Early Round Up Star Date 2021.245
Sep 2, 2021 Opinion, Political
1. The indoctrination of our children continues as activist teachers impose their views on their students in order to retrain their minds. First a teacher hid the American Flag and then told her students it must be somewhere but until she “finds” it they should pledge to the other flag in the room. That flag was the rainbow flag of the lesbian teacher. She said the American Flag bothered her. I imagine if someone said the gay pride flag bothered them she would scream homophobia. In any event, she has been removed from the classroom pending an investigation. Another teacher is a member of Antifa and he has an Antifa flag in his classroom. Project Veritas recorded him saying he has 180 days to turn the kids into revolutionaries. He said that he uses fear to intimidate your kids into submission. The funny thing about Antifa is that it is full of the very fascists they allege to be against. I must admit I love when they clash with a conservative group and get the snot beat out of them.
2. Not a real doctor Jill Biden said if we listen to the science we can keep the schools open. I imagine Jill does not understand that the federal government has no say in whether or not schools in states stay open. Schools are under the control of the state government and if a state wants schools open then they can be open. Jill wants everyone in school to wear masks despite the science that tells us children are the least affected by Covid and that masks cause harm to the children’s development. You would think a former school teacher would know that. She did say that
“Parents, I want you to know that your child, your school and your family are at the heart of all that my husband, Joe, is doing to help our country defeat and ultimately recover from this pandemic”
I bet that your kids are at the heart of what he is doing like sniffing their hair and touching them inappropriately. If it were anything else he would recognize the science regarding children and Covid.
3. Tucker Carlson went after Joe Biden and his push for gun control. Carlson pointed out that Biden armed a terrorist organization with hundreds of thousands of rifles, handguns and machine guns. Wrap your head around that. The same guy (and his party) who have been working to disarm you for decades had no issue with giving firearms to people who have a record of murdering anyone who does not agree with them and/or who does not follow their way of life. Americans have a Constitutionally protected right to KEEP (own, possess) and BEAR (carry) arms and we should be allowed to own the same arms we paid taxes for the Taliban to own. Biden and his band of terrorist enablers will spend more time trying to disarm the American citizens than they ever will the Taliban. But remember government, the Taliban numbers fewer than 100 thousand. We are nearly 200 million strong. The armed population of the US constitutes the largest fighting force in the entire world. Be careful when you say you will take our firearms because you will have to actually take them and that will not be easy. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass…
4. Joe Biden, the alleged Catholic, is upset that Texas enacted a law banning abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Biden immediately claimed that the law violates the Constitution. The word abortion is not in the Constitution and the federal government has no say over it BUT it did so anyway in a twisted ruling by the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. The issue was a 10th Amendment issue and should have been left at the state level (as an aside, this is true of marriage as well – all gay or straight). The right to keep and bear arms is written in the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Constitution does not grant us rights or give us rights, it protects rights we have as a result of our existence. All rights predate the Constitution and therefore the US government cannot take them away. Since the Second Amendment states that the right shall NOT BE INFRINGED, then any law or restriction on that right is null and void. Yet Biden at the federal level and state legislatures pass and impose gun control laws each and every day. We are told that they are allowed to enact “common sense” gun laws. When a state has some onerous gun laws the SCOTUS rarely takes the case and the state claims it has a right to regulate the ownership of guns. So tell me, if the government can regulate the right to keep and bear arms and that is not a violation of the Constitution (according to liberals like Biden) how is it unconstitutional for Texas, or any other state, to have “common sense” abortion laws? Texas basically said, OK the SCOTUS has created this right our of thin air and any attempt to ban it completely is deemed as an assault to a right that is not actually in the Constitution BUT we can regulate that alleged right. Joe Biden denounced the Texas law almost immediately after it was signed by the governor. He waited nearly all day long to talk to America about the 13 US Service Members he allowed to be murdered in Afghanistan. Funny how liberals are OK with violating your rights and rationalizing their actions but when a “right” they like (they make up a lot of rights too, like the right to housing, to food, to free college etc) they scream about the Constitution that they routinely ignore. More states need to act like Texas and do what they want while ignoring the federal government.
5. Social Security is a scam that has been in existence since FDR imposed it upon us. It is not now what it was intended to be and has morphed into many things including disability insurance. It was supposed to be a way for workers to put away money for retirement BUT the government actually taxed those working to pay for those who were retired. The scheme worked well when there were 16 or so workers for every retiree but now there are about 3 workers for every retiree. You couple this with the baby boomers all retiring and there is not going to be enough money to pay for the program. The real reason though, that Social Security is running out of money is because in the 1960s under LBJ the government decided to take all the money collected each month for Social Security and put it in the general fund and issue a government bond (an IOU) for the money. Then the money was spent on other things politicians felt like wasting it on. Now the fund cannot pay retirees with what is collected each month and needs to cash in the IOUs. But the government is 30 TRILLION dollars in debt so it can’t pay the IOUs. It has to borrow money to make ends meet. The government has been trying for years to make SS whole by increasing the percentage of income taxed, by raising the amount of income it is collected on (but not the amount higher earners get when they retire) and the government has floated ideas like means testing. This means if you make too much money in retirement (if you were responsible and saved) then you will not be eligible to get SS. There are also ideas about taxing the rich (this eventually hits everyone) to make SS whole again. They took what YOU paid in. They spent it and left an IOU and then they want to tax YOU more to pay off the IOU. What a great racket. SS should not be a plan at all and should be abolished (continue to pay out to those who are drawing it and those over a certain age who will retire and draw it until they die off) but if we will not do the right thing and get rid of it (can’t do that, politicians like to use it as a club to scare old people into voting for them) then the money collected should go into an account that belongs solely to the person who paid in and cannot be touched by government. Federal workers have a plan called the Thrift Savings Plan. They elect to put a certain amount of money each pay into it and it grows over the years and they have a good retirement. If we forcefully take the money of workers for SS why not invest it in the TSP? Allow all workers to elect which funds their money goes in to and they control it. When they retire they will have a larger return on their money and they will not get screwed out of the money by the government (and can pass it to their heirs). I imagine the federal government will never allow this to happen because many workers will have greater wealth in retirement and they will not have to worry about bills. Government won’t be able to scare them for votes. But if I were in charge this is what I would do. For disability I would impose a small tax on imports to fund that. Make others pay the freight, so to speak.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, biden, gun control, lies, taliban
Was Trump Right About Breaking The Law?
Mar 31, 2016 2016 Election, Opinion
Donald Trump is apparently in hot water over a comment he made about a woman getting an abortion. Trump was asked if abortion were made illegal and a woman got one should she be punished under the law? Trump stated that if she broke the law by getting one she should be punished.
The media reported this as Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished.
This hypothetical question was designed to trip him up and it is obvious by the way it was reported that the media deliberately deceived people.
Trump was correct in his answer. If abortion were made illegal then anyone getting one or performing one would be in violation of the law and would be subject to punishment. For what its worth, Trump handled this question terribly and could have done a much better job considering the media and all liberals (and a lot of Republicans) are out to get him. For a guy who is supposed to be media savvy he blew this one.
The reality is that anyone who knowingly does something illegal has broken the law. People can argue if, in this scenario, she should get in trouble and that is for a court to decide. No matter what the outcome she broke the law and if found guilty should be punished.
If a drug dealer sells illegal drugs to a junkie they are both guilty of a crime. No one would argue that the buyer was a victim in this scenario…
[note]The interviewer also asked Trump if the man who impregnated the woman should be punished and he said no. In most cases, getting someone pregnant is not against the law. But if the guy took her to get the abortion and was part of the process then I think he should be punished as well. The liberal media folks discussing this had a hard time grasping any of it and indicated that Trump had some kind of double standard when it came to punishing women and men.[/note]
Trump’s answer has nothing to do with abortion. It is simply a matter of the law. In the case of the interviewer however, this was about abortion and finding a way to trip up Trump.
I guess Trump just has more regard for the law than all those folks screaming about what he said (or what they were told he said). To those folks the woman did nothing wrong in obtaining an illegal abortion.
Sort of like how they all find nothing wrong with a woman running her own private email server and risking classified information, in violation of the law.
As an aside I saw an interview (it could have been excerpts of a speech) with Clinton and she was all over Trump for what he said, you know, women’s issues and all that. Keep in mind Trump never said he would make abortion illegal, just that if it were (part of the question) the woman should be punished if she got one. Given Hillary’s blatant law breaking and her flagrant disregard for the law it should not be surprising to learn she would not punish a lawbreaker.
I think Trump changed his opinion five times in the last day but that is neither here nor there. The damage by the media assassins has already been done.
They will continue until they can get rid of him and clear a path for their lawbreaker to win the presidency.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, Hillary, law, media sleeze, trump
Hobby Lobby Ruling Escalates Liberal Lies
Jul 2, 2014 Commentary
The Supreme Court ruled that private corporations who have religious objections to certain types of reproductive medications cannot be compelled to provide them. The liberal left has its collective panties in a wad over this and it has been out in full force lying about the decision.
The left claims that the ruling means women will be denied birth control. Let us look at this claim.
First of all, the Hobby Lobby ruling did not deny women access to any drug. The ruling only determined who had to pay for it. In other words, the Court did not deny women access to any medication and only stated that if they wanted those medications they had to pay for them with their own money.
Second of all, the ruling only concerned a certain class of reproductive medications. It dealt specifically with those medications that induce abortion and can terminate life.
In fact, Hobby Lobby provides 16 of the 20 reproductive drugs required under the Obamacare Law. Given that fact it is disingenuous to claim that this ruling denies birth control to women. The company involved does not deny birth control to women it only refuses to pay for drugs that induce abortions. Hobby Lobby provides the contraceptives but not the abortifacients. You see, a contraceptive, by definition, is a drug that prevents pregnancy. Once a pregnancy occurs any drug taken to end it is not a contraceptive, period.
But the left keeps harping on this subject as some kind of attack on women. Hobby Lobby pays a minimum wage that is nearly twice the federal minimum wage and offers great benefits which includes health care plans that cover 16 contraceptives ranging from condoms to hormones to implants.
It just will not cover the abortifacients. Women however, are still free to use those drugs so long as they pay for them with their own money.
And that is all the ruling says.
That, of course, is not good enough for liberals who believe that everything should be provided for everyone. With regard to reproductive medication liberals believe that anything a woman wants to use must be paid for by the employer or the government. We must, according to them, stay out of their wombs and mind our own business but at the same time they want others to pay for their medications.
My good friend Kender McGowan made a great point. Given the liberal position on providing a woman with whatever birth control she wants and also paying for that control Kender asks; if a woman decides to keep her clothes on as her form of birth control does her employer have to pay for her wardrobe?
A great point indeed.
The SCOTUS ruled correctly when it ruled that a privately owned corporation could not be forced to violate its religious beliefs. Birth control is NOT a right. Freedom of religion is.
To make matters worse the liberals are arguing that women must get birth control (something that is NOT required to live) while ignoring the lack of medical treatment and life saving medications our veterans deserve.
While liberals argue for free reproductive medications veterans are dying while waiting for care that is actually life saving.
And unlike reproductive medication, the care veterans deserve is care they actually earned.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: abortion, hobby lobby, liberals, lies, obamacare, religion, scotus
Make No Mistake, Obama Wants To Confiscate Firearms
Jun 11, 2014 Second Amendment
Barack Obama will tell you he supports the Second Amendment and he will tell you he does not want to confiscate your firearms but he is a liar. Barack Obama is lying about firearms related incidents by telling people that these incidents are off the chart. Well they are but they are off the bottom of the chart. The number of firearms related incidents is down and are now at their lowest in over 20 years.
[note]Obama says he wants common sense laws for gun control. He wants what he thinks is common sense to be imposed on a constitutionally protected right. Interestingly, he is against any restrictions on abortions. It is all about control.[/note]
Even Washington DC has seen a decrease in murders by firearm.
Interestingly, these numbers are down despite the huge increase in firearms ownership and the large stockpiling of ammunition. These numbers are down even though many states are shall issue states and some do not require a permit to carry a firearm either open or concealed. These numbers are all going down.
Except in places like Chicago where gun control is alive and well. In that city people are murdered with firearms all the time. They are murdered with firearms that they are not allowed to have.
How could that possibly happen and how could places where the Second Amendment is not infringed upon have lower firearms related incidents? How could DC have a drop in firearms related murders?
More guns equal less crime. Criminals do not want to try bad things in places where someone else might have a firearm and might actually use it. In DC the Heller decision seems to have given criminals pause.
The availability of firearms in free (or freer) places keeps crime down.
It is not gun control and it is not any kind of scheme where people are restricted as these schemes always lead to more firearms related crime. Once again, look at Chicago (and for that matter any place run by liberals where gun control exists) and you will see what happens.
Criminals simply do not obey the law.
Barack Obama is upset that Congress will not work on gun control measures so he has decided that he will do all that he can through executive action. Obama will circumvent Congress and the Constitution in order to infringe on a constitutionally protected right.
And his actions will not involve registration and background schemes. No, Obama will look for a way to ban and confiscate firearms. He has already given support for that kind of law.
Obama praised Australia’s gun laws that took effect after a mass shooting. Australia banned most types of firearms and confiscated them. There are still plenty of firearms related incidents in Australia (how can that happen when gun have been banned and confiscated) but that is beside the point. Obama praised Australia’s gun law and part of that process was the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Obama would love nothing more than to confiscate all firearms but not because he thinks that will make us safer (people are not safer in so called no gun countries). He wants to confiscate guns because they are the means to resist tyranny.
Obama knows that he could not push too far (though the compliant media and testicle lacking Congress let him get away with too much) so long as people have the means to fight back. The standoff at the Bundy Ranch showed what well armed people can do to tyrants from the government.
The article in National Review is spot on when it indicates that Obama cannot praise the Australian Law without praising the mass confiscation program.
Obama envies the Australian government because it confiscated firearms. He wishes he could do the same and might just try some variant via executive action.
We need Congress to reel Obama in and stop him from his lawless acts. He is far more dangerous to this country than citizens with firearms.
Citizens who, by the way, will never allow their firearms to be confiscated…
Tags: abortion, australia, confiscation, gun control, lies, Obama
Hillary Clinton – Eugenicist
May 10, 2014 Political
“I prefer the word Progressive, which has a real American meaning, going back to the Progressive Era at the beginning of the 20th Century.
I consider myself a modern Progressive”
Hillary Clinton, 2007 Democratic Debate.
The American Progressive Eugenics movement started in the 1920s, promoted by the American Left. Undesirable races were discouraged from breeding, most ‘genetically fit’ contests were held at County fairs, and those with low IQs were STERILIZED – All told, some 60,000 Americans were STERILIZED by the decrees of state governments.
Do you think it can’t happen today – sorry people, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on it – it’s LEGAL.
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for the crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice
Those laws are still on the books – hidden away with nondescript names such as ‘Hygiene Laws’.
Quotes from Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of the American Progressive Eugenics Movement:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
“The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,”
“[blacks, immigrants and indigents]…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”
“The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind,”
“Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…”
”Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems”
Remember, this is the founder of Planned Parenthood – and HILLARY CLINTONS HERO!!!
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision… when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.” Hillary Clinton
What EVERYONE has forgotten is – the Nazi Nuremberg Racial PURITY Laws were inspired by those regulations!!!!!
Hitler STUDIED the American Progressive Eugenics movement!
The Liberal Academia has SANITIZED the historical record and has REMOVED all references of the word ‘Progressive’ from the Eugenics main stream historical records – so now Hilary can use the bright shiny ‘Progressive’ label without the Democrat SHEEP realizing what’s happening!!!!!
Tags: abortion, democratic racism, Hillary, Margaret Sanger, planned parenthood, progressive