ve collected only since August (so I didn’t mention the communist Buffalo shooter, the NYC attempted serial killer who hated white people like the Left told him to, the mass shooter who acted based on CNN last year, and the Bernie Sanders supporter who almost murdered several Congressmen in atmosphere of intense threats by Democrats). By the way, they say violence is uniquely rightwing.

  • 82yo pro-life activist shot
  • 18yo ran over by a Democrat who wanted to kill a Republican
  • 135 pro-life activists were attacked vs 6 pro-abortion activists between May and September
  • A canvasser for Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was beaten for being a Republican
  • A Democrat activist bit a Republican County Chair
  • Leftist man beat a woman for wearing an American flag shirt
  • Democrats are swatting conservatives (essentially using the police to attempt murder)
  • Democrats assembled a violent mob to stop a conservative from speaking at a college
  • Democrat politician murdered a reporter who was giving unfavorable coverage
  • Assassination attempt by a Democrat on a Conservative Supreme Court Justice
  • Crisis pregnancy centers firebombed by Democrats
  • Democrat activist tried to shoot a mayoral candidate
  • Democrat activist tried to stab a Republican Congressman to death
  • Teenage pro-life activist was assaulted
  • Democrats threatened a mass shooting against Republicans (which they actually did even earlier this year, and in 2017)
  • A Democrat threatened to murder a Republican poll worker at a polling place on a primary election day

Here is a list of violent rhetoric, or rhetoric leaving Democrat voters with no logical recourse except to act in violence. Remember, these are through the lenses of Leftists, through which the Left says that merely having a negative opinion of them is inciting violence, say that “fight for your rights” is tantamount to calling for physical violence, say that calling for Pelosi to lose her job or asking “where’s Pelosi” is the same as trying to murder her, and that saying “peacefully” is a dog-whistle for violence.

  • Rep. Tim Ryan (D) said they need to “kill” Trump support. He once said rhetoric like his leads to mass shootings.
  • Leftist puppet Liz Cheney said Trump supporters- 74,000,000 citizens or more- are a “clear and present danger”
  • House Speaker Pelosi was revealed to have said she wanted to physically assault Trump
  • Democrat activists expressed happiness at a Republican protester being shot dead
  • A Democrat Senator issued what she said was “literally” a “call to arms”
  • the Democrat President said anyone who disagrees with the agenda is a violent extremist who is a “clear and present danger”
  • A former FBI official told agreeing Democrats he thought the President’s threats weren’t strong enough
  • The President’s Press Secretary agreed with the President’s remarks labeling anyone disagreeing with him as so strong a threat that you’d be criminally negligent to ignore it.
  • Even rank and file Democrats believe conservatives are domestic terrorists.
  • MSNBC said Democrats are at war against their political opponents
  • All Democrats are saying their opponents are threats to Democracy
  • MSNBC says Republicans are a threat to our way of life
  • A Democrat Congressman said Republicans will engage in violence
  • MSNBC says white conservatives in particular are naturally violent
  • MSNBC says we are in a civil war already
  • CNN says Republicans are the only violent people in the country

Seems like we have a case on our hands too.

A Quick One For July 4th

Once again, Democrats are attacking what unites us. For people who like this country, today celebrates the moment its founders parted ways from England. For Democrats, today is an evil day where non-authoritarians began to show the world that you could #Resist tyranny. Democrats can’t allow either unity or celebration of individual rights, so they must destroy this date.

I mentioned in the Juneteenth piece that they wanted to use that as the new Fourth of July. I outlined why it wasn’t a particularly significant date in the grand scheme of ending slavery, but here I will follow-up with where it falls in the Democrats’ grand scheme. It’s an attempt to divide us.

The Fourth of July is open to all American citizens and anyone who likes this country, it’s about celebrating the good this country has done and acknowledging such good exists, thus rallying the citizens around some common ground that indeed good things can exist outside the Democratic Party’s control and history. So they artificially exclude Blacks from the event (it wasn’t independence day for all whites either, it was the conception date for this country with June 21 being the date of birth, so by saying your race is excluded in the year 2022 that means you are saying your group is not part of the United States, because this date is for all citizens. Further, you are discouraging other members of your group to declare that they too are not part of this country, not part of this community, and yet you then demand that the people who are bow to your demands.). They weren’t excluded from it before, but now Democrats are posting the “whites only” signs around the holiday. Further, their proffered alternative is Juneteenth, which they advertise as a day of shame for white people for letting slavery exist to begin with. Who wants a day dedicated to hating them? Thus we reach the division- Juneteenth for Blacks because whites are the villain in that story, and Fourth of July for whites because Blacks aren’t involved in that story. Blacks can sing their own national anthem on their own independence day. Meanwhile, the Star Spangled Banner and Fourth of July are “whites only” thanks to Democrats posting the signs segregating us.

A hundred years ago Democrats didn’t want Blacks to be part of this country, and today they still don’t want Blacks to be part of this country (allegedly for only the most altruistic reasons of course, even though Democrats in power now have been praised by a leader of the KKK and Democrats now have said that Democrat Klansman Senator Robert Byrd who opposed the Civil Rights Act was- even at that time in his career- a mythical legendary figure who according to Democrats opposed Civil Rights and filibustered it for 57 days because he “worked tirelessly for the good of our great nation”, and was “a voice of principle and reason”. This man who filibustered Civil Rights for 57 days and was rated by the ACLU in 2002 as only being 20% in favor of civil rights (meaning he was very much against them) was a “mentor and a friend” to modern Democrats. Democrats in power now love their racists.).

And yet, I’ve seen some Democrats who attack July 4 and actually try to say they like this country. They hate the racist Constitution (of course they can’t explain what specifically in today’s version is racist with anything but the most stretched subjective arguments like “this feels racist to me” and ad hominem attacks on its writers (but modern Democrats love burying the ideas of actual Civil Rights icons like Frederick Douglass who felt slavery was not supported by the Constitution and as a Black man who saw slavery firsthand he outright said that just because the Constitution was written by slaveholders doesn’t mean the document was a bad thing, and he was reading the same words modern Democrats are reading minus certain key amendments that came later. What makes you think you know more about slavery and racism than a Black man who experienced slavery and racism the likes of which you only read about?); they just want to get rid of it because it blocks their tyranny) and want it abolished, they hate the half of the Legislative Branch they have trouble controlling and want it abolished, they hate the electoral system and want it abolished, they hate the Judicial Branch and want it abolished, they hate a lot of the Executive Branch and want it abolished, they hate their fellow citizens and want them in concentration camps, they think the very idea that this country has a defined border and isn’t subject to the laws of other countries is offensive, but aside from that they like this country I guess.

Impeachment Hot Air

adam_schiff_cspan

i think I’ve mentioned before that ever since 2017 I’ve grown to hate this pencil-necked baldy. And his head looks like a balloon, befitting the hot air contained therein. Image from CSPAN.

What if I told you that during the Obama Administration, a whistleblower tied to the Republicans came forward and claimed Obama did something corrupt. The whistleblower made a specious complaint that was only accepted because of rule changes made possibly days before he filed the complaint. Then the Republican-controlled House held secret hearings to impeach Obama, where Democrats had limited power, could not even call witnesses to refute the claims of the Republican-approved witnesses!

Sounds like those evil racist Republicans and their helpers in the Intel Community really wanted to get Obama out, doesn’t it! Well guess what liberal, replace “Obama” with “Trump” and “Republican” with “Democrat”, and you have what your people are doing right now.

Before I start my tirade which may have some lack of clarity, let me just give a quick summary of the matter in chronological order.

  • 2000– President Clinton asked EXPLICITLY for a political favor from UK PM Tony Blair, asking him to directly influence some dispute because it would help Al Gore win. There is no controversy in a President asking a foreign leader to interfere in a matter to help him politically (remember these words for when you see what Pelosi says September 24 2019)
  • January 2016 – Barack Obama’s Administration requests that Ukrainian prosecutors investigate a member of the Trump Campaign, claiming he is corrupt. Obama’s Admin also requests that Ukrainians drop the Burisma corruption probe (Burisma is the company Joe Biden’s son worked for).
  • March 2016– Joe Biden withholds aid allegedly to fight corruption in Ukraine, saying they won’t get the aid until a prosecutor is fired, and further saying there was international support for firing the prosecutor. This prosecutor happens to be investigating Biden’s son’s company, the investigation Obama asked Ukraine to drop 2 months prior, and lawyers for Burisma admitted that the prosecutor was merely smeared as corrupt by American politicians and apologized for it. Furthermore, a top diplomat testified that the prosecutor was fired solely because of the U.S. applying pressure, NOT because of the international community. Also, the new prosecutor was as corrupt as the original one allegedly was, but the Obama Administration deemed him fit enough after the Burisma matter was dropped, with Biden himself saying he approved this new corrupt prosecutor.
  • January 20 2017– Washington Post reports that Democrats began trying to impeach Trump while Obama is still President.
  • Early 2018– Ukraine begins investigating Joe Biden’s son’s company again, prompted by Joe Biden’s remarks in January of that year about withholding aid to get the original prosecutor fired.
  • May 2018– Democratic Senators demand Ukraine help Robert Mueller’s partisan witch hunt investigation into Trump’s corruption. If Democrats apply Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) interpretation of the partial transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian President to the letter their own Senators wrote (which more or less said the same thing that Trump said), it was clearly a “mafia-like shakedown“.
  • February-March 2019– The United States government is aware that Ukraine is investigating Joe Biden’s son’s company (Burisma) again.
  • May 5– Rep. Al Green (D-AL) warns Democrats- in light of a poll showing that 66% of the public did not want impeachment- that if they fail to impeach Trump, he will get re-elected, and he’ll justify it by saying Democrats couldn’t find anything wrong with him despite spending his entire term investigating him.
  • Sometime before July 18– Trump decides to withhold aid from Ukraine partly because Europe isn’t doing its fair share, and partly because of concerns over corruption there, and how the corrupt officials might line their pockets with it. Investigating what Ukraine did to help Democrats in 2016 is part of his idea of corruption in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are NOT made aware that the aid is withheld, let alone the reason for it, until August 28 or 29.
  • July 25– Trump chats with the Ukrainian President. Trump says Europe isn’t doing its share. Trump asks Ukrainian President to look into what was going on there in 2016 as it relates to our elections. Ukrainian President starts talking about corruption in his country. Trump says that as part of that corruption crackdown, the Ukrainian President should look into what happened with Joe Biden’s son. No mention was made of aid being withheld.
  • August– Whistleblower rules for the Democrat Swamp loyalist intel community are changed so that hearsay is accepted. The Ukraine Whistleblower submits his complaint in this month. Also in this month, one of the whistleblower’s Intel Community co-workers from the White House is hired by Adam Schiff to be part of his staff. The Ukraine Whistleblower worked with Adam Schiff’s staff to put through his complaint. Schiff himself is made aware of the complaint and its contents to an extent.
  • August 28 or 29– Ukraine learns aid is being withheld.
  • Before September 10– Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) threatens Ukraine, telling them that there will be consequences if they help Trump find dirt on Biden.
  • September 12– Prior to this date, Trump had decided to release the aid to Ukraine afterall, as emails obtained from this date show instructions to diplomats about the money’s release.
  • September 19– Anonymous sources tell the Washington Post that there is a whistleblower, saying this person heard other people talking about Trump’s Ukraine call, saying these people said that Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless Ukraine investigated Joe Biden and his son. A “quid pro quo” arrangement. This Ukraine Whistleblower had strong ties to Adam Schiff’s office, and ties to Joe Biden.
  • September 24– Nancy Pelosi announces that the House will begin an impeachment inquiry into Trump, claiming it’s because he tried to force a foreign government to do something that would help him politically. She does not note that what Trump allegedly asked Ukraine to do was already known by the U.S. to have been done 5 months before the call.
  • September 25– Ukraine President denies there was pressure, and Trump releases the partial transcript showing that nothing happened..
  • September 26– Adam Schiff is selected to lead the impeachment investigation over the Ukraine Whistleblower’s allegation. The investigation is based on the alleged “quid pro quo” arrangement, under the belief that it is an impeachable offense that Trump would use his office to get a foreign country to investigate a political opponent because it interferes in an upcoming election.
  • October 3– By now Trump, the Ukrainian President, Ambassador Volker, and the partial transcript of the call emphatically deny that any quid pro quo took place. Adam Schiff makes a “mafia-like shakedown” threat to Volker that he is “making this much more complicated than it has to be” with his refusal to tell Schiff what Schiff wants to hear: that Trump’s actions would have been perceived by Ukraine as forcing them to investigate Biden. Liar Adam Schiff’s secret hearings, such as this Volker one, involve attempts by him to block Republicans from asking questions and denial of witness’ right to counsel. Republicans are not allowed to call witnesses for any of the hearings. Also on this day- days after Adam Schiff said his colorful dramatization of Trump’s phone call was just a parody, Nancy Pelosi claims that Schiff was directly quoting and none of it was at all a parody.
  • October 8– White House gets it together and sends a letter explaining why they don’t have to cooperate with Democrats’ subpoena’s. Simply put- since Democrats are not making this a full impeachment investigation (in which case Republicans would also have subpoena power), then their subpoenas are invalid since they do not have the authority to send them, lacking an investigation for which the subpoena would relate to. And a bunch of other stuff, but unlawful use of subpoenas by Democrats is the biggest takeaway.
  • October 15– Joe Biden’s son says that he would not have been at Burisma in the first place if his father were not Vice President Joe Biden. Thus, confirming a bit about the Ukraine-Biden corruption narrative.
  • October 17– We learn that the alleged “quid pro quo” that by legal standards could never have actually happened because Ukraine never knew about the aid being withheld was actually tied to investigating what happened in 2016, not Joe Biden. Democrats declare that this is an admission of Trump’s guilt and he should be impeached, forgetting that they originally wanted to impeach because Trump was allegedly forcing an investigation into Biden, and forgetting that threatening Ukrainian aid over an investigation of things a political opponent did in 2016 is exactly what multiple Democrat Senators did in 2018. Forgetting that Obama asked Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election back in 2016. Forgetting that Joe Biden claimed his threat to withhold aid was related to corruption, just like what Trump said his reason for withholding aid was about.
  • PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE: Republicans won’t pester the Democrats about their hypocrisy, and if Trump is impeached Republicans won’t rightly demand Democrats be impeached for their similar behavior, and won’t rightly demand that Biden be disqualified for running for President for having done the same thing.

Got all that? Are you all up to speed? Time for my various screeds, written as news was breaking over the past three weeks.


Joe_Biden-creep-pjmedia

Someone explain to me why Democrats don’t want this guy investigated anyway? Warren’s in the lead, the media loves her, and the candidates have already attacked Obama many times while Biden’s only standout qualification is that he was with Obama. Image from PJ Media

Democrats threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine if they did not investigate the 2016 election. And apparently Trump’s thing with the Ukraine aid was ALSO over the 2016 election. Apparently it’s horrible when Trump does it but it’s laudable and brave when Democrats do it. Oh right- Democrats wanted to withhold aid because they thought Ukraine had dirt on Trump, whereas Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate something that helped Democrats. That makes all the difference in the world! You’re a hero if you withhold aid to help Democrats, but you’re impeached if you withhold aid to help Republicans. I’d also like to point out that there STILL was no “quid pro quo” because as Rep. Ratcliffe points out, the Ukrainians kinda needed to be AWARE that there was something going on for it to work! To quote Ratfliffe, it is “legally impossible” for their to be a quid pro quo if the other party has no freakin’ idea it’s happening!

How do you force someone to do your bidding if they don’t even know it?! They didn’t know their aid was missing. Seriously, how many kidnappers make the ransom demand without saying someone was kidnapped? Because that’s thematically what Democrats want us to believe Trump did.

Oh, and I’m getting ahead of myself by forgetting one small detail- TRUMP NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON TELLING UKRAINE THEY’D GET THE AID IF THEY COOPERATED. So now we have the kidnapper forgetting to even make the ransom demand!

obama_stern-face

I uh… I’m not comfortable with the way he’s looking at me… I think I might be on his hit list. Either a drone or my laptop would explain that strange buzzing I hear… Image from evil.news

Moreover, the investigations into 2016 that the media now cries “see? Quid pro quo even if it isn’t what we said it was!” over were actually linked to corruption in general in Ukraine- would the aid be used as it should or just to support a corrupt government? So Trump tethering the aid to fighting corruption is perfectly legitimate, because that’s what you say BIDEN did when he withheld aid to get Ukraine to fire the “corrupt” prosecutor and you say he was GREAT for doing that!!!! So again, liberal, your narrative has it the Democrats are wonderful people for doing what you want to IMPEACH Trump for doing! What next- will you demand Trump be impeached if he uses a drone to kill an American citizen without a trial or due process like Obama did?

The only difference between what Trump did and what Democrats did is that Trump’s actions hurt Democrats while Democrats’ actions helped Democrats. Thus, by your own measures, it seems simply being a Republican is an impeachable offense. That analysis is further validated by how the Washington Post reports you were plotting to impeach Trump since before he even took office. “Not a Democrat” is an impeachable offense.

Oh, but it gets even better! We also learn that “Not a Democrat” means you have no legal protections. Even House Democrats say they have an open impeachment inquiry and under House rules the Judiciary Committee has oversight over such matters, Adam Schiff prevented a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee from being involved because he was not on one of the three committees Schiff approved.

Worse, Democrats can hold these unlawful tribunals in secret where only Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, where Democrats can spread lies about what goes on behind closed doors to make it look damning to their enemy (can you really trust Schiff to be honest, he didn’t even have to lie about this but did anyway!), and where eventually they can close off their secret investigation by holding a secret impeachment vote, or perhaps hold a general vote to impeach claiming it was based on the fabricated lies from the secret hearing that the public believes are true thanks to the Left’s lies, before passing it on to the Senate. Trump will never face his accuser as you charge him with high crimes based on the secret whistleblower who was actually a Democrat operative, we now know, and who apparently lied about everything based on what we do know about the events. Schiff even tried to make it so that Republican members of the approved committees would not be allowed to ask questions! So… conducting the interrogation in secret, wanted to stop sympathetic people from asking questions, and didn’t allow a lawyer to be present. Does that really sound “Democratic”, liberal? This is what fascism looks like. But he’s supposed to be fighting it!

Deep-State-Robert-Mueller

Mueller 2.0: This Time, He’s Handsomer (seriously- Schiff has a better face and better teeth, I’ll say that much for him).

I think it’s Mueller Probe 2.0 myself. An unstoppable investigation with unlimited funds and power, the deck clearly stacked in favor of Democrats who claimed going into it that there was ample evidence Trump colluded with Russia… and then nothing comes from the Mueller Probe. So now, Democrats are trying again. Only they get to call witnesses; the media only reports their side of what happened in the secret tribunals as the truth. They don’t even want Republicans to ask questions of the witnesses that ARE called. And yet, after over two weeks of these kinds of hearings, Democrats have NOTHING. Again.

A partisan liar claims something happened, a secret partisan witch hunt lies to the public without actually showing its proceedings, and finally they plan to impeach the legally elected President they promised to impeach pretty much the day he won the election. Does that sound “Democratic” to you? Is that the kind of people you want running your life, liberal? Look at the 2020 Democratic Debates- these are the people that want to run YOUR life. These are the people that will decide if YOU have too much wealth and pay too little in taxes. These are the limousine-riding, jet flying people YOU want telling YOU and poor minorities to starve in total darkness in order to reduce your carbon footprint. These are the people that want to send police door-to-door to YOUR homes confiscating your weapons. But as you know liberal, these are the same racist police who massacre blacks, so now you want the Party of secret tribunals and liars to be in a position to cover-up more police shootings as the officers implement their agenda. Think about that for a moment. Do you truly care about minority communities? I suppose not…


I’ve made mention of the media being in cahootz with Democrats above, how the media guarantees that only the Left’s narrative on impeachment will be heard. Well, aside from the usual “they’re all Democrats” factoid (and how some refuse to believe statements by people involved solely because those statements match what Trump says), here’s some more evidence. Parroting of Democrat talking points. The DNC issues a statement, and “trusted journalists” parrot the statement verbatim while pretending it’s their personal take on the situation. I guess when journalists say they’re trustworthy and fair and accurate, they only mean in relation to what the DNC tells them to say, that they hardly deviate from that script. In which case I concur- they are fair to the talking points, balanced to the talking points, and repeat accurately what the talking points say. They just lie about it being their own view and it being the truth.


It’s rather baffling at first, that House Speaker Pelosi would be shocked that Trump was rude to her. She spends all her time blasting him and encouraging an impeachment of him, then expects him to be nice to her and is surprised he isn’t. Yeah, right. That’s not the first time either that Pelosi lied about what happened in a meeting that she “stormed out of”. Now, for a real account of what happened, ask this guy.


I saw headlines from leftwing outlets saying that “whiny Republicans” were complaining about the Democrats violating impeachment process. Some outlets said that it was just tradition Democrats were violating, not the rules. Others say Republicans only complain about procedure because Trump is clearly guilty and they want to distract from that. If you’ve read up to here, you know that one’s way off! So Fox News analyzed how this is actually a politically good strategy for Dems, to not have an impeachment vote. That would make the hearings public, that would mean people had access to the unbiased narrative via CSPAN. People could fact check for themselves what was going on. Democrats want absolute control over the narrative.

I’ll speculate here- maybe that is the lesson they took from Mueller, that his silence and the lack of leaks from active members of his staff meant that Democrats lost the narrative war, so they decided to control everything now with the impeachment probe. Control, control, control. They plotted to overthrow Trump before he was in office, they are holding secret hearings where they control the narrative, their 2020 candidates talk about ways Democrats will control your life and your money. I suppose that’s why a majority of Democrats favor socialism- clearly they value the Stalin model, and are already implementing it with impeachment while their candidates promise more.


616px-Kurt_Volker_U.S._State_Department

Amb. Volker, image from the State Department. I expect my Kurts to be bald.

Expanding on the October 3 Volker testimony: Volker kept saying that Schiff was mischaracterizing the situation. Schiff kept saying “if they learned aid was withheld, then would Trump’s investigation request get more significance” and Volker kept saying that is not what happened. Schiff kept pushing the hypothetical, because we know he’d use a “yes” for that to mean a “yes that’s what happened”. But Volker continued denying to the point where Adam Schiff, quote the man himself, gave a “mafia” type statement with “Ambassador, you’re making this much more complicated than it has to be.” Funny, just two days before I heard someone say the same thing: it was an episode of Charlie’s Angels in which some mob guys were walking a blackmailer out into the desert. Hear from someone who witnessed Volker’s testimony- it cleared Trump… again. Despite everything clearing him, Democrats still rely on the third-hand Democrat whistleblower who heard things that other people told him they heard, even though all firsthand knowledge shows nothing happened.

 


They want a secret impeachment hearing, no votes held, and are known for lying about what they have and what they will find (collusion with Russia that Mueller debunked but they still claim otherwise, Democrats parroting NPR lie about Ukraine call transcript, Schiff lying about the whistleblower). And they want that before the 2020 election. Democrats don’t believe anyone in the primary field can beat Trump, so they figure just impeach him.


How about an anonymous source accusing someone of a crime, followed by not allowing the accused the right to defend themselves, while demanding the accused gets the death penalty. How about THAT for a threat to Democracy? Democrats don’t even want the whistleblower to appear to Congress, they just want “written testimony”. I’m starting to wonder if there even IS a whistleblower, if it’s not just Democrat lawyers in a backroom sending out letters pretending to be whistleblowers. If Democrats have such an open and shut case against Trump, why are they opposed to voting on impeachment, to having each one of them sign their name to the idea? Why are they opposed to letting Republicans mount any kind of defense or argument? If they’re on the right side of history and have all the facts, how can the Republicans possibly win in an impeachment hearing? The only time you need secret trials sentencing people to die is when you have NO evidence for it and just want to remove someone in your way. Trump is in their way.


Mitt-Romney-CNN

Egad! He looks like someone ironed Mueller’s face! From Getty Images, obviously.

Don’t let the fact that I mocked Democrat views on Republicans by my remarks in the opening let you believe I’m not annoyed with Republicans. It sounds like the NeverTrumpers are having a field day right now. Everything they’re doing right now is why I voted for Trump in the first place- they’re letting Democrats and the media get away with bullying and lying about one of them. They have less spine than an invertebrate. Maybe they’re too scared or too stupid to realize, but if they let the Democrats get away with Kavanaughing Trump then Democrats will just do that to ANYONE they don’t like. They’ll know it’s a winning strategy. So those pathetic little gutless worms squirming about media scrutiny right now will easily be stomped out of existence by the Democrats in the next elections. Part of that though will just be due to the Republican base being too busy vomiting in disgust at their pathetic leadership.

 

It begs the question though- what do people like Bill Kristol and Mitt Romney think they gain? It’s a term that’s gone out of favor, but they’re basically Judas Goats. A “Judas Goat” is an animal that’s used to lead other animals to the slaughter, while the Judas Goat itself is not slaughtered. As you see by the media salivating over Mitt Romney, the same media that tried to Kavanaugh him back in 2012, Mitt Romney gets to survive if he leads his party to the slaughter. Same with Bill Kristol- he lost his magazine, but he still is warmly welcomed in MSNBC’s studios. When you see your alleged shepherds dining with the wolves, you should really reconsider who you are putting your faith in.


By the way, listen to a REAL whistleblower and listen how liberal heroes Robert Mueller and Peter Strzok attacked him, as did MSNBC and CNN who called him a “CIA Leaker” (whereas Fox News protected him). Moreover, the whistleblower is being represented by a CIA establishment lawyer, exactly the opposite of what would happen if he really was a whistleblower. And note that while Democrats protect their Ukraine “whistleblower”, they were nowhere to be found when this REAL one exposed CIA misdeeds under President Obama and was JAILED for 23 months!


On Sept. 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, saying, “This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella.”


We have mutual legal assistance agreements with Ukraine and Russia, so even if Dems think Russiagate and Bidengate are partisan, if Trump is legitimately concerned on these issues they warrant a legitimate investigation. Or are these things only legit when Dems have an accuser who no one can backup and has a story full of holes and contradictions, like Dr. Ford and their anonymous Ukraine Whistleblower?


Khrushchev-Remembers-Back-Cover

Millenials think they’re too smart to have to listen to their elders anyway.

Democrats used secret testimony from anonymous individuals to impeach Trump, and are denying Republicans and Trump the ability to mount a legal defense, and they are and the media have been caught straight up lying about what happened, and when they aren’t lying they’re saying you’re an evil subversive if you challenge their narrative. For all of you good communists who don’t think your party will deny you a right to defend yourself, I remind you that Nikita Khrushchev once lamented out many good communists met with a similar fate. Secret trials, no legal defense, some committee makes a judgment and you’re dead. All you’re allowed to do is sign a confession admitting to the crimes, and right on cue to make this a perfect parallel Jimmy Carter told Trump to do exactly that.

 

You wonder what liberals mean when they claim the Supreme Court is too Conservative, you wonder why liberal Senators write to the court ordering them to rule the way Democrats want them to rule on a case, you wonder what kind of judges Democrats would stack the court with if they get power? Look at what they’re doing to Trump. Look at what they did to Kavanaugh, or even with their “no fly no buy” list where an anonymous accusation can prevent you from buying a gun or flying on an airplane and you would not be able to challenge it. They want the kind of Supreme Court judges who would overturn the whole idea of due process. They want Supreme Court Justices who’d uphold the determination of a secret meeting by Party officials that concluded someone needed to lose their position or die. If you let this happen but find you can’t keep up with their daily changes on what is and isn’t acceptable (remember- it was acceptable for Obama to have Ukraine investigate Trump’s 2016 campaign, and acceptable for Democrat Senators to order Ukraine to help investigate) then you too might end up being sentenced by one of these secret committees, knowing an appeal to the Supreme Court would be futile.


MSNBC speculated that impeachment of Trump would lead to impeachment of Pence for the same corruption, opening the path for Pelosi to be President. Hey, didn’t I say that last year?


Bye bye 6th amednment! So Dems want to violate Due Process, have laws violating 1st Amendment (NYC) and now are in the process of violating the 6th Amendment. Also raises a good point- why did no one care about the security of Clinton’s accuser when he was impeached? Why is it only now that people say Trump is threatening violence or whatever?


Shocking poll from USA Today shows that maybe all but 4% of Democrats support impeaching Trump. The poll shows that 44% of people surveyed support impeaching the President. Assuming Democrats would get the usual 48%ish support, that means that 4% of Democrats polled do not support impeachment. I suppose that’s the real story. But as you see in the article, the survey was kinda small and the details about the Ukraine issue that USA Today provided when talking about the poll were severely flawed. So even with a mildly doctored poll, USA Today STILL can’t show all Democrats backing impeachment.


I speculated in an earlier post that Trump might’ve used this whistleblower thing as a political gotcha. I forgot to take into account the blind partisanship of Democrats. I suppose I didn’t learn my lesson from the Mueller Report, because despite what it says Democrats STILL claim Trump colluded with Russia even after they spent two years telling us that Mueller would have the final word on collusion.

If under President Obama, the laughably partisan Intel Community changed guidelines on whistleblowers so that all you had to do was say you heard an anonymous source tell you something in order to become a whistleblower, and then a registered Republican whistleblower went to a Republican Congressman with his complaint, and then the Republicans there helped the Republican whistleblower file the complaint, and then a Republican or at least anti-Obama Inspector General said that the Republican whistleblower complaint was horrifying, and then the Republican Congressman whose office helped write the complaint subpoenaed the Obama Administration for it while claiming they never saw it, and then said the Obama Admin was obstructing justice by not turning over the complaint even though Intel Community guidelines STILL had it outside the ability of the Director of National Intelligence to turn over the complaint to Congress (because the complaint was about someone not in the Intel Community), what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if the Obama Admin released a transcript of the phone call the Republican whistleblower complained about and nothing he said about it was true?

The media would pounce on the Republicans. The media would say they’re not fit to be in office. They would say it was an assault on Democracy. There might even be demands to purge Republicans from the Intel Community, claiming they were too hyperpartisan and a threat to national security. Democrat ranks would grow from this blatant effort as Democrat politicians piled on Republicans and the media gave every last one of them a microphone and free airtime to attack Republicans.

The problem is- in that hypothetical above, it was the Trump Administration as the target, and Democrats doing the whistleblower stuff. So instead, Democrats say that what the whistleblower complained about was hidden in the transcript- you have to be as “smart” as a Democrat in order to read what was happening. And in case you weren’t that smart, Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff (CA) and Democrat propaganda outlets like NPR LIED about what the transcript said, lied about the actual wording by claiming that when Trump explicitly asked for a favor it was to investigate Biden when really the favor, as is clear in the text and word order of the transcript, was to investigate interference in the 2016 election. It wasn’t even easily misinterpreted, basically the transcript said “Do me a favor, investigate these guys involved in 2016. Ukraine Prez and Trump babble on and on and on and then Trump finally says oh yeah, you should look into Biden ordering one of your prosecutors fired.” That’s not what NPR or Adam Schiff said though. They lied.

And after the transcript that I had predicted would vindicate Trump came out, Democrats and the media started screaming even LOUDER. With Obama, it would’ve been open and shut, not even Republicans would’ve been saying impeachment anymore.

Speaking of Obama- the general premise has been that Trump asking Ukraine to investigate a 2020 election opponent is an impeachable offense. Well, Obama in January 2016 asked Ukraine to investigate the Trump Campaign. Why was that not impeachable? Democrats STILL say Obama led a “scandal free” administration, even though in their own words Obama committed an impeachable offense!


Vince_McMahon-prowrestlingstories-Chris_Murphy-gstatic

The guy on the left is Connecticut Resident Vince McMahon. The guy on the right is either Vince McMahon cosplaying as an early-stage Gwyllm Griffiths from “The Sixth Finger” or Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (D). I’m staying away from Connecticut. McMahon image from prowrestlingstories, Murphy image from gstatic.

As I mentioned, Democrats who aren’t lying about what the transcript says claim that just because Trump didn’t threaten action against Ukraine if they failed to investigate Biden, that doesn’t mean the threat wasn’t implicit. One such Democrat being Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). Murphy, who seemed to feel it was a startling revelation that mass shootings involved guns, so perhaps we can forgive him for not spotting what I’m explaining, is saying that Trump implicitly threatening Ukraine is horrific and we need to impeach him now. Except that (as I said earlier) Murphy EXPLICITLY threatened Ukraine. Murphy TOLD Ukraine that Democrats would stop supporting them if they helped Trump with investigating Biden.

Think of that- the Biden corruption matter is really an internal issue in Ukraine, where they may have let their officials be influence by the Obama Administration to the detriment of their own legal system. So Chris Murphy threatens their national security by saying Democrat support for things like military aid against Russia would disappear if Ukraine continued its internal corruption probes. Then Murphy says that Trump is evil for even implying that Ukraine might face any kind of consequence. And then Politifact lies to you and says Murphy didn’t really threaten anything, even though the statement was apparently explicit, and even IF it were implicit then by Democrat’s own standards Murphy would STILL have threatened Ukraine, yet the partisans at Politifact want you to believe them (and the partisans at Google who love to make Politifact the top search result).

So, Trump did nothing wrong. Democrats are currently and in the past doing everything they accused Trump of doing and MORE. Yet, this is not blowing up in their faces. Why? Because when CBS/ABC/NBC dedicate their morning and nightly news and talk programs to impeaching Trump, when CNN and MSNBC parrot Democrat talking points 24/7, when Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, Daily Beast, Daily Kos, The Root, Salon, New Republic, New York Magazine, New Yorker, National Journal,  Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun and countless others spend their print and online issues spreading Democrat propaganda, when the majority of blogs are leftwing and seemingly the majority of forum and comment section users are leftwing, when the Right has no freely accessible TV channels and maybe like 4 actual news channels that you have to pay for and a minor blog presence and a pathetically small number of online and print news outlets, when Twitter bans people on the Right and when Google skews its searches to favor liberals and when Facebook makes sure only DNC-approved news stories are seen, well… you can see why it’s hopeless that the truth would come out in all this. Republicans need a lot more than the truth on their side. Remember: the Jews had the truth on their side too in Nazi Germany, fat lot of good it did them.

So with Democrats creating this partisan impeachment cloud, after already establishing that Trump and his supporters are racists responsible for mass shootings (bogus narrative debunked in my “of the gun” posts), do you think the truth will be of much help to you? And that’s why I should’ve realized that even though Trump is 100% clean in this latest fake scandal, it wouldn’t matter. One of the rare times I can agree with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: Republicans have no defense, but not for the reasons that he thinks.

Why The Furor?

What a stupid question. They were mad they lost in 2016. They had money riding on Hillary winning- when Democrats win, their cronies win. Remember Solyndra? Siga Technologies? Remember the Clinton Foundation? But they also thought they had won the culture wars and won dominance; their heads were shoved far up their… uh, bubbles.

Also, it distracts from the Democratic candidates who want to tax everything whether or not the Constitution allows it- Guns, speech, travel. Their policies will keep the poor in the poor house and give them a hefty amount of middle class company down there (but socialism kinda calls for eliminating the middle class so…).

Since Democrats can’t stop the socialist wing of their party from taking over and ruining their chances at winning in 2020, they’re trying to take out Trump so that the public will have no choice but to vote for them. Or, to borrow the phrase they used to smear John McCain, “if you can’t paint yourself as someone to run towards then paint your opponent as someone to run from”.

October_15-Democratic-Debate-Heavy

Run.                        Image from Heavy.com

 

Spirit Of The Gun

Bee_Gees-Night_Fever-yt

New and improved post, now with 400% more links to videos with Bee Gees songs.

It’s Saturday night and I’m finally finalizing this week’s post. No, the delay is not because I had a fever (as a rebuttal to the Bee Gees’ assertion: I should NOT be dancing, yeah). You must think I’m lazy and have no life. Yes to both, but the biggest reasons for this delay have been A: processing my reaction to this week’s news and B: assisting the venerable founder of this blog with some external activities.

Jumping right into it, I have to ask the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominees: why do they think saying 40-60% of the country is racist and likely to murder three or more people with a gun is a winning strategy (They’re saying whites are racist, this country is racist, Trump supporters are racist, and the shootings come from that racism, they even blamed the Dayton shooting on white extremism, thus they’re saying whites are likely to commit mass shootings. CNN seems to believe that’s where ratings come from, while MSNBC goes so far as to badly photoshop some lies together and say whites are evil simply for their skin color (though I wonder if according to this speaker Muslims will have to be set free from what their fellows in the Middle East are up to, or if blacks like the person speaking need to be set free from what blacks are doing worldwide from Africa to Chicago))? Why do they think singling-out whites as the most violent race in history, the only violent race apparently (contradicted by the fact that statistically speaking a black male is twice as likely to be a mass shooter as a white male- African Americans do about 25% of the mass shootings which is twice their share of the population while whites do 50-60% of mass shootings which is on par with their share of the population. So far in 2019, 51% of mass shootings were done by African Americans and only 29% by whites, meaning that African Americans this year are FOUR times more likely to be a mass shooter than a white person), will let them win against Trump?

For that matter, why do liberals believe hating one particular race and telling them they are evil for even being born is the path to ending mass shootings? The Left loves to say about inner-city youth (black kids) that they shoot each other and generally engage in higher rates of criminal activity than the rest of the population because we are racist towards them; they decide that there must just be something wrong with being a non-white. They see this and feel angry inside, and vent that anger in negative ways since they have no other recourse.

White-Night-CNN-debate-July30

Anyone else see the problem with this ragtag group of politicians saying all whites are racists? Image from CNN

So what does the media think happens when a white guy sees Presidential hopefuls Joe Biden and perpetual spellcheck error Pete Buttigieg declare that all whites are racists (and sexists according to Biden, because the context of his remarks kinda revealed he was saying whites are the only race in history who ever treated women unfairly… so I guess he thinks various women deserved acid in their faces and thinks FGM is perfectly fine. And ignores statistics showing Black and Hispanic men two or three times more likely than white men to be violent towards women, and ignores rap music in general), that they should be persecuted solely by the color of their skin? Does the media believe the white person seeing this, and feeling powerless because if he dares speak out he’ll be banished from society as some combination of sexist/racist/whatever-ist monster (Ostracizing/firing/whatever has happened and been threatened), doesn’t get angry at the lies being spread and his helplessness about it? Does the Left think whites don’t have the same emotions as blacks? So, why wouldn’t a white person react the same way a black person would? Why does the Left believe that their racism towards and oppression of whites (not even allowing them jobs  (sorry that the link for “them” is to a forum discussing an article, but the article itself was taken down)) wouldn’t create anger and violence anymore than such things do in the black community?

If we are to take the Left’s claim of intelligence at face value, then the logical conclusion is they know damn well that whites feel the same way as any other race. This is a deliberate ploy at dividing America. While black communities are in shambles, they are success stories as far as Democrats are concerned. Just look at their reaction to Trump’s Baltimore tweets as an example- they think crime-ridden Baltimore is a success I guess because it has high amounts of welfare recipients and has consistently voted Democrat for 50 years. Since they know their model of hating blacks into submission worked in the 20th century, and since whites have cost them elections in the past, they appear to be working on hating whites into submission for the 21st century. Bonus points for making sure each race hates the other so that they’ll never unite against the Democrats dividing them. Naturally Democrats will ignore their own words and claim Republicans are the real dividers, and their vast propaganda arms turn an impossibly weak deflection into a rock-hard defense.

By bringing up their propaganda arm I accidentally swerved my opening into some stuff I had written earlier in the week, so I shall take advantage of that situation and present ir to you.

Mega_Man_X-mmkb

If Trump actually said X, it would be a different story. You’d be reading about a crazed overweight dude charging into Area 51 through a hail of bullets to steal an android. Image from MMKB

Scenario A: Trump says x. The Left decides he meant y. The Left says he is racist for saying y. The Left says he is supporting people who believe in y. Someone who really does believe in y feels emboldened by what the Left is saying about Trump and goes to shoot people based on y. The media blames the shooting on Trump, who never said y to begin with.

Scenario B: A liberal says x. The Left decides they meant x. The Left says they are wonderful for believing x. The Left says they are supporting people who believe in x. Someone who really does believe in x feels emboldened by what the Left is saying about x and goes to shoot people based on x. The media blames the shooting on Republicans and Trump and whites, and the Left says you are despicable for daring to say their rhetoric about x was even remotely related to the shooting… and then says more people needed to die and one of the people already shot deserved it.

When both scenarios kind of (El Paso wasn’t entirely a white nationalist thing, barely at all actually if you bother to read the manifesto as examined later) happen in the same weekend, the Left focuses on Scenario A and ignores Scenario B and even seems to ignore the victims of Scenario B. In fact, according to Karl Rove they seem to triple-down on Scenario A.

So let me ask you liberal who says Trump wants mass shootings to happen: who was out fundraising after the Dayton and El Paso shootings? Not Trump. Who, according to your own narrative about the El Paso shooter’s motives which he and I both dispute (as examined later), lied about what Trump has said until someone believed you and launched a hate crime? Not Trump. Which 2020 candidate was fundraising off of a massacre that her own supporter caused? Not Trump. Seems a lot like the Democrats are the ones enjoying the shootings.

This Was A Mess

I have A LOT I want to say. A lot of it, the stuff about Democrats, would get me into legal trouble. Basically, this past week I’ve been seeing different statements and reading different articles and typing out rebuttals of each because I was so furious after seeing them I couldn’t really do much else. That naturally led to a bit of a mess- now I have a bunch of rants that say the same thing but they debunk different sources and different people. So what do I do? I’m out of time this week to sort through them all, compress them, etc. So I’ll just do the lazy ol’ bulletpoint format that I used in the Google search posts.

To get the ball rolling, have some headlines about mass shootings in general.

  • “Why are white men carrying out more mass shootings?” -UK’s Sky News
  • “Mass Shootings: Guns, White Men, And Mental Health” – Medium
  • “Opinion | We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem” – New York Times
  • “#WhiteSupremacistTerrorism: Hashtag Takes Over Twitter After Latest Pair of Mass Shootings” – The Root
  • “We Have a Gun Problem, and We Have a White Supremacist Terrorism Problem” – Washington Monthly
  • “Gun Culture Has Always Been About White Supremacy” – New Republic (I wonder what they think of rap music and blacks in Chicago shooting each other…)
  • “Our Country Isn’t Fixing The Gun Problem Because It’s White Men Who Love Guns” – Bustle (maybe they and New Republic should get together and take a look at the latest rap hits and Chicago shootings)
  • “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group” – Newsweek
  • “Majority of mass shootings carried out by white men” – Philadelphia Tribune

Notice a pattern? How they blame whites for it all? How they make it look like only white people do mass shootings? I also noticed when hunting for these headlines that early reporting on the Dayton shooting also said that the socialist anti-gun Warren supporter was a white nationalist.

Here’s the thing- whites aren’t actually doing ALL the mass shootings as the headlines would have you believe. It is mostly male, true. But when it comes to race, as you saw way earlier in this post whites do about 50-60% as would be consistent with the white share of this country’s population. Blacks on the other hand do 25%, which is TWICE what their share of the population is. So basically- a black man is TWICE as likely to be a mass shooter as a white man. The media wants to judge it all on race, very well, do so but do it fairly. That’s not going to happen though- how could it when 32% of Democrats think you’re a racist if you are white and criticize a non-white politician even if said politician is doing something wrong?

obama_stern-face

I mean, he IS half white, and he did use attack dogs like police during Civil Rights protests. Image from evil.news

Democrats say that Trump is behind El Paso. Actually, if you read the guy’s manifesto, you’d find he was an anti-corporate anti-immigrant ecoterrorist pseudo-socialist. Do you know what his reasoning was for murdering Hispanics? It sounded exactly like what PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA warned about in his Grammy-winning audiobook “Audacity of Hope”. He was worried that the incoming Hispanics were reducing wages and straining our social safety nets, just like Obama warned. And liberals gave Obama a GRAMMY for saying that. So liberals gave Obama a GRAMMY for white nationalist rhetoric that led to a mass shooting. Cory Booker said the shooter had written a “white supremacist manifesto” which means, according to Booker, Obama was spreading white nationalist talking points. Cool. Also of note, the shooter said he was worried the media would blame Trump for his views. Notably, he also said that some Democratic Presidential candidates might be blamed for his views. Footnote here I guess, but some of the other items in the manifesto sounded like Joe Biden might’ve said them. Might as well also say here, according to Sen. Cory Booker, Obama really is a white nationalist. (Yes, the guy had some stuff about not wanting to mix white and non-white populations for reasons of biodiversity, but A: isn’t diversity a good thing? and B: you give Spike Lee awards for glaring at mixed race couples).

Drawing The Lines

Lost in this dense patch of anger below is my true position. I don’t personally believe Biden or Obama or Trump or Cortez are really to blame for what the crazies do. I agree with Fmr. DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazille (I’m starting to like her lately, or maybe that’s just because she seems like a moderate compared to the insanity that is the Dems’ Presidential race and The Squad). But then we get the weight of the Democratic Party pushing this narrative that it’s all the Right’s or Trump’s fault because they say things

Robert_Culp-theconsummateculp

Does anyone else think “Culpability” would be an awesome name for a biography of Robert Culp? Image from TheConsumateCulp

Democrats disagree with. So, I end up spending this post showing how Democratic rhetoric played the major part in the El Paso shooting, and how the Dayton shooter was entirely the Democrats’ fault. Because I learned when I was three years old that if a bully comes at you, you don’t run or cower in fear and surrender, you knock them on their ass. What better way than by showing Democrats that by their own standards of culpability, they’re responsible for both the Dayton and El Paso mass shootings.

 


Now that I’m at the part where I just have disconnected rapid-responses to things that annoyed me, I figured for the sake of organization I’d go with these nifty horizontal lines. Because I tried the bulletpoint thing and it looked awful.


As the Left screams for gun control, a story this past week shows how a good guy with a gun stopped a mass shooting. This is actually very horrifying though: El Paso and Dayton were the ones we heard the most about because El Paso was clearly tied to Trump, but there was one in California that the media ignored I guess because like with Chicago shootings just don’t happen in liberal places (or maybe because the guy was targeting  BOTH political parties). Then there was this attempted shooting that was thwarted in Missouri that I led with, but then there was ANOTHER shooting in Texas that was thwarted! That means we almost had FIVE mass shootings in 10 days!


I mentioned above in my screed that the El Paso shooter was kind of a Lefty. So was the Giffords shooter, who the Left keeps saying was a rightwing fanatic.


NYT got mad that Trump said the beliefs of one of the mass shooters needed to be addressed, after spending time attacking the beliefs of the other mass shooter. Because the Dayton shooter was a hardcore NYT-style Leftist and the El Paso shooter had a couple of beliefs in common with what we’ve heard from President Trump.


I mentioned before how early coverage said the Dayton shooter was a white nationalist. Before anything was known about the Dayton shooter, Buttgeek (it’s quicker to type, and actually started not as a homophobic slur nor an insult against someone who I’m scared of because he has a funny name as Obama might’ve assumed if Mayor Buttigieg weren’t white, but simply because I was mentally mispronouncing his name and misspelling his name all over the place when trying to read and remember it) was out saying that he was a white nationalist. He was dead opposite of that, unless Buttgeek thinks Warren is a white nationalist. I personally don’t think so, white nationalists generally don’t lie being Native American blood. It’s like saying a Sicilian has African blood.


Khrushchev-Remembers-Back-Cover

Instead of linking to his book as reference for good communists disappearing, I thought I’d put a picture of the back cover here instead.

Democrats are going after Fox News’ Tucker Carlson for supposedly making white supremacy mainstream. Tucker Carlson has yet to do that. But he does say a lot of stuff Democrats don’t like. So that’s why they want to call it white supremacist, because that means it is hate speech, and the Left wants hate speech outlawed. Ending the First Amendment would make things rather easy for them: anytime you say something they don’t like, they call you a racist and then send you to Alaska (closest we have to Siberia). The public would never miss a racist. Of course, you folks on the Left need to be careful because a lot of good communists disappeared too under that other government you love who did that.

Along that same line, Francis Ethelbert (points to whoever catches what that play on Robert’s name references) O’Rourke says that his lie (at the upcoming link) about Trump “can’t be open for debate.” Now why would that be if his statement was factually correct? Well, liberals do say they’re smarter than us, so he knows his statement is a lie and doesn’t want to be humiliated for spreading it.

CNN outright said you are killing people if you don’t say what Democrats want you to say. NYT wants things like the El Paso shooting to fall under the veil of terrorism, which would mean anyone spouting rhetoric like in Obama’s Audacity of Hope could be labelled by the Left as a terrorist, as if calling people who aren’t Democrats now racists/sexists/bigots isn’t bad enough.

Finally for this section, Washington Post said “There is no excuse for supporting this president” in a headline, even though the one shooter is a socialist and the other could have been quoting Obama and Biden in his manifesto. I didn’t click on the article, but maybe there was an arrow pointing to a picture of Obama from the headline.


Dem Presidential Hopeful Castro said that the El Paso’s shooter could’ve been written by one of Trump’s speechwriters. Actually Castro, his manifesto could’ve been done by your former boss Barack Obama. So doesn’t that make you a white supremacist for working under Obama?


As the Left runs with gun control here and demands we end the 2nd Amendment (glad they’re out doing it, they used to say you were crazy if you said they were trying to repeal it), we see protesters in Hong Kong wishing that they had a 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from a ruthless government. Meanwhile, a CNN host was yammering on about how Venezuela with its severely oppressed citizens couldn’t understand why we’d want guns to defend against such a thing.

So now we’ve had in the wake of the weekend shootings assaults by the Left on our First and Second Amendment rights, and yet they’re baffled by why we’d want to keep guns. Even though liberals themselves decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights out of fear of President Trump. I’m beginning to understand a little bit of the liberal mind I think- between all these conflicting positions there just isn’t ROOM in their heads for reality.


Amidst the calls for gun control, 4 are dead in a California stabbing spree. Now, liberals define a mass shooting as 3 or more people killed. 4 died from this knife, so now that mass stabbings are a thing will we have knife control like in England?


David_Arquette-wwe

Image of a big nope from WWE.com… come to think of it, I’d better get some sleep if I’m going to be awake for their PPV in less than 12 hours.

Remember how I took the time earlier to outline how whites have overall done about 54% of the mass shootings in the U.S., how certain other groups have done a totally disproportionate number, and how this year whites have done just over half the mass shootings this other group did? Well, this actress here said that she is ashamed to have been born white because of the white people shootings. Which begs the question- does she believe that blacks, who for this year are four times more likely to be a mass shooter than whites, should be ashamed for being born black? Whoops. Personally, I would be ashamed to have the last name “Arquette” after David was  given the WCW World Heavyweight Championship.


A CNN contributor/TV personality decided to advocate murdering more than 40% of the United States’ population. One of their contributors, a board member of the National Iranian American Council, someone who was given an award by Harvard and ate a human brain, decided that the best solution to the Left’s woes was a Final one. That link between Trump and white nationalism that liberals like him lied to create (Trump denounced white nationalists during his campaign, in his Charlottesville remarks as you saw above, and after the El Paso shooting, and probably some other times I’m not remembering too), he decided to take it further and say anyone supporting Trump is a white nationalist terrorist who deserves to die. I suppose he’d know about terrorists, he often lies to cover for Islamic ones. So glad CNN has him on its crack team of advisers. Genocidal maniacs, because he is directing this at white people, are welcome in Don Lemon’s safe space, at least based on what Don Lemon has said in the past.

Bee_Gees-Jive_Talkin-yt

Anyone else tired of all this jive talkin’; feedin’ us lies?

Again, part of the problem we have here is what the Left actually believes white supremacism is. They say Trump’s mention that some illegal immigrants are criminals is racist. It’s correct, below I cite data on it, but it’s racist to say I guess. And Cory Booker in a section quoted somewhere in here (the one where he speaks with “moral clarity” about Trump, even though Booker has less moral clarity than Goebbels because A: Booker supports Hitler-lovin’ Farrakhan and B: Goebbels probably knew that he was lying while I doubt Booker is smart enough to know even that much) notes that Trump allegedly referring to lousy countries as “shithole” countries (that remark was never actually proven to have taken place, it just became part of the lore, like the father of modern Progressivism’s praise for KKK thriller “Birth of a Nation”) makes him a racist.

Even if Trump said it, he’s right. Liberals spent years telling us that the “women and children” swarming our border are fleeing shitholes. They just didn’t use that word. But when Trump did, suddenly according to the Left it became racist to say that the people at the border were fleeing bad places. That totally undermines asylum claims too, because Democrats are saying it’s so wrong to claim that Central and South American nations are in bad shape that it’s racist to do so, so how are we to believe people when they come here requesting asylum? Our laws don’t allow you to request asylum from paradise.


Congressman Gutierrez said to Trump “stop calling people like me breeders”. At least when liberals distorted the Charlottesville thing they still used something Trump said. Gutierrez is just making up random stuff now.

As to his hypocritical outrage, I will say this: you don’t care either Gutierrez otherwise you wouldn’t be part of the party demanding money that could help stop that violence goes to people who look like you. You want to call Trump a racist, but here you are supporting a party that will take money from those blacks shooting each other that you mention and send it to help people like you enter the country to strain our welfare programs that the inner-city Chicago blacks rely on, as Obama said.


Playing right into the hands of the white supremacist groups feeding off the anger and fear whites are feeling (as I started this post off describing), MSNBC confirms that whites are the only race who have ever done a bad thing in the history of the world. All other races are divine gods living in peace. They believe that being white means being evil. Meanwhile, MSNBC says Trump is the one trying to divide the races against each other.


Some guy from The Atlantic told CNN that Fox News gets its ratings by “making white people scared and angry”. I don’t watch Fox News. I’m too cheap to pay for it. For my job and this blog I watch you a lot though. And I do get scared and angry when I listen to people like him. Remember that long rant I went into where I applied Leftwing justifications for urban youth violence to white people? I didn’t ONCE say Fox News was where they were getting their info. I said they were listening to liberals like that guy from The Atlantic. People like him and CNN and MSNBC as noted just above saying whites are evil. They are doing more for white nationalists than Fox News ever could.

MSNBC-White_Female_Anchors

For a network that attacks white people so much, they sure do love white women. Image from an MSNBC tweet, criticism from the Left.

It’s easy to say the Left hates whites as a generalization, but hard to prove if no one on the Left says anything. But EVERYONE on the Left is saying it; they’re providing the evidence; THEY’RE providing the grounds for the fearmongering! Serwer might as well have said “Discovery Channel’s shark week gets ratings by making people scared of sharks”. We are perfectly justified in fearing our predators. And by the way, with all the times CNN and MSNBC say whites are evil, it sure seems like they get their ratings by making non-whites scared and angry. Even if Fox News did do that for whites, why is it wrong when that happens but right when CNN and MSNBC and I guess you too do it? What do you call MSNBC claiming that Trump wants to “exterminate Latinos” (I watched the clip- that wasn’t an accident, and she knows that a lot fewer people are going to see that off-air apology than saw the on-air remarks)?


Francis was out saying that mass shootings and immigrant children in cages don’t happen unless the President is out “giving people permission”. So… O’Rourke said Obama gave permission for Sandy Hook and Pulse Nightclub and Gabby Giffords, and Obama is responsible for putting kids in cages. Well, if he thought for a moment about his gaffe he’d realize that’s what he was saying. By the way Beto, wasn’t some of this going on in your home state while you were in Congress? What did you do about it? The El Paso shooter said he had his views long before Trump came around, which happens to be around the same time you were a Congressman. So were you giving him permission? By your own logic, you must have been.


Chris Rock instagrammed out a kind of darkly humorous image about the shootings, basically saying that everyone understands all mass shooters are white. I’m not going to attack Chris Rock over that. While 25% of mass shootings are done by people who look like Chris Rock, which is really about 10% of the population, and 51% of the mass shootings this year were done by people who look like Chris Rock, the liberal media only mentions race for white people. Also, Chris Rock likely did not see a picture of the Virginia Beach mass shooter from two and a half months ago. He was a black dude.


This next little spiel is tangential to the shootings. Saying Trump is a racist for claiming that illegal immigrants include criminals in their midst opened the door for this line of examination. But let me head this off right here- I’m NOT saying all Hispanics are criminals nor that the victims of El Paso deserved it, because I know how this works liberal. I will make the next assertion and you’ll decide I said something completely different no matter what I say, even if you have to lie about it, just like you did with Trump at Charlottesville. You’re an idiot.

Bugs_Bunny-Slick_Hare

Bobby’s white face annoys me. It drips with sanctimonious hypocrisy. He just LOOKS like a stupid rich white twit pretending to be relatable, his face says it all. Plus it vaguely reminds me of a loser frat boy I was forced to room with, who probably makes four times as much money as I do because that’s how the world works. So instead have a picture from Slick Hare used in an earlier post showing why guns are not appropriate at all venues.

Anyway, Robert Francis O’Rourke decided to repeat the claim that “immigrants” (don’t know if he meant illegal or legal or all, but probably illegal) are more law abiding than U.S. citizens. The Left says they’re DREAMers, the Left says they deserve billions of dollars and free healthcare, liberals like Elijah Cummings complain about their treatment. And what of our OWN citizens? The Left does not care. Cummings is out advocating on behalf of illegals while members of his own district are in his own words walking around zombie-like because of the drugs they’re strung out on. The Left wants to import more and more despite Obama telling us only 13 years ago that this will destroy the black community. The Left says of American citizens that they’re more likely to be criminals while illegals are morally upstanding citizens (libertarians say that as well, but the facts show that illegal immigrants are much more dangerous than the average American). MS-13 consists of divine beings according to Pelosi.

The Left also says American citizens are lazy drug addicts who need the illegals to do our jobs because we’re just too stupid and incompetent. You heard that Senator’s remarks? He basically said we should just abandon the American people and now only represent illegal immigrants! And as you saw with Cummings and Pelosi, and anyone who wants open borders despite Obama’s warnings, it’s now the Democrats’ party line that the average American is to be abandoned in favor of illegals.

Oh, one more thing, about that Senator- he was Biden’s buddy Senator from Delaware when Biden was in the Senate.


Something interesting I ran into, might as well note it here. The El Paso shooter was kind of a Leftist, the Dayton and Bernie Bro shooters were totally leftists, and while some victims statistically may have been Trump supporters the media never reported on a Trump supporter being killed by a liberal. Even though that actually did happen.

The story apparently is one of neighbors provoking each other. However, key to this is  the murderous liberal’s defense. Part of the defense is that the Republican neighbor was provoking him by placing pro-Trump signs in his yard (the killer had anti-Trump signs in his). So basically, having a pro-Trump sign can be used as justification for murdering someone, or at least that’s part of what they were going for. If a liberal is sufficiently triggered by a pro-Trump sign, then you should give them a lesser sentence if they murder the guy who put the sign up to deliberately provoke the killer. Blaming the victim. Now yes, the Republican guy may have been an asshole, but the liberal shot him, waited a few seconds standing over the motionless body, then shot him again. Then tried to claim all that was self-defense spurred by years of provocation, such as having a pro-Trump sign in the yard.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press, alleged purveyors of unbiased reporting, found that there was no political motive whatsoever in the shooting and dismissed any statements to the contrary as just being from some rightwing nuts. So I guess the killer himself was a rightwing nut, despite his anti-Trump signs and pro-liberal positions and all that. He must have been, Associated Press said so!


That’s It For Now

Saturday Night became Sunday Morning. 7am. And this post is looking pretty dern long, so I’ll just bow-out here and pick up the other hunk for Wednesday.

Elizabeth_Warren-vox

Senator Warren gives a white power signal after her white supremacist supporter in Dayton kills a bunch of people causing her and her allies to make a bunch of money. Image actually from Vox and taken months ago, and signal would more likely be the black power gesture.