AOC Got Henged



I love making up words and I bet you’re wondering what “Henged” means? Perhaps, a typo.  But no, “Henged” stands for Elizabeth Heng, an American-Cambodian woman.

Heng is all the things (except one) that AOC admires.  She’s a minority (Asian), a woman of color, she’s young (34), she’s a political activist and she’s an immigrant. Here’s AOC’s problem, though.  Heng is a conservative who believes in free speech. Yeah, that’s a big problem.

Because Heng is a political activist and isn’t afraid of being politically incorrect, she gets called many names. AOC has called her a racist but, of course, playing the race card anymore is usually what a person does when they have nothing to say.  As Heng put it, “The only people inciting violence are the radical left, who can’t defend their ideas with facts, so they resort to horrible personal attacks, and as we’ve seen, even death threats…I put out an ad challenging AOC’s socialist views, and she came back and called me a bunch of names. That should tell you everything you really need to know about the face of socialism, right now, in our country.” Now, that’s what I call getting “Henged.” 

There’s a growing group of women of color who are becoming political activists in this country, none of whom AOC would consider for inclusion in The Squad. Here’s a short list:

Candace Owens, a Black activist who founded Blexit (the Black exit movement from the Democratic Party)

Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic member of the House; a Samoan from Hawaii who is currently running for President in 2020.

Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Hispanic housewife from Wisconsin who is a voice for the Hispanic community and its position on immigration.  She has said that, “The desperate people of Central America who come to our border are not actually refugees. They are economic migrants. They are lining up to come to our country because of our free enterprise system…They come here for capitalism. They are fleeing socialism.”

…and, of course, Elizabeth Heng.



As the political season rolls on, one thing hasn’t changed at all. Democrats are still calling for no borders, no ICE and no DHS. One has to ask the question why. Even if they believed strongly in that position, why are they staking their election chances on a loser, something that a large majority of voters strongly oppose?

Bill Maher, although a TV personality, is very politically astute. On his show, he cautioned Michael Moore that radical positions like open borders risk alienating voters, thereby handing the 2020 election to Trump. Eric Holder, AG under Obama, agreed saying, ”Democrats need to understand that borders mean something.” With respect to open borders, the really basic level of understanding that’s necessary is quite simply this:

No borders = no country

As Ronald Reagan said, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” 

All the countries of the world have borders, without exception. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most restrictive in terms of immigration, China and Saudi Arabia would be a 10 and the United States would be a 4. Yet, Democrats want to reduce the 4 to a zero! Why? 

Well, there can really be only one plausible explanation.  They don’t want America to continue to exist as a sovereign country. 



The problem is that the Democrats actually want all those immigrants to come here; all those immigrants from failing countries with failing cultures, bringing their diseases and their criminality with them. With open borders comes other serious issues too, like drug smuggling and human trafficking.

These immigrants, of course, are not educated and speak very little English. So, exactly what do you do with them? Here’s what you would have to do: house them, feed them, provide them with healthcare and educate their children (just for starters). By the way, how many of the 1.3 billion people who live in Third World countries do you think would want to come here if we extended such an open invitation to them? Maybe, all of them?

              “Europe belongs to the Europeans.” – the Dalai Lama

After 2020



People have asked me what our country would look like if a democrat were to be elected president in 2020. Nobody knows for sure, however, based on what candidates have promised publicly, including the Green New Deal, I would have to say that it would look something like this:

Traditional forms of energy (gas, oil and nuclear) will be eliminated. As Joe Biden said, “ I guarantee you, we are going to end fossil fuel.”

Combustion engines will be banned. No cars, no airplanes (except private jets for the elite).

Gun confiscation (except for private security for the elites).

Restrictions on free speech, including government control of the internet.

Open borders; no ICE or DHS.

Capitalism will be replaced by socialism.  The economics of the corporate, globalist state will not include free markets.  The State will control everything. As Rashida Tliab said, “We need a political revolution” to “completely transform” America.

Healthcare for all, including illegal aliens.  Free healthcare for life for children of illegal aliens.

Taxes will go up…and up, especially for the Middle Class. The wealthy needn’t worry too much because their existing wealth is virtually tax-proof because of non-profits, foundations and non-taxable trusts. Besides, they make large contributions to the campaigns of the congressmen who write the tax code.

Universal Basic Income – including for people who don’t want to work.

Religious people will be discriminated against.

Climate change will be deemed to be a National Emergency.


Of course, that’s far from a complete list. For example, American cities will increasingly resemble San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City. People from Third World countries will continue to migrate to this country, and in much larger numbers.  However, those of any financial means will increasingly leave the country. Within a generation or two, there will be no middle class; only the elites and a servant class. America, itself, would look like a Third World nation, incapable of taking care of the hordes of poor, mostly uneducated people who would then live here.

As for the 2020 election, you need to understand that Trump is simply a bogeyman. The original game plan was for Hillary to succeed Obama. That didn’t happen, of course. The new game plan is to convince the public that they need to move on from Trump so that the country can then be radically transformed. That’s how political revolutions are born.


If there was any doubt before, there isn’t any now.  The Democratic Party has gone full-blown socialist. Here’s the headlines:

Headline: Socialist Takeover of Democratic Party Great News For Republicans

Comment: All the candidates at the latest Democratic debate were on board with the socialist agenda. As the article from Newsmax said that the candidates are against “the very existence of borders, language, and culture.” They were even saying that Barack Obama had been too conservative. Well, Barack Obama was a liberal, so what does it make them?

Headline: GOP Group Hits Back After ‘Racist’ Anti-Socialism Ad Triggers AOC

Comment: The ad in question featured a scene from the Cambodian genocide.  The narrator of the ad, a Cambodian-American women, says, “This is the face of socialism and ignorance.  Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism?” AOC responded by saying, “What you just watched was a love letter to the GOP’s white supremacist case.”

Comment: Doesn’t AOC know that both parties are run by the elites? If she doesn’t, perhaps she should talk to Gregory Meeks, chairman of the Black Caucus, who has said publicly that the socialists are funded by the liberal white elites.

Headline: 2020 Democrats Agree: Trump Is responsible For El Paso Shootings

Comment: However, Steve Scalise says that Trump is no more responsible for El Paso shootings than Bernie Sanders was for his own shooting and Donna Brazile says that Trump had nothing to do with El Paso, Dayton shootings. Further, in a recent poll, the public says that the cause of mass shootings is mental health problems and not lax gun laws.

Comment: Of course, no one wants to talk about the Dayton shootings because the shooter was a self-professed leftist and a Warren and Sanders fan.

Headline: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Predicts That Miami Won’t Exist In A Few Years

Comment: Well, in 2006, Al Gore predicted that the world would end in just 10 years and AOC’s predictions are based on the same faulty science as Al Gore’s (only 13 years later).

When people start campaigning for president, there’s no telling what they might say.

Bill Maher Says



So, just after the USC poll came out (see my last post), Bill Maher was on MSNBC with Joe Scarborough talking about the latest Democratic debate.  I love Bill Maher although I don’t agree with some of the things that he says.  Regardless, he’s an intelligent, funny guy.

Here’s some of things that Bill said:

Bill eviscerated the far-left as a “cancer on progressivism.”

Bill said that the Democratic Party is sabotaging itself by moving too far to the left and as a result Trump could be re-elected.

Bill said,“I think we underestimate how much America has been choking on political correctness for 25 years” and that is one of the things that attracts people to Trump.

Then, Bill went off the rails somewhat.  Check this out. So, Bill thinks that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, right? Yet, Bill likes Elizabeth Warren of all the Democratic presidential candidates. So, just when I’ve just said that Bill is an intelligent guy, he goes and says something that’s off the wall. 

How does moving too far left and supporting Elizabeth Warren ever marry up?  In what parallel universe could this possibly happen? I guess that’s Bill Maher’s charm, though.  He just smiles at you and gets away with it.

Apparently, I need a postscript as I am getting lots of questions already. The reason that Maher’s statements appear to be in conflict with one another has to do with him being a progressive, which he freely admits to. Progressives are, in reality, socialists but they don’t want people to know that they are socialists. They are smart enough to know that elections are almost always won in the middle (ideologically speaking). So, he supports Warren who is a socialist(progressive) but wants the far-left democrats to act as if they are moderates (so that they might actually win). Hope that clarifies things.

It’s Poll Season


Yes, it’s poll season so we’re going to be inundated with all forms of information, some of which will no doubt be misleading. That’s why I hate polls (and, of course, also because they all gave Hillary an easy victory in 2016). However, polling is a fact of life so I feel obliged to report on it. So, here goes.

A recent poll was conducted by the University of Southern California and the L.A. Times.  Here’s why I don’t like this poll (and, in fact, don’t like most polls)…because they’re biased. Why? Well, because of the likely voters sampled 46% were Democratic voters, 25% were Independent voters and 29% were Republican voters. See the problem?

The other obvious bias is that the results were skewed by the voters’ assessment of opposing candidates. Obviously, a voter who likes Bernie Sanders, for example, is going to have a skewed opinion about the other candidates.

Nevertheless, despite the heavy bias in favor of Democratic candidates, the poll showed that the average voter’s ideology is closer to Trump than any Democratic candidate.  Of the Democratic candidates, only Biden was remotely close to the ideology of the voters.  If you believe this poll, Sanders, Warren and Harris have no chance of beating Trump.

Biden still leads in most polls but his lead is very tenuous.  By that, I mean that he might win if things remain unchanged.  However, one of things that could change is that the far-left candidates might consolidate their position behind one candidate.  If that were to happen, Biden would surely go down in flames.

Of course, ideology doesn’t always influence how people vote.   Some people vote strictly on party affiliation and some will vote based on a single issue…and some people will not even vote at all.  So, there you have it – the good, bad and the ugly of polls.  Can’t hardly wait for the next poll.

The biggest lie ever told is that something that is essential to all life is bad for the planet. What is it? Believe it or not, it’s CO2 – carbon dioxide.

This is not some misinterpretation.  This is not even faulty science.  This is an outright lie.  The lie of climate change/global warming that CO2 is a killer.

Carbon dioxide is a critical part of the photosynthesis process that creates life in plants. Without photosynthesis, no life would be possible on the planet. You can read up on this in any elementary science book. From the website comes this explanation of photosynthesis:

“… the process of photosynthesis which allows plants to convert light energy into usable food and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen into our environment.”

It’s a symbiotic exchange. Plants require the carbon dioxide that animals give off, while animals require the oxygen plants produce. Without photosynthesis from plants, the oxygen on our planet would run out and all human life would end. Then, the plants would die without the carbon dioxide that animals and humans produce.

A scientific study published in Nature Climate Change described the vital role of carbon dioxide in sustaining life on the planet.  They said that the planet is getting greener because of an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Greener and healthier, you understand – because of carbon dioxide. So, here’s a real simple way to think of this:

Carbon dioxide = life

No carbon dioxide= no life

This issue hit the headlines recently because of a tweet by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent supporter of the Green New Deal.  AOC said, “We either decarbonize & cut emissions, or we don’t & let people die.”  There’s the lie. Remember carbon dioxide = life. So, what does AOC want to do?  Exactly the opposite.  She wants no carbon dioxide.

Okay, so you may have found the science lesson interesting but what does any of this have to do with you, right? Well, there’s a presidential election in 2020 and many of the people who are in the running are also supporting the Green New Deal. So, obviously, they are okay with no carbon dioxide/no life.  Are you?



Out in a remote part of Elbert County, Georgia, there stands a massive monument with an alarming message.  The monument is popularly called The Georgia Guidestones.  Inscribed on the monument is someone’s vision of a different set of Ten Commandments.  The First Commandment is to “maintain humanity under 500 million in perpetual balance with nature.” Any guess as to how they are going to reduce the world population down from 7 billion to 500 million?

Well, Bill Gates does. At a TED conference presentation on reducing world population, Gates said that we have to reduce CO2 to zero. To zero. Remember, no carbon dioxide = no life. Gates even proposed a solution towards that end – vaccines, courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Just connect the dots. Green New Deal…Georgia Guidestones…and Bill Gates…  reduce world population by getting rid of CO2.

CO2, it’s absolutely essential for all life on the planet.  That’s a scientific fact. Yet, people like AOC and Bill Gates will try to tell you otherwise.  Sometimes the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell.


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist

NYC Remembers 9/11


Today, New York City held its 18th annual memorial service for the victims of 9/11. On this day, it’s good to reflect back and remember that on this date in 2001 “somebody did do something.”

It appears that Tulsi Gabbard will not be allowed to participate in the next Democratic Party debate, even though she is still running for president. That’s the result of the Tulsi Gabbard Effect once again.

Poor Tulsi, she seems to have no idea that the Democratic Party will no longer accept her. As in never. At some point, she may, of course, realize that the Democratic Party has taken a hard turn left and she is no longer welcome. However, as for now, the DNC has spoken and she is excluded from the debates.

It kind of reminds me of 2016 when Bernie Sanders got the shaft from Hillary. That’s what all the fuss over Hillary’s emails was all about (Russia collusion was just a smokescreen). WikiLeaks spilled the beans courtesy of Jullian Assange causing Hillary to seek political cover.

Here’s one of the reasons why Gabbard is persona non grata in the Democratic Party. In a recent interview, Gabbard was asked about the Party’s nomination process for president and here’s what she said:, “The whole process lacks transparency. When you see that lack of transparency it creates a lack of faith and trust in the process…People who are increasing losing that faith and trust in the government because they see a lack of transparency…What they see is that we don’t have a government that is of, by and for the people. What they see is a small group of really powerful political elites, the establishment, making decisions that serve their interests and maintaining that power while the American people are left behind.” So, the establishment doesn’t like her because she doesn’t play ball. Therefore, she will denied the same opportunity to express her opinions and affect the Party’s political platforms.

In another interview, Gabbard said, “I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country.” The rest of the Democratic Party is far left of Gabbard on this issue so she is viewed as a pariah. Gabbard is right, of course. Without borders, we really wouldn’t have a country; but then, that’s the objective of those that promote open borders. No country, that is.

The Democratic Party is no longer the party of the common man. Even minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are leaving the ranks because they realize that the Party now has a totally different political base. Jewish people may be the next bloc of voters to exit the Party due to the fact that the party is now tolerating anti-Semitism and finally the Democratic Party may soon be the party without a Tulsi Gabbard. The Tulsi Gabbard Effect ensures that 2020 will be the year that the Democratic Party fully embraces socialism. JFK is no doubt rolling over in his grave.


“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frederic Bastiat, French theorist

…well, apparently not Petteri Taalas, the head of the World Meteorologist Organization (WMO). Taalas gave an interview to a Finnish magazine which was covered in an article by The Epoch The article was entitled, “Chief of Meteorologist Organization Castigates Climate Alarmists.” The WMO is not just any organization, it’s the organization that co-created the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, of course, is the United Nation’s agency with respect to climate change (see link below for the full article).

Here’s some of the highlights of the article:

Taalas issued an “unprecedented rebuke to climate alarmists.”

Taalas said, “In parts of the globe, living conditions are becoming worse, but people have survived in harsh conditions…It’s not going to be the end of the world.”

“Taalas pointed out that climate extremists are selectively picking out facts from the IPCC reports to fit their narrative.” Taalas said that, “IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views.”

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace commented on Taalas’ remarks as follows: “The meteorologists are real scientists and probably fed up with Greta, Mann, Gore & AOC catastrophists. Good on him.”

 However, Taalas isn’t the only one speaking out lately against global warming; for example:

“Climate activists claim we face a global warming emergency that demands we replace dependable, inexpensive fossil fuels with so-called ‘green’ energy, such as wind and solar power. Not only would this starve society of the energy we need to survive. Real-world data demonstrate that there is no climate emergency! It is a manufactured crisis, created by vested interests – activists, scientists and crony capitalists – and adopted without question by opportunistic politicians, regulators and media pundits for their own interests.” – Paul Driessen

“The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – is based on models that do not work.” – Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Professor Ivor Giaever, a Nobel Laureate in physics, gave a speech in front of a group of other Nobel Laureates which was entitled “Global Warming Is Pseudoscience.”

People are even taking their frustration with global warming alarmists out through legal actions in the court system.

A physics professor in Australia was awarded $800,000 because he was unlawfully fired by his university because of his skeptical views on global warming.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) dismissed a lawsuit by climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. In its landmark ruling, the court found that there was no evidence to support Dr. Mann’s science for global warming. It was Dr. Mann’s work which Al Gore used to start the whole global warming hysteria.

Then, there’s the media which has published various articles which undermine the global warming narrative, such as:

Daily Caller – “Math Error: Scientists Admit Mistakes Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study” – November 8, 2014 

Newsmax – “New Reports: There Is No Global Warming” – September 9, 2019

Daily Mail(UK) – “Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped Into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data” – February 4, 2017

Investors’ Business Daily – “Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years of Record-Breaking Global Cooling” – May 16, 2018

Outer Places – “Bundle Up: Scientists Predict Mini Ice Age Will Hit Earth In Five Years” – December 28, 2017

The Freedom Articles – “10 Prominent Scientists Refuting Manmade Global Warming” – January 13, 2016

Newsmax – “John Casey: The Sun Has Ended Global Warming” – September 9, 2019

Natural News – “Environmentalists Are At War With Life On Earth…Total Collapse of Ecosystem The Real Goal of Climate Propagandists” – January 10, 2019

Breibart – “Study: Global Warming Does Not Cause Hurricanes” – January 16, 2019

News Punch – “Scientists Find Earth Is Cooling, Not Warming; NASA predicts Mini Ice Age” – November 19, 2018

Gateway Pundit – “Top NASA Global Warming Scientist Walks Back Global Warming Claims” – February 14, 2019

Armstrong Economics – “Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud To Increase Governmental Power” – February 14, 2019

Humans Are Free – “The Great Global Warming Scandal” – February, 2019 (based on a British television documentary)

National Geographic – “Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting As Expected” – January 16, 2018

Mish Talk – “Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling” – January 29, 2019

New American – “UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level” – February 12, 2019

Zero Hedge – “U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism” – February 3, 2017

Ice Age Now – “Most Important Glacier in Northern Hemisphere Growing Rapidly, NASA Study Shows – March 26, 2019

Zero Hedge – “Scientists Find Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice” – July 12, 2019

Hal Turner – “NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming Caused By Changes in Earth’s Solar Orbit and Axial Tilt” – August 8, 2019

The global warming change agenda is driven by the United Nations and the former head of its climate agency admitted that the Paris Climate Accords were not about science but rather about politics. Yes, it’s all about the politics, just as Paul Driessen said. Of course, some people will always respond with a “he said, she said.” However, as Stuart Chase once astutely observed, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”


Here’s the link to the article mentioned above: