The Bouncer Socialist Gutter Rat From Vatican City Set to Embark Upon a Scold America Tour

The social justice activist in the miter hat and rimmed glasses from Vatican City will be visiting the United States next month to scold the West generally, and Americans particularly, on every issue from immigration, to wealth inequality, to climate change.  Pope Francis makes his fellow community organizer, President Barack Obama, look like a mere amateur at the old game of rabblerousing.  The Pope will even get to address our United States Congress.

Why do the billion people in the world who claim Roman Catholicism as their faith continue to put any stock into what this man from the slums of Argentina has to say?  Who does this man think he is, coming to our country, to address our legislature, and scold us on social issues?

Pundits widely expect Pope Francis to challenge Americans on a wide variety of topics.

The pope comes to the Capitol on Sept. 24, where he will be the first pontiff to ever address a joint meeting of Congress. He will also appear on a West Front balcony to greet the public.

There’s little doubt that Francis, who in a speech last month in Bolivia spoke out against unchecked capitalism before an assemblage of groups representing the poor, will seek to send a similar message to lawmakers representing the richest nation on earth.

“Whether it’s climate change or hunger or taking care of the poor, the Pope’s message is really the embodiment of what Catholic social teaching has been about, historically,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who traveled to Rome to witness the pope’s installation two years ago.

The pope was invited by the most powerful Catholic in Congress, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio., who will be accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, another Catholic, in familiar seats behind Francis on the dais. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, also a Catholic, will occupy a prominent seat on her party’s side of the aisle.

So who is this man from the Vatican that the oligarchs and elites in Congress are geeking out over?  Prior to taking up the cloth, young Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was a bouncer in a nightclub.  It’s true, says USA Today.  And here you thought he was just a nice, angelic-looking old man in a little white cap.

After becoming a priest, Francis grew to prominence within the Argentine church.  But he lifted nary a finger to help the innocent during that nation’s long and bloody Dirty War in the 1970’s and 1980’s, according to the smartypants Progressives at the New Yorker:

As in Spain during its Civil War, when the Catholic Church openly sided with Franco’s inquisition, and in Rome during the Second World War, when the silence of Pope Pius XII was understood as a tacit admission of Vatican acquiescence with the policies of the Axis, the role of the Argentine Catholic Church in the junta’s anti-Communist campaign was queasily intimate. In official discourses, one of Bergoglio’s predecessors, Archbishop Juan Carlos Aramburu, openly sided with the military’s stated need for a purge, in which freethinking priests and nuns were also killed. For the most part, the Church remained mute in public about what was going on. But some priests were actually directly involved in the repression, by all accounts, with military chaplains going so far as to bless the drugged bodies of suspected guerrillas marked for execution as they were loaded onto military planes, from which they were then hurled to their deaths, unconscious, over the Rio de la Plata.

Father Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, must have the good Lord on his side.  Only someone with the hand of Providence upon him could go from bar bouncer, to state’s accomplice in a Dirty War, to now being Pope.

Francis even now gets to come to the United States and deliver a speech to our Congress.  I’ll bet you all a hot fudge sundae right now that Francis will harang our good country about illegal immigration, and exhort us to welcome the newcomers with open arms.

What a load of crap.

I say we should tell Pope Francis to quit being a hypocrite.  Lets make him a deal:

Turn the Vatican into a sanctuary city, Pope Francis.

You heard me.  Sell the gold, sell the treasures, sell the land the Roman Catholic Church owns.  Tell the bishops and cardinals to quit eating caviar and drinking Dom behind the curtains and take up bread, water, and gruel.

The Vatican can move in the Syrian and African asylum seekers, if the Pope has so much solidarity for their plight.  We can even send him some of the illegal immigrants who have invaded our own country.  If Francis did this, then someone might actually believe a word he said.  Until then, the only people who will keep going along with the storyline put out by the Vatican are illiterates of the third world, and aging Irish/German stock on the West Side of Cincinnati.

You can bet if someone threw open the gates of the Vatican and forced it to become a sanctuary city for a day, Pope Francis and the cadre of oligarchs who surround him would quickly discard their love for asylum seekers.  What the elites don’t comprehend or don’t care about is the fact that our beautiful Western civilization is being overrun by hordes of asylum seekers, resembling a scene from World War Z.

Why do Progressives like Francis hate our country and Western Civilization so much anyway?  The United States is the very zenith of civilization.  Look at our beautiful country.  Why do the Progressives like Francis want to ruin it?

Published in: on August 12, 2015 at 4:16 pm  Leave a Comment  

Rainbow False Flag: Another Fake Hate Crime Staged by Homosexual Activists

These stories are starting to become as old hat and commonplace as the obligatory sunrise and sunset times the newspaper prints daily.  We have yet another staged, and verified fake hate crime undertaken by radical homosexual activists.  When will these people learn?

The Diversity crowd has, in two or so generations, taken the United States from Camelot to Cameltoe.

This Tennessee lesbian couple’s house was burned down in 2010, with the word “queers” spraypainted on the nearby garage.  As it turned out, the whole thing was a scam.  They burned their own house down, and made it look like a hate crime.  You can read the whole story below.

What else did you expect from the bigoted looney tunes of the Rainbow Hand?  Bigots crazy enough to shoot up the Family Research Council, as one pro-gay activist did a few years back, are certainly capable of a hoax kidnapping.  A Lesbian activist from Nebraska even carved Christian symbols into her own flesh to fake a hate crime.  A waitress recently also faked an incident of intolerance for lesbians.  As we saw recently with the fracas over Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage, the true bigots in our society aren’t Bible thumping conservatives, but rather liberals.  An athlete from Canada was also attacked by the Rainbow Hand for the trifling offense of taking a selfie with Vladimir Putin during last year’s Sochi Olympics.  Locally, a gay activist faked his own kidnapping and locked himself in the trunk of a care.

Yet, the GLBT community demands accountability, vengeance, and public shaming of anyone who runs afoul of their Progressive agenda.  The double standard is obvious.  Progressives revel in double standards.

The ends justify the means, says a Progressive.  No matter what.  Lies, crimes, or ruining people doesn’t phase them an eyelash if it’s in pursuit of a cause.  Any cause.

Blatant double standards by the media when it comes to covering the Rainbow Hand are nothing new, as we have discussed before.  But let someone who is a Christian or a conservative so much as sneeze improperly in the direction of a rainbow,  it gets massive media coverage and outrage.  When members of the GLBT act up however, the media is loath to discuss it for long.

The story:

A lesbian couple was found to have faked a hate crime in order to make an insurance claim, a Tennessee jury ruled on Monday.

In 2010, Carol Ann and Laura Stutte of Venore, Tennessee, allegedly spray painted an anti-gay slur on their own garage, burned down their house, and made a claim on their insurance with American National Property and Casualty Company, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported. The couple claimed that the graffiti and fire was a result of a hate crime and blamed their neighbor Janie Millsaps.

The word “queers” had been scrawled across their garage.

The women claimed that Millsaps had threatened them one month before the Sept. 4, 2010, crime

“Do you know what is better than one dead queer?” the couple accused Millsaps of saying. “Two dead queers.”

Laura Stutte gained sympathy from her town after placing the blame on Millsaps.

“We know who wrote those threats,” Laura said. “Anyone who could go so far as to paint those hateful letters and burn someone else’s house down, they are really disturbed.”

The couple also launched a lawsuit against Millsaps.

The insurance company, however, was reportedly wary of the couple’s claim. Instead of banking in on the $276,000 the women had claimed, the insurance company took the couple to court.

Following an investigation of Millsaps, both the FBI and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation concluded that she had not committed the alleged hate crime. The insurance company even conducted their own investigation using a polygraph on Millsaps.

The jury heard five days of testimony before Senior U.S. District Judge Leon Jordan came to a verdict. The jury also rejected an accusation that the insurance company was attempting to escape paying the claim.

The couple has not been charged in the house arson. Currently, the status of their lawsuit against Millsaps is unclear.

Published in: on August 7, 2015 at 8:55 pm  Leave a Comment  

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face

13 Things You Probably Didn’t Know about Margaret Sanger: Understanding evil when it looks you in the face.

Published in: on August 7, 2015 at 8:45 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Chickens of Police Brutality Have Come Home to Roost in Baltimore

Thanks to a long string of incidents such as the one above, the streets of Baltimore erupted into violence yesterday.  And I, for one, take minimal issue with it.

Baltimore’s City Council, as well as it’s City Solicitor, acknowledged the legacy of police misconduct in Baltimore.  Late last year, city council even voted to add body cameras to every police officer, according to this article.  The Baltimore Sun published details last month about more than 100 civil suits filed by people who said they suffered injuries during arrests.  Baltimore has paid $5.7 million in court judgments and settlements since 2011.

It was hoped that the increased transparency and accountability offered by the body cameras would improve police-community relations.  Baltimore City Council was hoping to stave off a conflagration like the nation witnessed yesterday with the body cameras, but to no avail.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake vetoed the body camera legislation passed by city council however.      The reasons cited by Mayor Rawlings-Blake for axing body cameras for the police force were cost and privacy.

Baltimore has a long and simmering trail of violence by it’s police force.  You can watch a video on the long history of police brutality in Baltimore here:

Published in: on April 28, 2015 at 4:49 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Rainbow Hand is Fisting Liberty: Why Religious Liberty Laws Are an Expression of Liberty

“Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others”  – Ron Paul, Liberty Defined

You wouldn’t really know it from the typical reaction of the intolerant Rainbow Hand to Indiana’s religious liberty law, but the entire social/political row is really much ado about nothing.  Few, if any businesses have turned away customers on the basis of their sexual orientation lately, and even fewer will do so as time marches onwards.  The Rainbow Hand simply wants something to whine about to further the cause, and Indiana’s religious liberty law tossed them a huge slab of red meat for that very purpose.  Behind the scenes, the Rainbow Hand is fist pumping over what Indiana did.

The Indiana religious liberty law is precisely that: a protection of Liberty.  You have a natural right to refuse to serve someone, for any reason, on private property.  You even have the natural right to refuse service for odious, absurd, offensive, mean-spirited reasons like discrimination.

Liberty, as we all know, begins with the principle of self-ownership.  We all own ourselves, our lives, and our bodies.  We have the natural freedom to do whatever we wish with our lives, bodies, and property so long as we are not infringing upon or depriving someone else of his or her natural rights.

You are your own property.  To deny this in any way is to say that someone else has a higher claim to your life than you do.  If someone else has a higher claim to your life than you do, then that makes you a slave or a serf.  What else do you call an individual whose life is owned by someone else?

But you’re not a slave or a serf, obviously.  So you do own yourself, at all times.

You are, after all, the exclusive controller of your own life, property, and body, and no one may aggress against you unless your actions directly threaten the life, property, or rights of someone else.

“But Uncle Andy!  When you open a business, you have to serve the public!  You can’t just do whatever you want!  It’s da law!  The law says so!  The law!  The law!  The law!”

Tyrannical, Statist lies. No one cedes their right to self-ownership because they open a business. or even work for one.

The difference between refusing to make Rainbow cakes and being disallowed from tossing plutonium down the drains is easy to see. You don’t have a right to obtain a Rainbow cake. Your natural rights or safety are not endangered by being refused a Rainbow cake. The same cannot be said if someone dumps nuclear waste down the sewer. That does endanger public safety and public health, and infringes upon the rights and self-ownership of others.

I don’t have a right to go onto someone else’s property and demand they furnish me with a good or service. I don’t have a higher claim upon the life of someone else than do they themselves.

Sorry. Nobody cedes their right to agency over themselves and self-ownership just because they open a business. Even if said business is in a sparse area. You own yourself all the same, and have Liberty to do as you please until your actions deprive someone else of his rights.

You don’t have the moral right to make other people furnish you with things. It’s that simple.

I love the Statists who speak on and on about “da law.” The law in dozens of States, unmolested by the courts, says that these religious liberty laws are perfectly valid. The law is on the side of Indiana. Whatever that’s worth. So the folks tossing around lofty bleating about “the law” are rather absurd for opposing Indiana’s recent legislation on legal grounds. The law allows for what Indiana did.

The law. Ha. What is the law good for. The Holocaust was perfectly legal in Germany at the time. Slavery was perfectly legal too. Dred Scott was decided lawfully. Plessy was lawful too for a time…until magically Brown said it wasn’t. Shows you what the “law” is worth.

I’m referring to our natural and inalienable rights anyway. You don’t have the right to force someone else to furnish you with a good or service. You don’t own other people. Other people are not your property. Other people are free born and sovereign. So how can you use force and coercion to compel them to provide you with goods or services?

Answer: you cannot do such a thing. Not morally, anyway. You can use force, to be certain, like any common thug would do. But such transactions would be made under duress and are wholly illegitimate and immoral. It’s exploitation and tyranny, really. Why would any person choose coercion and thuggery over voluntary exchanges?

“But Uncle Andy!   Senator Elizabeth Warren, ole’ Fauxcahontas herself, told me that you don’t really own private property or a business because the collective built the infrastructure that leads to your home or business!  There are consequences when you decide to open a business in public!”

More Statist malarkey. Driving on a road doesn’t cede my natural right of self-ownership. I paid for that infrastructure anyway with my tax dollars. I paid my fair share.

Oh but self-ownership, and the Liberty which logically accompanies it, very much means I can operate as I please, up until the juncture my actions harm someone else or violate their rights. And there can be several sorts of consequences for our actions, short of the thuggish intervention of the state.


For example, if a business were to discriminate against gays, or even thought to be potentially capable of engaging in prejudicial conduct, it could be boycotted as many in Indiana are as we speak. Many businesses such as Wal-Mart are eschewing openly the idea of turning away gay customers. Private citizens of all sorts, in business or not, are choosing to exercise their Liberty in such a fashion as to peacefully inform the market that discrimination, or even the perception of it, will not be tolerated by consumers. It seems to me that private citizens are handling this issue quiet nicely so far. Why even involve the state?

Self-ownership isn’t worth much if it evaporates like a fart in the wind every time I leave my home, walk on a sidewalk, or interact with anyone in any capacity. If our right to agency over ourselves disappears with every pretense, we may as well not even own ourselves.

But luckily, we do own ourselves, at all times, in all settings.

A private person acting in a private fashion has no duty to address discrimination. The state has a duty to act in a fairhanded manner. But not a private person.

Yes, that’s odious and repugnant. But that’s Liberty. You and I also have the Liberty to apply peaceful pressure to see to it that others, particularly in business, do not act in a discriminatory fashion. But we have no moral right to initiate force against others.

“But Uncle Andy!  What about people who live in rural areas, and may lack options to go elsewhere if turned down for service by a private business!  The right to refuse service of that business owner should be compromised!”

Liberty and self-ownership aren’t ceded in the boondocks.  Compromised is ceded. Your right to self-ownership and Liberty is absolute. It is not contingent or dependent upon the nearby population density of a particular geographical point, nor upon whether one opens a business or not.
“But Uncle Andy!  No one forced you to open a business!  You have to toe the collectivist line when you open a business!”
That’s right. I have the natural right to exercise my Liberty in such a fashion as to open a business. That doesn’t cede my sovereignty over myself. My only moral duty as a business owner is not violate the natural rights of others. This is why I would have a duty to make sure arsenic doesn’t end up in the food, or that my building structure is sound. In short, I have a duty to public safety. I have a duty not to violate the rights of others. That’s it.

And since you have no right to obtain goods and services from me, denying you service in no way deprives you of any Liberty. It may well be rude, annoying, uncivil, and downright mean-spirited to deny you goods and services. But you have no moral right to initiate force against me for being rude.

Why do you have a right to apply force to coerce me into providing you with things against my will?

I cease to own myself when any immoral amount of force is applied against me. When you apply force against me to coerce me into providing a good or service someone, you have deprived me of agency over myself. That’s what force is.  So what do you call it when you coerce me into providing someone with a good or service against my will? I call it force.
“But Uncle Andy!  You make concessions when opening a business!  You have obligations to protected classes”
The only concession I make when opening a business is to respect the natural rights of others. I have no obligation to anyone else, short of not trampling their Liberty or natural rights. To say that I have an obligation to someone is to again cede my Liberty.  You have the moral right to refuse to provide anything to anybody, short of trampling their Liberty.
You have the right to force me to do things because you were born black, gay, etc? Poppycock. I still own myself and have agency over myself, whether you were born something or elected voluntarily to join a group of some kind.
I’m not obliged to serve anyone else. Other people don’t own me. Others have no moral right to make me do anything. Even if they’re from this artificially contrived “protected class” you speak of. If I am not obliged to an individual person, as you acknowledge, then why would I be obliged to a whole class of people? Groups of people have no more right to trample my sovereignty over myself, even while owning a business, any more than a lone individual from said group has a right to trample my sovereignty over myself.

No, a business isn’t a person. But the people who run the business are free born, sovereign people. Those individuals do not cede their right of ownership over themselves personally simply because they opened a business.

That’s Liberty: the freedom to do things others may disagree with.  You, in turn, have the freedom to protest, boycott, and complain about conduct with which you disagree.  Isn’t that a far better arrangement than involving the hamhanded thuggery of the state?  I think so.
Published in: on April 3, 2015 at 4:55 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Phantom Kids of Lakota: Losing 100 baby sitters and the desire to hire more

Uncle Andy:

Truth.

Originally posted on Overmanwarrior's Wisdom:

All public schools are the same, so my national readers should find the story regarding my Lakota local palatable—and informative. Lakota is hiring more baby sitters in the disguise of teachers. The superintendent and teacher union president believe “high-quality teachers are in demand, making it critical that we get out in the job market and start recruiting early. We are looking for teachers who are well-trained in their specialty areas, care deeply about each child’s success and are committed members of our schools and our community.” Also according to the official school newspaper, Today’s Pulse “a more diverse staff to match the 26 percent racial diversity among Lakota students is important in future hiring.” No wonder most people leave that free paper at the end of their driveway destined directly for the trash. The cause of this hiring need is that 100 teachers recently retired leaving staffing positions vacated—hence the…

View original 1,247 more words

Published in: on March 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm  Leave a Comment  

Doling Out Some Tolerance: Rainbow Hand Gearing Up to Smack Around a Dissenter

A woman as brave as anybody I can recollect in these trying times of uber-politikal correctness, recently wrote a letter to a Christian publication to express her disapproval of same sex marriage.  Why is this a big deal?  She was raised by two lesbians.

That commotion you now hear in the background is the Rainbow Hand, gearing up to dole out some tolerance.  This lady should probably think about changing her name to something else and moving.  By the time the Rainbow Hand gets done showing how much it loves tolerance, she’ll wish her name was George Zimmerman or something.

So, who would dare to question modern day orthodoxy on the issue of “marriage equality,” especially if she was raised by two mothers?  That would be South Carolina mother of four, Heather Barwick, aged 31.  You can read Heather’s whole essay here, courtesy of the Federalist.  She opens her letter with:

“Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s.  I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”

Heather also said “Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not,” she writes. “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

The lamestream media has ignored this story so far.  Only hate filled bloggers and message board warriors seeking to force feed you Rainbow wedding cake are commenting.  Blatant double standards by the media when it comes to covering the Rainbow Hand are nothing new, as we have discussed before.

I will at least credit Yahoo! Parenting writer Beth Greenfield for being reasonable and civil in her criticism of Heather Barwick.  I wish I could say the same for some of the comments on the story from her blog.  The Rainbow Hand is out in full force showing just how tolerant they are.  Check it out for yourself.  It’s appalling.

What else did you expect from the bigoted looney tunes of the Rainbow Hand?  Bigots crazy enough to shoot up the Family Research Council, as one pro-gay activist did a few years back, are certainly capable of a hoax kidnapping.  A Lesbian activist from Nebraska even carved Christian symbols into her own flesh to fake a hate crime.  A waitress recently also faked an incident of intolerance for lesbians.  As we saw recently with the fracas over Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage, the true bigots in our society aren’t Bible thumping conservatives, but rather liberals.  An athlete from Canada was also attacked by the Rainbow Hand for the trifling offense of taking a selfie with Vladimir Putin during last year’s Sochi Olympics.  Tony Dungy was even attacked for expressing questions about same sex marriage.  A gay activist even recently staged a hoax hate crime, claiming he was kidnapped and locked in the trunk of his car.

Published in: on March 19, 2015 at 3:26 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Boi Who Lisped Wolf: Rainbow Hand Caught in the Cookie Jar With Yet Another Hoax Crime

These stories are becoming as common as Priuses with bumper stickers nestled side by side which both praise dronemaster Obama and call for us all to “Coexist.”  A Cincinnati gay rights activist has been arrested and charged for faking his own kidnapping.  This is only the latest in a long string of hoax crimes that have been staged by GLBT activists.

Late on the night of March 2nd, Adam Hoover Tweeted and posted to Facebook that he had been kidnapped by armed men who had stuffed him into the trunk of his own car, and threatened with death.

Hoover sent a message out on Facebook (above) and Twitter saying individuals were threatening to kill him and his family

This caused thousands of re-Tweets and  a flurry of activity on social media.  Eventually, Mr. Hoover’s car was found and he was let out of his trunk.  From there, the story quickly unraveled, and by 7 AM the following morning, he had been charged with a crime for the hoax kidnapping.

As soon as I heard about the story, I knew it was a hoax.  If you’ve been kidnapped, why Tweet and post to Facebook about it?  Call 911.  And what kind kidnapper tosses his victim into the trunk without checking to see if they have a phone or tying them up?

You can read the whole story here, courtesy of the Daily Mail.  Kudos to this British newspaper once again, for covering the whole story; even portions that make liberals squirm.  The Mail did a better job than even local media covering the fact that Adam Hoover was a prominent local activist and agitator for GLBT causes.  That fact was mentioned only in passing by local media for a single day, and then the whole thing was dropped like a hot potato.

The story didn’t fit the template, you see.  Blatant double standards by the media when it comes to covering the Rainbow Hand are nothing new, as we have discussed before.  But let someone who is a Christian or a conservative so much as sneeze improperly in the direction of a rainbow,  it gets massive media coverage and outrage.  When members of the GLBT act up however, the media is loath to discuss it for long.

What would happen if a local anti-gay activist staged a hoax kidnapping?  It would be big news…just as it every time a TV preacher or Republican politician gets caught up in some sort of gay sex scandal.  When will there be some accountability for the vocal extremist minority in the GLBT community?

Has Adam Hoover been booted out of the GLBT movement here in Ohio?  Nope.

Check out the Facebook Page for Marriage Equality Ohio.  The group posted a small message of no great importance about the incident.  Mr.Hoover’s actions were not condemned.  Nor was he removed from leadership in Marriage Equality Ohio.  Barring whatever legal ramifications Mr. Hoover may face, which will be trivial if he is a first-time offender, there are going to be few consequences for this guy.

Yet, the GLBT community demands accountability, vengeance, and public shaming of anyone who runs afoul of their Progressive agenda.  The double standard is obvious.  Progressives revel in double standards.

The ends justify the means, says a Progressive.  No matter what.  Lies, crimes, or ruining people doesn’t phase them an eyelash if it’s in pursuit of a cause.  Any cause.

What else did you expect from the bigoted looney tunes of the Rainbow Hand?  Bigots crazy enough to shoot up the Family Research Council, as one pro-gay activist did a few years back, are certainly capable of a hoax kidnapping.  A Lesbian activist from Nebraska even carved Christian symbols into her own flesh to fake a hate crime.  A waitress recently also faked an incident of intolerance for lesbians.  As we saw recently with the fracas over Chick-Fil-A and gay marriage, the true bigots in our society aren’t Bible thumping conservatives, but rather liberals.  An athlete from Canada was also attacked by the Rainbow Hand for the trifling offense of taking a selfie with Vladimir Putin during last year’s Sochi Olympics.

You can follow the Truth Emporium on Facebook and Twitter

Published in: on March 6, 2015 at 10:29 pm  Comments (1)  

War on Women: Senator Hitlery Rotten Klinton Paid Female Staffers Less than Males

In the goosestepping march and oom pah pah band drumbeat leading up to the 2016 sham election, you’ll be bombarded with rhetoric about the Republikan “War on Women.”  I can assure you that we will all be thoroughly sick and tired of the “War on Women” mantra by the time of the New Hampshire Primary in 2016, and will be fighting a gag reflex about the issue by Halloween of that year.

Get ready for it.  It is unstoppable.  Like it or lump it.

One aspect of the “War on Women” you will be forcefed propaganda about, involves wage disparities between the genders.  Men are paid more than women because those who stand up to urinate dominate the world and leverage their privilege in an unholy cabal to oppress females.  It’s a classic Marxist talking point, actually.

There are all sorts of rational, reasonable, coherent explanations that account for why males in the workforce make more than females.  Males dominate, fairly or unfairly, high-paying job fields in technology and engineering.  Females tend to gravitate towards fields of work that traditionally pay less, like teaching.

Moreover, when a family members needs care, such as an ailing parent or a child, it is the female who generally leaves the workforce or takes a leave of absence to provide said care.  Males have and can certainly take care of a sick child or parent, but overwhelmingly, this role falls upon woman.  The net result of this role as caretaker is that females lose valuable seniority and experience, thus leading to lower wages.

I wonder if the lamestream media will ask former Senator and Secretary of Hate, and presumptive Demokratic Party presidential nominee, Hitlery Rotten Klinton why she fired her own misogynistic salvo in the War on Women.  While a carpetbagger Senator for New York in the first years of this century, Klinton paid female staffers less than males.

It’s true.  Check out this article on the subject, courtesy of the Washington Times.  Klinton paid female staffers 72 cents less than her aides who possessed testicles.

From 2002 to 2008, the median annual salary for Mrs. Clinton’s female staffers was $15,708.38 less than what was paid to men, the report said. Women earned a slightly higher median salary than men in 2005, coming in at $1.04. But in 2006, they earned 65 cents for each dollar men earned, and in 2008, they earned only 63 cents on the dollar, The Free Beacon reported.

I wonder if the media will play gotcha with Mrs. Klinton on this topic?  Somehow, I doubt it.
You can follow the Truth Emporium on Facebook and Twitter
Published in: on February 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm  Leave a Comment  

A List of Proven False Flags: How many can you name not yet clarified?

Uncle Andy:

There are such things as false flags, whether Statists like it or not.

Originally posted on Overmanwarrior's Wisdom:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”

Friedrich Nietzsche

I occasionally discuss false flags created by governments and organizations to induce a given social reaction.  I don’t believe everything is a conspiracy theory, or a false flag but I am extremely distrustful of conglomerations of people when they are trying “collectively” to get something done.  I read the work of Friedrich Nietzsche at a very young age and his view of the individual versus the collective—such as the phrase above—have become a fundamental part of the way I view the world largely because I have been able to confirm the results with experience.  For instance, a few years ago the public school in my home district of Lakota was demanding a tax increase on property values. 

View original 2,556 more words

Published in: on February 12, 2015 at 4:11 pm  Leave a Comment  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 449 other followers