And the Stupid Women Shall Lead--
and Lead Every Good Individual Into Shit, Driven on by
Communism, Feminism, and Defective
Female Beliefs and Little-Girl Thinking
Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2019
March 11, 2019
Based on living some sixty-plus years in the United States of America, I have come up with a number of rules about mankind and the world. One rule notes that women think less logically than men think, and the variation in thinking has come about through evolution and how the two different parts of the human animal have developed in order to do certain jobs, and the evolution has come about through countless centuries. Another rule notes that women are more likely to take up supporting bad politics, such as becoming enamored with socialism and liberalism and progressivism and communism and Sharia, because women wish not to be confrontational and wish to have people get along, and, for example, the world "socialism" and the word "progressivism" and the world "liberalism" seem to hint that the words are tied to meaning something about getting along and being social and nice. Yet another rule that I have put together notes that, as more and more women have gotten into politics, the more defective the country has become--it has become less tied to The United States Constitution and more tied to enslavism (an all-powerful government, involving idiot women as part of the collection of so-called leaders). The last rule that I shall pass along in this paragraph is that the "feminist" is the most rotten type of woman who can be found in the United States of America, having within her hatred for what she is (having been born a woman) and having hatred for men, and for a woman to be a true "feminist" is for the woman to support progressivism or liberalism or socialism or communism or Sharia, the latter two of which are the harshest forms of enslavism, given they involve more violence and killing in the long run for those opposed to them--an all-powerful government. [Note: There exists a "classical" liberalism idea or meaning, but as far as I think, that type of meaning for "liberalism" is dead and should be forgotten, since "liberalism" is now tied strongly to communism and socialism, and the old meaning cannot be tied to the old idea of liberalism anymore since it brings up confusion in people's minds, especially the naive minds.]
For years, women have had positions of power in the United States of America, such as in business, the media, and government, but more and more women are getting in government because a lot of stupid women are voting to have women in government jobs because the women are women and not men [Note: There is more proof of how women are less likely to think logically than men are, tossing out facts and data for fluff and image.], and that has put more and more bad women in government jobs. For instance, some of the highly rotten women who have been put in the U.S. Congress and have been around quite a while have been such women, who support the ways of communism or socialism, as Nancy Pelosi (of California), Debbie Stabenow (of Michigan), and Maxine Waters (of California). This document shows proof of some of the rotten women put into government jobs, and besides being supporters of rotten systems of government, they see themselves as "feminists."
On November 6, 2018, Dana Nessel (a Democrat) won the right through election to be the next attorney general in the State of Michigan. Dana Nessel had won the position, despite what is really in her head, and she won, even though had she showed herself to be a rotten woman. Around December 2017, Dana Nessel said in a political advertisement--"...If the last few years has taught us anything, it's that we need more women in positions of power, not less. So when you're choosing Michigan's next attorney general, ask yourself this--Who can you trust not to show you their penis in a professional setting? Is it the candidate who doesn't have a penis? I'd say so....". That statement should have knocked her out of any election, if only because it is evident she is biased against men. Dana Nessel is a bad person! Yet, enough voters in Michigan decided to vote for her in November 2018 and give her a win.
In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--who calls herself a Democratic Socialist--was living in the State of New York, and she was running to be a U.S. Representative. In July 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (running for 14th U.S. Congressional District in New York) appeared on Firing Line (a weekly series hosted by Margaret Hoover on PBS-associated stations) and said--"...Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working sixty, seventy, eighty hours a week and can barely feed their kids. And so I do think right now while we have this no-holds barred Wild-West type of capitalism, what that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world....". The set of words shows idiocy in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's mind. For one, "capitalism" is not a political system, and "capitalism" (where people do things to make money) has existed for centuries and centuries in the world, and in the United States of America, "capitalism" is commerce that is not heavily restricted or hindered by government, such as by restricting what can be made or not made and how much a company may or may not make as profit in selling services or products, and "capitalism" is commerce involving businesses, not of which is owned by the government [Note: In communistic or socialistic nations, commerce exists, but the commerce structure is either owned by the government or, in essence, indirectly owned--controlled greatly by laws--by the government.]. Also, what the hell does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mean by "no-holds barred Wild-West type of capitalism"? Her idea is a defective thought and something that cannot be explained, especially given all the laws that the federal government and state governments have imposed on businesses in the country. By the way, I note that a person could get the idea that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does not want businesses to make money. The final thought in relation to her words is the two-jobs idea, and I report that some people have two jobs because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--basically, it a federal law of 2010 pushed on the country illegally by the Democrats--has resulted in companies and businesses having to cut back on giving people hours for work, or the businesses and companies are caught paying for high-health-care premiums for the employees, which have shot up greatly in price since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was made (which was purposely done, such as by Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, so that country would become more a country in which the federal government has complete control over what health care people do and do not get). And on November 6, 2018, enough people in New York voted to put Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into the U.S. Congress.
In 2018, Ilhan Omar (a Muslim woman) was a resident in Minnesota, and she was running to be elected to the 5th District of the U.S. Congress related to Minnesota. In July 2018, she did an interview with KARE-TV (Channel 11), and the theme of the interview was to have Ilhan Omar explain why she should be elected to the U.S. Congress. Some of what Ilhan Omar said was--"Well, ah, thank you, Tim, for having me. I'm running because, you know, I think our country's at a crossroads. Uhm, we see that we have, ah, fear, and, and the politics of scarcity has ushered in, uhm, a, a new kind of administration that is hell-bent on destruction our democracy, and I think I offer, ah, a really clear counter-balance and counter-narrative to what's happening in Washington...." and "...Uhm, I think there's an opportunity for us to, to really send someone who has the moral courage and the moral clarity to fight for, for things like, ah, securing, uhm, an economy that works for all of us, Medicare for all, ah, very humane immigration, uhm, system, ah, reforming our criminal justice system, and making sure that we don't have, ah, politicians that can be bought so that we can get, ah, clean elections, ah, and, and make sure, ah, that the voice of, of the people, ah, remains to be centered in our politics,....". The ideas spoken by Ilhan Omar are flap doodle and bullshit. What the hell does she mean by "clean elections"? What the hell is "moral courage" and "moral clarity"? It is undefined and flap doodle. I state that a government cannot secure an economy that works for all (whatever "works for all" really means)--it is impossible, even if the government were to own every business and there were no private ownership of businesses. Of course, Ilhan Omar talks like a communist (and she could be a Shariaist, especially, given the fact that, in late 2018, she showed she was working to get a rule changed in the U.S. Congress so that she would be allowed to wear a hijab, which is something that, for instance, Muslim women following the ways of Sharia wear), and so it might mean she wants a country in which the federal government tells businesses and companies what they can and cannot make and what they have to pay people. That leads to economic death of a country! And yet enough people voted to put Ilhan Omar--a defective thinker--in the U.S. Congress, representing the 5th District of Minnesota during the election of November 6, 2018.
Gretchen Whitmer is at least a socialist (and is maybe a communist), and, in 2018, she became the nominee of the Democratic Party in Michigan for the office of the governor of the State of Michigan. In August 2018, a reporter was able to catch Gretchen Whitmer on the street and ask her if ICE (or Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a federal entity designed to, for instance, capture illegal aliens, should be disbanded, and Gretchen Whitmer said--"...I, I think that ICE is doing a fundamentally, ah, uncruel and unjust undemocratic work....". In the quoted material, a person can see that, for one, Gretchen Whitmer spoke nonsense by saying "uncruel", but that is not the big problem with the theme. Every country has an entity involved in keeping people--illegal aliens--out of the country. If the United States of America had no ICE, then what entity would do the work of ICE? Gretchen Whitmer pushed out foolishness, and yet on November 6, 2018, people in Michigan voted to have Gretchen Whitmer be the next governor for the State of Michigan.
In August 2018, Rashida Tlaib, a resident of Michigan, was running to be elected to the U.S. Congress, representing the 13th District of Michigan, and she was interviewed by "Channel 4 News" (England). During the interview, Rashida Tlaib wished not to be labeled a "socialist," though what she talked about supporting through the interview showed that she was and is indeed a socialist (which means anti-The United States Constitution, given The United States Constitution is not compatible with either socialism or Sharia (Islam law), which are enslavism forms of government, having government the most important thing in the lives of the citizens). During the interview, Rashida Tlaib noted strongly that Donald Trump is demonizing Muslims, and she, in response to the idea about what impact it is having on America, said--"Huge! I have children, one of them of which told me about, if he was asked if he was Muslim, he will tell people he's not. Ah, that is the result of som, of a president, ah, who, ah, demonizes people based on their faith, their sexual orientation, based on their sex, based on a lot of things....". Rashida Tlaib's theme was bullshit! In addition, Rashida Tlaib went off the rails by bringing up sexual-orientation stuff and sex stuff and other unnamed stuff, and Rashida Tlaib had no proof to back up her words, and a good person is aware there is no proof to be found; for instance, Rashida Tlaib, who does not support Israel and does support the Palestinians in the Middle East, was pushing out the idea it seems, because U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to put temporary restrictions on people trying to come in to the country from a few mostly Muslim countries that had ties to terrorism, Donald Trump was demonizing all Muslims, but history shows most of the mostly Muslim-type countries in the world were not affected or were not going to be affected. Although Rashida Tlaib pushed for crap and pushes for crap, enough people in Michigan voted for her to become a U.S. Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives related to the 13th District of Michigan [Note: In December 2018, it was reported that Rashida Tlaib supported the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions" movement against Israel and had plans to go to the Palestinian area of the Middle East soon to fight (not physically) for the Palestinians.]
I have shown you five women and what they have said. You might say that the proof about their badness is small and can be discounted. However, I note that the themes of their statements are enough to show their unworthiness as thinkers and especially as persons who should exist in any high-level government job, such as a U.S. Representative in the U.S. Congress. Based on what the women said, a smart person can deduce their decisions while in their government jobs will often be defective or foolish and will lead to countless rotten laws about the ways of life for people in the United States of America, and some of the rotten laws will very likely be tied to Sharia (Islamic law and "Allah" crap). [Note: In World War II, followers of Islam in the Middle East supported Hitler and his socialist political party and socialistic ways.]
Now I continue on, making this document more complex, and I present a paragraph that shows the upper-level educational backgrounds on the five women whom I have already talked about in this document. The educational background for Dana Nessel is related to law, and she did prosecution work in the court system in Michigan and holds a Juris Doctor, but Dana Nessel's having a background in law is no real qualification for being the attorney general for a state when Dana Nessel's bias is taken into consideration. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has an educational background tied to international relations and economics, and an international-relations background for a person to have has little value if the person is going to be in the U.S. Congress, where a general knowledge about the country is needed, such as about how businesses work and how the stock markets work, and even though Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did "minor" in economics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports "socialistic" economics, showing her knowledge about real economics that work is defective. Ilhan Omar, who has been a nutrition educator, has an educational background in political science and international studies, and that means Ilhan Omar has a shallow knowledge base, and it is very likely her mind is simply filled with, for example, nonsense hypotheses taught to her by communistic and socialistic professors. Gretchen Whitmer has an educational background in communications (holding a BA in communications) and holds a Juris Doctor [Note: Exactly what did Gretchen Whitmer do in communications?]. Rashida Tlaib has a law degree and has been a political activist (something which Barack Hussein Obama was skilled at being). A person can see the five women are sort-of specialists, often in useless knowledge, especially in relation to political science and international studies, and it seems not one of the women has really gained general knowledge and commonsense about a lot of subjects, such as about producing electricity, running corporations, creating products, making houses and buildings, sewing up dresses and blouses, and fixing vehicles, and not one seems to see when a country has ever-increasing national debt, trouble results, and when a country has "open borders," there is no country.
Hey, look at a truly defective woman, who has been able to be in the U.S. Congress. Maxine Waters first got into the U.S. Congress in 1990, representing a district in California, and over the years, she has shown herself to be a rabble-rouser and a liar. On June 23, 2018, during a "Keep Families Together" event in Washington, D.C., Maxine Waters, acting like a gutter woman, showed off well how clearly her mind is filled with crap, and, for example she said while talking like a rabble-rouser--"...What you're [referring to U.S. President Donald Trump] doing now is lying, lying, lying...." and "...The American people have put up with this President long enough. What more do we need to see? What more lies do we need to hear?...." and "...You [U.S. President Donald Trump] have disrespected all of us. You have violated all of us. And you have sacrificed our children for your aims and your goals just because you want to build a wall! Mr. President, there will be no wall built...." and "...Let's stay the course. Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from at that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, in a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them--they're not welcome....". While using lies and bullshit, Maxine Waters--a member of the U.S. Congress--was inciting violence against members of the U.S. Cabinet. Maxine Waters's ugly mind was on display on June 23, 2018, as it had been in the past, and it is not a mind suited to the job of a U.S. Congress seat.
I state that a country that is set up so that the federal government has complete control of the health care for the citizens is a shit country, and anyone who supports have the federal government in complete charge of the health care of the citizens of the country is an evil person. For one, government is often wasteful, and decision making by government people often leads to a collage of nonsense, especially when the people in the government are ignorant and unqualified and corrupt and partisan (believing in communism). In addition, when a federal government has complete control of the health care of the citizens, the federal government can decide who gets to live and who does not get to live, and when a federal government has complete control of the heath care of the citizens, the federal government can force the citizens to accept rottenness and corruption or not get health care. On March 23, 2010, through actions that were corrupt, the federal government passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2018 (informally called "Obamacare," a name based on the U.S. president who pushed to have it enacted--Barack Hussein Obama, a big supporter of communism and socialism and Sharia) into law, and the gigantic bill was designed to lead to the federal government's having complete control of the health care for the citizens in the country, and, for instance, it led to the rise in health-care premiums for citizens (though it had been reported, such as by U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, that prices would go down), and, really, the whole law was a big lie (which, in essence, was pushed into law by only Democrats (communists, black racists, and such)). At the time, the head of the U.S. House of Representatives was Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat related to California and whose educational background was political science), and a little bit before the law would be passed (on March 9, 2010), Nancy Pelosi gave a speech at a gathering of people tied to the National Association of Counties in Washington, D.C., and one thing that she said was--"...We're very, ah, you've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, what are the items. But I don't know if you have heard that it is a legislation for the future, not just about health care for America but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not, is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. That prevention, prevention, prevention! It's about diet not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it away from the fog of controversy....". After Nancy Pelosi made the statement, people laughed at her idea about passing the bill, and it was right for people to laugh at the idiocy of the comment, but the full set of words presented within quotations here shows up the rottenness and defective thinking and even girly thinking in Nancy Pelosi, who pushed out lies about the bill and pushed out flap doodle and bullshit, as history shows today. And yet, since 2010, people in California have voted for her several times to remain in the U.S. Congress. [Note: To learn more about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, use this Health link to see my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which shows all the nonsense that led to pushing the law onto the country by bad people. Remember--When tricks and schemes and lies have to be used by politicians (who are known followers and pushers of such rotten things as socialism and communism) to get something like a super-big health-care law passed, the result is shit. By the way, the members of the U.S. Congress are not bound or tied to the law!]
By the way, the women who have been named so far in this document have given support to bad people or have aligned with bad people, such as Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom are clearly corrupt people.
Since the 1960s, a big push has been on in the United States of America to teach women, especially girls and young women, that they can do everything that men can do, and the push has been on to sell the idea that women are as smart as men are, and that has led to many women being put into positions of power or authority that they were not qualified for [Note: In the meantime, the push has been on to give "blacks" positions of power or authority, such as in board rooms of business, because of the idea of "affirmative action," which involves giving preferential treatment to "blacks" (and at colleges and universities, blacks have been given free passes to degrees because the staffers at the educational institutions were not allowed or were pressured to not flunk "blacks"). Beyond that, people, especially men, have been pushed into believing their putting down women as thinkers is discriminatory, and that has led to the reduced criticism of defective thoughts from women, especially if the woman is a black women in political office, a woman who is filling a job that was once a hindrance to "diversity" by being held by men in the past. The two themes have led to failure and failed policies and to conflict.
The nature of the woman--which has developed over centuries and centuries--cannot be changed through dictate or wish, especially by the "feminist," and proof of what the true nature of the woman is and what the mind of the woman is is evident everywhere. Sit in the lobby of a hair salon in which most of the staffers are women, and listen to the conversations; the conversations are far different than those that can be heard from men in a barbershop, and, for example, women are often focused on emotional things, such as about family and men and dating. Pick up a magazine designed for women, and look at what women like to read about in magazines, such as articles or snippets about fashion, decorating, their appearance, and the appearance of other women. Look at books that have been or are the big sellers for authors writing for women; it has been and is commonplace for women to focus on stories about romance and love and fantasy. Women like to read and write poetry, simple pieces of writing designed to elicit emotions and not logic in the readers. Television shows for women cover a wide range of topics from fashion and makeup to interacting with lovers and husbands--all the things that might be grouped under the heading of cliché stuff pertaining to women.
The nature of what the woman has evolved into over the centuries and centuries is important for raising children on a day-to-day basis, which has been sort of abandoned by many women of the United States of America today so that they can be like men or feel they are equal in quality with men, though their nature is not that of the man, who is very likely, for example, to be involved in an informal debate about politics and whether or not a god exists while sitting on the porch on a summer night [Note: The woman has equality with the man, as a thing, but, generally speaking, each has a different purpose and different skill set.]. The nature of the woman does not lead to the women taking up arms against a clear enemy, given the nature of the woman is to work to get people to get along and be nice, as I have already noted, and the woman is very likely to work to be non-confrontational, even with her children, such as an unruly young man, and the woman may even believe she can change through niceness the bad behavior of a child and may stand up for a child who has done wrong, but the nature of the man is more likely to have a man take up an attack against an enemy, such as with physical violence, and the man could even deliver pain to an unruly child of his own, such as a young boy, through a spanking. While a woman is very likely to be accepting of a story, the man is more likely to analyze a story for commonsense and logic, and the man's analysis can have a grounding in practical experience with the physical world, which can involve building things and machines and repairing things and machines, a skill that may have started to develop in the man when the man was a boy by "tinkering" with things in the physical world. The real nature of the woman can really come to the forefront under times of high stress--during a disagreement or argument--and I am focusing on what might be called a cliché by some persons, and the cliché is that in which women are said by men to not argue logically or to not think logically during an argument, and during a disagreement or an argument between, for instance, a man and a woman, the woman will very likely not put things in context of logic and reason, and it is especially true when the woman is in the changing chemical state of the menstrual cycle, and the woman during an argument will pass along the idea that she is right based on her emotions and she will discount facts, and, in fact, the woman backed up with no facts or correct information can draw an argument into a collage of illogic--feeling she is right, no matter what.
The topic of the nature of the woman does not mean that a woman cannot run a business or some entity, such as a non-profit entity, and, certainly, stories and examples exist that show women have run businesses between 1990 and today, but the thinking skills involved in running a business are nothing like the thinking skills needed to run a government entity well and to make good laws and throw away bad laws. A business entity has limitations and rules that are clearly defined, the main rule of which is to make money so that the operators and employees can do things and buy things, such as food; for example, the business may sell products, and a woman heading such a business can have the necessary skills to pick products that will draw in clients, and a business may be, for instance, a doughnut shop or a hair salon or a car dealership. When the entity is a government entity, the woman has a something that is more complex than a business is and can involve the lives of hundreds of millions of persons, and for a woman in a government job, especially a high-level government job, to achieve what can be called good results, the woman has to make decisions that are not based on feelings and emotions, and the woman cannot use or cannot follow proven defective political hypotheses as her guiding force--those with a basis in communism and socialism and the like forms of government, having such bad features as the government owns everything, the government should be unrestricted in what it is able to do, a super-high and ever-growing national debt (which, in the long run, the citizens are responsible for) is not bad, the so-called rich do not pay or never pay enough taxes, people should have free health care from the government [an idea--"free"?--that defies logic], and the borders of the country should be freely open for all to come in at their will.
Men can be bad politicians, but women can be worse politicians than men can be sometimes--at least--because of the nature of the woman, a person whose thinking is often clouded by emotions and feelings and illogic and whose thinking can involve following the political rules of dictators, such as the ways of communism, and this document has shown examples of only a few of the rotten women who are currently in high-level government positions or have been in recent years, helping to lead the country toward failure.
In June 2015, people in the country were talking about a story about the operator of a business not wanting to make a cake for a gay couple (and it theme would be decided upon in a U.S. Supreme court case in 2018), and it was another of the idiot cases in the court system of the country. In that month, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (a Democrat related to Wisconsin), a lesbian, got to be on television on MSNBC (a communistic-based news entity) and pass along her thoughts about the theme. Tammy Baldwin said--"...Certainly, the First Amendment says, that, in, ah, institutions of faith, ah, that there is absolute, ah, power to, uhm, you know, to observe, ah, religious, deeply held religious beliefs. But I don't think it extends far beyond that. We've certainly seen the same set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled? Or in this, uhm, ah, in this context of, they're talking about expanding this far beyond, uhm, our churches and synagogues to, ah, to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts, and that we ought to, ah, eh, abide by those in this new context across America....". The First Amendment to The U.S. Constitution is the first of ten amendments known as the "Bill of Rights"--a group of rights for "We the people" or for "the individual." The First Amendment is--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". The First Amendment was not set up for "institutions of faith" first or only; the First Amendment was set up for "We the people" or the individual. Tammy Baldwin, whose speech pattern was defective and showed a person who was struggling to put thoughts together, passed along crap in her statement, and yet people have voted for her to be in the U.S. Congress.
In July 2017, Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat) was a U.S. Representative related to Texas, and she had been such since 1995. On July 11, 2017, she was interviewed by Doshon Farad (of something called Your Black World), and Sheila Jackson Lee pushed out some thoughts, such as lies, and, for instance, Sheila Jackson Lee said--"...We have to go out and tell our constituents the truth that, ah, this, ah, person who holds the oval office, ah, Trump. Ah, there's no doubt by intelligence agencies, ah, that the election was stolen, ah, by the Russians, that the Russians have no good will toward America....". This woman was teaching shit through her statement! History shows that no ballot votes were changed by the Russians in relation to the election of November 2016, and a good person knows, for instance, it would be impossible for the Russians to change enough votes to affect an election--elections are, basically, controlled on a local level (involving, for instance, representatives of the Democratic Party and representatives of the Republican Party who watch over vote counts), such as in towns and cities all across the nation, and the results are then sent to state government officials, and, later, the results from each state are passed along to the federal government. By the way, if the election system of the United States of America were directly controlled by the federal government, then there might be a good chance that an election could be compromised, given corrupt people in the federal government could use their skills of cheating to swing an election in their favor [Note: I state only bad people want the election system of the country to be centralized under the control of the federal government.]. Sheila Jackson Lee is an evil woman, and yet people in Texas--probably a lot of women--voted a number of times to put such a woman into a high-level government job.
On September 9, 2017, there was a gathering of the Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains in California, and a featured speaker at the event was Katie Hill (a Democrat), who was running to be in the U.S. House of Representatives in relation to the 25th District of California, and she was running against Steve Knight (a Republican and the current holder of the seat). Katie Hill was about 30 years of age, and she was openly promoting herself as an "bisexual" (which--I say in jest--is certainly important to further the goal of reaching "diversity" of thinking in the federal government). A few things that Katie Hill said were--"...We [progressives] care about universal health care for all Americans...." and "...We care about peace. He [Steve Knight] votes consistently to give too much power to somebody as insane as Donald Trump, and to spend more and more money on, ah, the, you know, military industrial complex that funds his campaign...." and "...You know we care about having a government that is of, by, and for the people and having elected representatives who are accountable to the people that their supposed to serve...." Katie Hill's educational background is related to english (holding a BA) and public administration, and that shows once again a women with a limited knowledge about the world, especially given she supports the ideas of "progressivism," and "progressivism" is a kind name for a rotten political system known as "communism" (which can even be called Marxism). "Universal health care"--this is a system in which the government controls everything about the health-care system, such as how much doctors get paid and where doctors may practice. One theme she passed on is a super carp--Katie Hill passed along the idea that the military industrial complex, but I report that it is not bad if the military industrial complex (of military-associated businesses) support Donald Trump since the country has to have a strong military and military-production industry so that it can defend itself against socialists (people like Adolph Hitler, who was a socialist and who controlled a socialist party in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and who led the world in to World War II, driven on by his wish to control the world and kill people to achieve the goal) and communists. Socialism and communism are not government types that are "of, by, and for the people....", and in reference to that idea, Katie Hill passed on bullshit. The United States Constitution is something that was drawn up to make this country so that the country was "of, by, and for the people," and progressives promote a government type that is counter to The United States Constitution, which is why, for instance, Barack Hussein Obama violated The United States Constitution while he was the U.S. president. In December 2018, by the way, the Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains reported through the website for the entity that--"...We strive to cultivate progressive ideals within our community by supporting reformist elected officials...." and "...There is no compromise when it comes to the environment, and equality among all." In essence, the entity is working to put communists in government jobs and install communist ways of government into the every-day life of Americans. Communism and socialism are not about "peace"; they are about control of the citizens through coercion and violence, as history shows. Here are only two of the main points of what the Democratic Socialists of America stand for (as offered to the American people in December 2018 through the website for the entity)--"Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically--to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives...." and "...In the short term, we can't eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business for accountable....". The material within quotations in the previous sentence is a collage of bullshit and evilness! A person can see that the Democratic Socialists lament that idea that private businesses cannot be wiped out--yet. Democratic Socialists do not want private businesses, and that means they can only want government-run businesses in and government-controlled businesses, given there is no alternative to private businesses (it is either private control or government control in the world). It must be remembered that politicians are not educated and trained and experienced in matters of business--such as creating products that never existed before--and that politicians are often versed in fluff matters, such as sociology, political science, and English [Note: Government people are for the most part narrow thinkers, and most have the same educational backgrounds not matter what their race.]. Who determines what the "public needs" and what the "public interest" are? It seems Democratic Socialists want government people--narrow-minded and under-skilled people--to determine "public needs" and "public interest", and that is bad. What the hell is a "just society"? Who determines what a "just society is? Currently, the main structure of the federal government is guided by The United States Constitution, which is a document designed to block enslavists from becoming dictators over the people (for example, it has features that are called "checks-and-balances" features), and the document focuses on protecting the individual from bad politicians, those who wish have control, control, control of everything. Democratic socialists want to "radically" alter the government structure of the country. If the structure of the government is not like that put down in The United States Constitution, then what it is? What better form is there--which will be "radically" different? A good person can deduce that Katie Hill is yet another shallow thinker, having little general-knowledge background or little knowledge about most subjects of life and having a guiding force of politics that is highly rotten and highly distructive to people. Yet, Katie Hill, whose true nature is evident through what she stands for and whose true nature is bad, was elected to be a U.S. Representative in November 2018. [Note: Here is special information. I urge you to get a perspective about the running of businesses by watching a movie entitled Chance of a Lifetime, which is a British film that was released in 1950 and which features such performers as Basil Radford, Niall Macginnis, and Bernard Miles. That film shows up some of the idiocy of socialists and communists in relation to business matters and shows how the idea of running a business through democratic ways or democratically (such as under a union) can go to crap.]
The women--in truth, low-level thinking "enslavists"--mentioned in this document are clearly enemies of good people, and the women are to be feared, and the women are to be hated and beaten down orally and verbally, given their work and decisions can severely hurt millions and millions and millions of persons for decades or more, but it must also be noted that the country has a lot of--at least--stupid women, who can be people from doctors to waitresses, who are willing to put rotten women in government jobs, such as to satisfy some nonsense belief of achieving diversity.
This section is a section that provides material that shows off more of the rottenness of the the women who are focus of the main aprt of this document or are like the woman in this document so far.
On January 3, 3019, Rashida Tlaib (a Muslim) was sworn in as a U.S. Representative, and curing the ceremony, she had her hand on a copy of The Quran (which is one document that helps define the ways of Islam, which millions and millions and millions of Muslims use as a guiding force of daily life). By the way, people in at least the United States of America, such as communists and socialists, push the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, but I note that Islam is really a political system that is masquerading as a religion. Not long after being sworn into office--particularly the office related to the 13th District of Michigan in the U.S. House of Representatives--Rashida Tlaib showed off more of her true nature. On January 3, 2019, at a gathering involving, for instance, people tied to an entity known was "moveon.org" (a communistic-based entity), Rashida Tlaib said angrily and loudly in public about U.S. President Donald Trump--"...We're gonna impeach the motherfucker!". And that is the way of a shit-head woman--Rashida Tlaib.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on 60 Minutes (a weekly television show on CBS-TV) on Sunday, January 6, 2019, and she was interviewed by Anderson Cooper (who is a gay and a promoter of communism). Some of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talked about was focused on U.S. President Donald Trump, and she passed along crap. Anderson Cooper asked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez whether or not U.S. President Donald Trump is a racist, and, for instance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said--"...Yeah! Yeah! No question! When you look at the words that he uses, which are historic dog whistles of white supremacy....". Through the quoted material, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez passed along words that were not backed up with fact. In addition, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted--"...The president certainly didn't invent racism, but he's certainly given a voice to it and expanded it and created a platform for those things....". Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez taught bullshit!
A person who is smart and good understands that it is commonplace for leaders of socialistic counties, such as "democratic-socialistic" countries, and communistic countries to be rich and well-off while the citizens are poor, and, for example, the leader of Russia is rich (Valdimir Putin), the leaders of Korea, and the leaders of Cuba are rich while most of their citizens tied to them and controlled by them are not. In political systems like those pushed as good by "Democratic Socialists," it is the leaders (politicians and rulers) and those who are tightly associated with the leaders who get to be rich and well-off. Really, people who lead the way in pushing the idea that communism and socialism are good are pushing to become the rich people, which can involved knocking down those who have gotten rich (such as by doing work). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a U.S. Representative) is a Democratic Socialist, and on Monday, January 21, 2018, she appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (a weeknight show on CBS-TV), and she worked to sell the idea that taxing people who earn more than ten-million dollars and one a year should be taxed at 70 percent, and that is a good idea (though she did not say why it is a good idea and prove her point). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed out the idea that, generally speaking, there should not be people who have heliports while some people are poor, and she pushed out the idea that there should be limits on "excess." I ask--Who should be in charge in determining what is excess? In essence, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been nothing in life but be an "activist" and an organizer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made nothing and run nothing! It seems she thinks, because she is a Democratic Socialist, she should be in charge of determining what others get to have and what is "excess" (which is very likely to be changeable from moment to moment, as history of, for example, socialistic countries shows--the amount that is considered "excess" always gets lower and lower and lower over time, especially as the government becomes more oppressive and the economy fails more and more and more). Here is an aside. On Monday, January 21, 2019, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared Riverdale Church in New York City, and she said--"...Millennials, and people, and you know, and Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like--The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue, you biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?....". The quoted material shows off the mind of an idiot. Why would anyone want an idiot like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to have the authority to determine what other people should have?
Around January 24, 2019, some of the big news of the world was centered on Venezuela, which had fallen apart over the last couple decades or so because of the ways of socialism or progressivism or communism (all are the same thing really) imposed on the country by the politicians, especially Hugh Chavez when he was the president of the country, and the news was about people escaping the country by the many thousands, and the news was about who was now running the country; the downfall of Venezuela had started with Hugo Chavez--a communist and a man whom Barack Hussein Obama had praised greatly in public when Barack Hussein Obama was the president of the United States of America. On January 24 2019, a communistic woman named Elizabeth Warren was also in the news. Elizabeth Warren was then a U.S. citizen, was a U.S. Senator related to the State of Massachusetts, as she had been since January 2013, and was running to be the next president of the United States of America. And on January 24, 2019, Elizabeth Warren (a representative of the Democratic Party in the United States of America, which stands for progressivism, socialism, communism, and such) appeared on MSNBC with interviewer Chris Hayes, and Elizabeth Warren showed off once again why she is a highly rotten woman and a killer of societies. For example, on January 24, 2019, Elizabeth Warren--trying to sound smart and enthusiastic and sound like a seller of great things--said in relation to a new tax idea that she had in mind--"So the way that this is written is to say, first of all, gonna tax all your assets wherever located around the globe. So if you were planning to move them to Switzerland or some island--doesn't make any difference, they are all gonna be taxed. The second part of it is we're gonna build right into the, ah, administration of this tax that is has a very high rate of monitoring or auditing the rich people on the ultra-millionaire tax. So we're gonna be out there countin' 'em and watching 'em'. And the third part of it is, you know, once you identify these assets, it's actually not that complicated and hard, because, unlike some other places that tried to build this, this one isn't gonna have a bunch of exceptions. This is one says all your assets, wherever located, and we're gonna keep counting. And you're gonna have to pay if you have more than fifty-million dollars in assets. This is the ultra-rich. You're gonna have to pay two-percent a year of that amount over fifty-million dollars. And, and here's the deal about the money, though. And I want to underline this part. It's to use that money to build opportunity for the rest of America. So this is the kind of money--think about this--over the next decade, we could produce just short of three-trillion dollars. That's the kind of money where we could pay for child care, high-quality child care for all of our kids. It's the kind of money where we could do real relief on student-loan debt. It's the kind of money where we could make a real start on a green new deal. It's the kind of money where we could bring down the cost of health care. It's the kind of money where you give somebody else in this economy a chance. A government that's not just working for the tippy top. A government that starts to work for the rest of America....". The material within quotations probably makes a naive person think that the thoughts are great. I state--The thoughts are highly rotten. I now present an explanation of the rottenness. Elizabeth Warren is focusing on "assets." What are assets? That question results in a complex answer. "Assets" are everything that a person owns, which can be money, coins, land, cars, computers, jewelry, small family businesses (with maybe big expensive trucks and machines and airplanes), paintings, tools, pots and pans, a stove, stock, bonds, a sewing machine, a motorcycle, et cetera. [Note: Do not tell me Elizabeth Warren is not thinking about taking "all" assets of the "ultra-rich"; some states in the country tax personal items on a yearly basis.] In essence, assets are things that, for the most part, have been bought with money that has already been taxed over the years, such as through income taxes or through capital-gains taxes. What Elizabeth Warren is proposing is taxing things that have already been taxed and on new earnings. By the way, Democrats are the type of people who like and push for "estate taxes"--often at extremely high rates--which make it hard for parents (even of what can be called regular or average wealth families) to pass on things that have been bought by already-taxed money over time to family members, such as children, upon the death of the parents. By the way, remember--communists and socialists and progressives believe everything in a country actually belongs to the government (the politicians), which is one reason that the communists and socialists and progressives like a estate taxes, because they can take away stuff from the people and put it in the hands of the politicians. Also communists and socialists and progressives like high estate taxes because the taxes can take away wealth from people who might otherwise be seen as having higher clout in society than the politicians have (who actually create nothing and make nothing and build nothing, such as "assets" (trucks, computers, et cetera) for people). Communists and socialists and progressives are highly jealous people who have to knock down others, especially monetarily, so that the communists and socialists and progressives will have more than others have. To do the extra work to keep tabs on the so-called "ultra-rich" and take away from the "ultra-rich" things that have already been taxed, the government will have to hire more people at the Internal Revenue Service, and that means the government will have to get bigger. Yes, there will have to be a bigger government so that it can steal from citizens--particularly things that have already been acquired through already taxed money. For the moment, the threshold is fifty-million dollars. History shows that, when a threshold is made by a government, it often gets altered over time. It is very likely that, if such a new taxing plan is put in place, over time, the threshold will go down and down and down, especially when the government people think they need more money, and the idea will affect not just the "ultra-rich." Hold it! Currently, the general operating debt of the country is twenty-trillion dollars plus, and that is really twenty-thousand-billion dollars plus, and the unfunded-liability debt for the country is way above one-hundred-trillion dollars or one-hundred-thousand billion dollars. Yet, Elizabeth Warren needs more money and more money and more money for the government. I say in jest--The federal government just does not have enough money from the citizens. Remember--It is the citizens who pay to run the government through taxes, and it is the citizens who are beholden to pay when the government goes into economy debt and cannot pay, such as, maybe, other countries who are owed. Elizabeth Warren thinks she is going to create a government in which the government will be able to "build opportunity" for everyone in the country (except the "ultra-rich"). How is the government going to "build opportunity"? Is the government going to pay companies to hire people--force companies to take on employees? Is the government going to tell you what you should be and what you should do for a living? Is the government going to decide what children are very likely to be good at and push children to take on work that the government says that the children should do in life? Hey, stop! One reason the government has a high debt amount is that the government has all types of programs for people in the country today. For example, there are all types of child-care programs. Are not the child-care programs good enough today? Years ago, parents took care of their children so the country did not have to have so many child-care programs, and parents fed their children. Today, the federal government is feeding children at schools all over the country, such as breakfasts five days a week or more--that is a job that belongs to parents, or the parents should not have had the children in the first place, being unable to support children. When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, the federal government took control of the student-loan program in the country--the federal government can now decide whether or not you get a loan and what type of loan and in relation to what type of career. In addition, the cost of education at the so-called higher places of education in the country, such as universities, has continually gone up and up over the years, and that is to pay professors who often do not actually teach classes and to pay for sports teams and stuff and to make new buildings (often not actually needed, except to have something new and pretty). [Note: Universities and and colleges get grants and such from companies and get money from estates and get money from taxpayers (such as from state coffers, which get filled by taxes). I have seen how some universities have incredible reserves of money. Look it up!] The "green deal" is more climate-change nonsense from communists and socialists and progressives. So Elizabeth Warren is going get more money to give away to companies to do what--"save the planet"? [Note: When I hear "save the planet," I always seem to recall for a moment George Carlin's stage bit about saving the planet; "George Carlin - Saving the Planet" was available on YouTube yet at the time this paragraph was made.] I guess Elizabeth Warren is going to take money--already taxed money away from Americans--to get more windmills set up around the country, and Elizabeth Warren is going to pick and choose what entities get to have the money to play around with. During the days of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President, the federal government gave away money so that people could buy the expensive "Volt" (an electric car made by General Motors), and that car is now dead, and money was given to "green-energy" companies, such as Solyndra (existing from 2005 to 2011), which only made big money for the owners and operators. When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was under construction, Barack Hussein Obama pushed out numerous times in public that people's health-care costs were doing to fall because of what the proposed act would result in--and it all was a lie, and costs went way up. Now, Elizabeth Warren wants to take more money--already taxed money from people--so that health-care costs can be lowered. There is an idiocy in that thought from Elizabeth Warren! By the way, the federal government is working to put the federal government in complete control of the health-care system in the country, and, for instance, it is often called "single-payer". When a country has a government in which only the government determines who can get health care, what health care will be given, and what health care will cost (a monopoly), you have a shit country, since the people are enslaved and are really enslaved when rotten people are in control of the government. How can a government give people a "chance"? People have to do for themselves, such as to get better at a skill, and that can take years. Stop! Venezuela's economy went to crap because of socialism and communism and progressivism. When an economy goes to crap because of government policies, such as that in which there is more and more away taken from the people till they have little to work with to drive businesses, how can the government give the people a "chance," such as a job? "A government that's not just working for the tippy top. A government that starts to work for the rest of America...."--this is a useless collection of words. A government cannot simply will this or that, such as inventions. Elizabeth Warren is another idiot woman and evil woman and mentally defective woman, like all the rest of the women reported on in this document. And like the other women, Elizabeth Warren is a killer!
Hold it! Think again about Elizabeth Warren's idea about having the government "build opportunity" for people. To "build opportunity" for people, the government would probably have to create some new entity, such as a department of the government or an agency, and a whole bunch of people would have to be hired to work in that department or agency, and, of course, the people would have to be trained. The people would have to be paid, and that means more taxpayer money would have to be spent to keep the department or agency or whatever running. What training will the people have? What real empathy would they--government people--have for people, such as you? What real time could be devoted to people by the workers in the department or agency? I say that the agency or department would simply be a department or agency of more useless government people!
Now I look at another case of lunacy, covering two different days. Kamala Harris is a U.S. Senator related to California; she has had the position since 2017. On Sunday, January 27, 2019, Kamala Harris announced that she was running to be the next U.S. president, and she was running under the umbrella of the Democratic Party (a communistic party), and on that day, she passed along a number of pieces of nonsense. For one, Kamala Harris pushed out--"...We are here because the 'American Dream' and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before. And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question--Who are we? Who are we as Americans? So let's answer that question to the world and each other right here and right now, America we are better than this!...". A person has to wonder how the "American Dream" and the American democracy are under attack" in this day and age. For example, Kamala Harris was implying that U.S. President Donald Trump is killing the "American Dream" in some way. However, a smart and good person is well aware U.S. President Donald Trump has in no way made it harder for people to reach the "American Dream," such as by making some law that might hinder people, and it is certainly clear Kamala Harris's thought is defective, given at the time Kamala Harris talked, the economic news for the country, such as employment rate for blacks, such as young blacks, was going well, and, in fact, it could be said that the economy was going great if it were compared with the economic news during the days of Barack Hussein Obama (at least communist) as the president of the country. And a good and smart person is well aware U.S. President Donald Trump has signed into law (which had come to him from the U.S. Congress) anything that is attacking the American democratic process, the basis of which is defined by The United States Constitution, and U.S. President Donald Trump have made no violations of The United States Constitution, as had Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president. Kamala Harris passed along crap! In addition, Kamala Harris said--"When we have leaders who bully and attack a free press and undermine our demo, a democratic institution, that is not our America!....". Kamala Harris lied in the material quoted in the previous sentence; she was trying to suggest that U.S. President Donald Trump is hindering the press or censoring the press, but that has not happened in any way, but U.S. President Donald Trump has called out lies offered to the American public by the press, and that is a legitimate action, given much of the lying was about him--A man gets to fight back against rottenness, even if the person is the U.S. president. Also Kamala Harris pushed out--"When bankers who crashed our economy get bonuses, but the workers who brought our coun, country back can't even get a raise, that is not our America!....". "Bankers" were not the cause of the economic crash of around 2008, so Kamala Harris lied; the crash was caused by U.S. laws (pushed into law by Democrats over many years) that forced companies to pass out, for example, loans for houses to people who were very unlikely to pay on the loans. [Note: What information does Kamala Harris have the people are not getting raises?] Kamala Harris tried to sell this idea--"And let's be true, under this administration, America's position in the world has never been weaker....". I state--There is no evidence that America's position in the world has been weakened by having Donald Trump as the U.S. president, and, in fact, for example, Donald Trump has negotiated businesses agreements with countries, such as Mexico and Canada, that have helped the standing of the U.S. in the world. On Monday, January 28, 2019, Kamala Harris was part of a "town-hall" event broadcast by CNN (the communistic news entity), and she had more nonsense to pass along. For instance, on January 28, 2019, Kamala Harris said, which was a response to, for example, whether or not private-health-insurance companies would disappear if her ideas were adopted--"Uhm, I believe the solution--and I'm, and I'm actually feel very strongly about this--is that we need to have Medicare for all. That's the bottom line...." and "...What we know is that, eh, eh, to, to live in a civil society, to be true to the ideals and the spirit of who we say we are as a country, ah, we have to appreciate as a country and understand that access to health care is, is, a priv, should not be thought of as a privilege, it should be understood to be a 'right.' It should be understood to be something that all people should be entitled to so that they can live a productive life, so that they can have dignity. And having a system that makes a difference in terms of who receives what based on your income is unconscionable. It is cruel! And in many situations that I have witnessed--inhumane...." and "...She [my mother] had the benefit of having Medicare. Uhm, but not everybody does. And, uhm, I, I, it, it is inhumane. It is inhumane to make people go through a system where they cannot literally receive the benefit of what medical science can offer, because some insurance company has decided it doesn't meet their bottom line in terms of their profit motivation. That is inhumane.". I could say much about the nonsense of the material quoted in the previous long sentence, but I will only cover a bit of what could be said. When a person has Medicare, the government does not pay for everything, as can happen with private health insurance. For example, a person can be denied full paying for things, and the person has to pay a percentage for some procedure, such as twenty percent. Veterans understand that their veterans medical benefits (which come from the federal government) do not pay for everything, and a person may have to wait and wait for procedures to be approved, and veterans often have to wait to see doctors, such as specialists. Also the moderator pushed forth again that her plans would eliminate private insurance, and Kamala Harris noted--"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care, and you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require. Who of us has not had that situation where you got to wait for approval or the doctor says--Well I don't know if your, your insurance company is going to pay for this. Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on!....". With Kamala Harris's idea, there may not be insurance companies, but there will be the federal government--a monoply--and that federal government will have approval procedures, and that federal government will have paperwork for patients and doctors and such to fill out. By the way, in the United Kingdom and Canada, where there are socialistic medical systems, people do not get everything they need, and, for example, sometimes, people have to wait a long time to get seen by doctors or to go through specialty procedures, and, sometimes, people in the United Kingdom and Canada go to the U.S. to get medical care that is blocked to them in their countries (for lack of government money). Kamala Harris passed along the idea that some people do not have Medicare. Keep in mind--Some people choose not to have Medicare, choosing not to buy it (instead choosing to pay for private health insurance or to pay out of pocket for procedures). So, based on Kamala Harris's thoughts, we have to give everybody Medicare and kill the private-health-insurance industry because a few people do not have Medicare. Kamala Harris's theme shown in the previous sentence is illogical and lunancy. And that is another case of a lunatic female mind.
In the previous paragraph, I could have talked about the "right" to health care, but I did not, leaving that subject not talked about, but I can say that what is called a "right" is defectively defined in the minds of Democrats, as this paragraph shall show. In late January 2019, many news reports let people know about things going on in such states as Virginia and New York in relation to abortion. For example, on January 22, 2019, I heard how the State Senate of New York passed a bill known as "S-290--Reproductive Health Act" (or "RHA"), which had already passed the House Assembly of New York recently by a margin of 92 to 47, and the bill in the Senate passed by a margin of 38 to 24, and I also heard audio on that day of how there was great applause--great applause--in the Senate for having passed the bill. One of the people applauding must have been Liz Kruegger (a Democrat), who had been a main sponsor of the bill, and other women in the State Senate who probably were happy and applauded were Alessandra Biaggi (a co-sponsor for the bill), Andrea Stewart-Cousins (a co-sponsor of the bill), Ann M. Kaplan, Monica R. Martinez, Rachel May, Shelley Mayer, Jen Metzger, Velmanette Montgomery, Roxanne J. Persaud, Jessica Ramos, Julia Salazar, Diane J. Savino, and Toby Ann Stavisky, all of whom were Democrats. The bill had such features as allowing non-medical persons to be involved in giving abortions and decriminalizing abortions in New York, and there was more hideous stuff in the bill. On January 28, 2019, the bill became a law through the signing of the bill into law by Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo (a Democrat and hard-line communist). On January 28, 2019 and January 29, 2019, I heard more news about rotten women, when I learned about a story focusing much on Kathy Tran (a Democrat) of the Virginia House of Delegates (in the Virginia). On January 28, 2019, Kathy Tran offered up a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates called "HB2491--Abortion; eliminate certain requirements," and it was a bill with twenty-one sponsors, the female of whom were Kathy Tran, Debra Rodman, Wendy Gooditis, Kaye Kory, Delores McQuinn, Hala Ayala, Elizabeth Guzman, Cheryl Turpin, Jennifer Foy, and Roslyn Tyler. One feature of "HB2491" was to allow abortions to be performed right up to the point that a baby was to be born in Virginia. By the way, Kathy Tran, who is of Vietnam descent, has a Masters Degree in social work (a common thing for communistic and socialistic women to be versed in and something that is often nonsense). Basically, in late January 2019, I was hearing that the actions being pushed forth by such Democrats on the topic of abortion had nothing to do with a "baby," and to me, the idea meant that the "baby" had no "rights" in the minds of "Democrats," who often talk about "rights" (that are not real "rights") of people, such as in relation to health care [Note: Is not a baby about to be born under the care of a doctor or a nurse and receiving health care?]. History shows that killing people is quite easy for socialists and communists and progressives and Shariaists, and this paragraph shows off the underlying true nature of a number of women in the United States of America who are aligned with the ways of communism or socialism or progressivism or Sharia, being in the Democratic Party. Given the information reported in this paragraph, a smart person has to ask the self--How easy would it be for a politician tied to the Democratic Party to take away the promised "right" to health care for a person not supporting such a politician and the ways of the politician? Once again I have shown off the terrible nature of the woman who is a Democrat, which you have the right to know.
Some women should never be allowed to be in charge of anything, especially a business (a company or corportation) or a city or a state or a country, and I show proof in this paragraph. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has a background in speech pathology and audiology (which is tied to a Masters Degrees), and Elizabeth Warren has the distinction of having the designation of Juris Doctor (which is related to law studies). Elizabeth Warren's background is not business or economics, such as in relation to creating a business or running a business, that which sells a product or a service. On January 30, 2019, Elizabeth Warren appeared on Bloomberg TV and said--"...Capitalism without rules is theft. Encouraging companies to build their business models on cheating people--That's not capitalism! That's not competition in the marketplace! That's not producing consumer surplus! So what I believe is capitalism with serious rules. And that means rules where everybody gets a chance to play....". A smart and good person's first reaction to Elizabeth Warren's statement should be the theme is nonsense and something that cannot be deciphered. What is Elizabeth Warren talking about in relation to her idea of having capitalism in which everyone is given a chance to play? For one, a smart and good person understands that businesses are in the business to sell a product or a service, and the smart and good person understands, if a business does not make products at least fairly well or does not do have a at least a good-enough service, customers will not deal with the business anymore and will go to competitors. The main goal in a business model for a company--from a pencil-selling company to a computer-servicing company--is to get customers and hold on to customers, or the business will die, and the people in the company will not have paychecks. Elizabeth Warren--in public--pushed out the idea that companies work to cheat people--customers. That is idiocy, and the words are the thoughts of a sick mind. In the United States of America, in essence, anyone can start a business, even if only a small business at first, which is commonplace in the life cycle of a business. How is Elizabeth Warren going to give everyone a chance to play or what laws does she have in mind that she wants to enact? Who is she going to hinder based on whom she thinks should be knocked down? Given what Elizabeth Warren said, though only in a few words, Elizabeth Warren should never be allowed to run anything, or the thing will die!
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump gave another State of the Union speech before the citizens of the United States of America, and on the same day, Stacey Abrams, who is a Democratic and is running to be the next governor of the State of Georgia, gave a rebuttal to U.S. President Donald Trump's speech on behalf of the Democratic Party in the United States of America. Her speech ran about 10 minutes and 47 seconds, and the speech was loaded with clichés and flap doodle and idiocy. One portion of the speech by Stacey Abrams was---"...In Georgia and around the country, people are striving for a middle class where salary truly equals economic security, but instead families' hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership that ignores real life or just doesn't understand it. Under the current administration [the Trump administration], far too many hard-working Americans are falling behind, living paycheck to paycheck, most without labor unions to protect them from even worse harm....". A smart and good person understands Stacey Abrams passed along high-level crap in the material within the quotation marks of the previous sentence. At the time that Stacey Abrams--a black woman--was talking, the unemployment rate for blacks in the United States of America was about the lowest in history, being at about 5.9 percent [Rooney, Kate. "Black unemployment rate falls to 5.9%, ties record low hit earlier this year." cnbc.com, 7 December 2018, 10:00 a.m..], so Stacey Abrams was lying through her teeth! By the way, when Barack Hussein Obama--a black, a communist, a member of the Democratic Party, and a perpetual liar--was the president of the United States of America, the unemployment rate for blacks was often between 10 percent and 16.5 percent, and, for example, the unemployment rate for young blacks in September 2015 was at about 31.5 percent [Note: Information about rates comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the federal government.]. Stacey Abrams said during her speech--"...We owe more to the millions of everyday folks who keep our economy running, like truck drivers forced to buy their own rigs....". The material within quotations marks in the previous paragraph is crap of the highest degree. Truck drivers are not forced to buy rigs, such as because of government actions; truck drivers often buy rigs so that they have control of the rigs and so that they can be their own bosses. Stacey Abrams said--"...Compassionate treatment at the border is not the same as open border. President Reagan understood this....". What the hell was Stacey Abrams talking about in the material within quotation marks of the previous sentence? U.S. Ronald Reagan was not a supporter of "open borders" (a country without borders)! Stacey Abrams was passing along bullshit and lied! Stacey Abrams passed along this flap doodle too--"...America is made stronger by the presence of immigrants not walls....". For decades, immigrants have been able to come in to the country legally, but, lately, Democrats having been pushing to have people (foreigners) enter the country at their will and without any restrictions, and that leads to crappy country. And Stacey Abrams stated loudly--"...Voter suppression is real!....". I report that there is no voter suppression going on, such as that in which people are kept from the polling places through the use of force, which Stacey Abrams is trying to make people think is happening [Note: A good and smart person remembers how members of The New Black Pathers were involved in voter suppression during the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president and got away with it.]. For a number of years, Democrats have been pushing to stop the use of the voter-identification card with the image of the holder of the card on it, which is a type of card that can reduce illegal voting, and that type of card is being said by Democrats to be a means of voter suppression, and I say that their statement that such a card is related to voter suppression is bullshit! Stacey Abrams is just another idiot woman and useless woman, as her own words can prove!
On February, 5, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump did a "State of the Union Address," and one topic was about setting up a better blocking system, such as a wall or a fence, to stop a great influx of illegal aliens in to the country, which had been going on since at least the days of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, who had helped start a yearly trek of illegals in mass from South America to the United States of America. A little before the speech was given by U.S. President Donald Trump, the governor of New Mexico issued an order that showed the rottenness of the governor. The governor was Michelle Lujan Grisham, who the first female governor of New Mexico tied to the Democrat Party and who had taken office on January 1, 2019, ordered that about 118 National Guard personnel from the border between New Mexico (the United States of America) and Mexico are to be removed from their positions. Remember--A country is like a home--which has to have protected borders or walls--so that those within the house or country have control of who gets into the home or country. In essence, Michelle Lujan Grisham was working to allow anybody to enter home that is the United States of America at will, and that is an evil tactic, and the sign of an evil mind.
In early February 2019, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a Democrat related to New York) was the driving force in putting out a resolution for the U.S. Congress informally entitled the "Green New Deal"; the "Green New Deal" was officially issued by U.S. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and U.S. Representative Ed Markey (a Democratic related to Massachusetts). The document--a resolution "Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a New Green Deal"--was an insight into the evil minds of the Democrats, especially the women like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This section of And the Stupid Women Shall Lead--and Lead Everyone Into Shit, Driven on by Communism, Feminism, and Defective Female Beliefs and Little-Girl Thinking presents some of the material in the resolution document, and it shows the high evilness and rottenness of, for one, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Look at only some portions of the document that is pushing for big-government action to combat so-called manmade climate change that is killing and will kill the planet--the pushers say--in twelve years:...Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation....I only have presented a small bit of the "resolution," and it can be seen in what I present that the "resolution" is filled with bullshit and lies and defective logic. Where is the evidence that life expectancy is declining in the United States of America because of so-called climate-change caused by man? How has climate change made and how does climate change make racial discrimination worse in the country? What is a good-paying job, and how can a government guarantee a good-paying job to everyone? How can the government completely change energy use in the country in ten years, leaving the country at only electricity generated by so-called green technology? Stop! I could ask a lot of questions about what nonsense is presented by the pushers of the "resolution," but let me do something else. In essence, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants all buildings to be redone and reworked, and yet she wants to make buildings affordable, and that means she wants to spend incredible amounts of money to change buildings and yet keep buildings affordable, but--I say--when work is done on a building, such as to make it more energy efficient, the cost of the building goes up. [Note: Maybe Alexandria Oscaio-Cortez wants the government to control the prices of all houses and buildings in the country.] In essence, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to remove greenhouse gases from the air, and I guess she wants to use giant vacuum cleaners with filters to suck the air out of the sky and take carbon dioxide out (though carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to live), and if she wishes to take carbon dioxide out of the air, it seems to me she will have to have big machines, which will use a lot of energy, built. When a person reads the document, the person can see much of it has nothing to do with climate change, having stuff related to making unions bigger and building wealth (whatever that means) for communities through government action and getting rid of all discriminating by whites (which is implied). The "resolution" is communism of the highest form! It is evil, and it is a society killer. On February 7, 2019, by the way, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez while in public answered whether or not the resolution would result in massive government intervention--"It does. Yeah! I have no problem saying that. Why? Because we have tried their approach for forty years. For forty years, we tried to let the private sector take care of it. They said--We got this, we can do this, the, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate. Except for the fact that there's a little thing in economics called externalities. And what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river, and they don't have to pay for it, and taxpayers have to pay for cleaning up our air, cleaning up our water, and saving the planet....". Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's use of "externalities" is defective, and a person who hears the statement might think there is law that allows companies to dump pollution, even though there are countless federal regulations and state regulations that disallow that. On February 7, 2019, a document (dated February 7, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.) related to frequently asked questions about the New Green Deal was release publicly by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates, such as to National Public Radio, noting some highlights and details about the "resolution," and the document was loaded with more nonsense, which showed more of the insanity within Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates, such as--"...Yes we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won't build the new economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get net-zero, rather than zero-emissions, in ten years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore out ecosystem to get to net-zero.". And that is more hard-line communism (a.k.a "progressivism")--complete government control over the citizen in the United States of America. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates point to "huge mobilization," which is like what communistic countries--like China--have done in the past with their citizens over the entire land, pushing out laws to force people to do the bidding of the government and killing those who stand in the way, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates see a day when no cows exist, which give of farts (methane) and help kill the planet (supposedly). I state that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should be placed in a home for the insane, given her mind is that of a killer of societies and even cows. [Note: I guess the American Indian will see the killing of the last of the buffalo in the country by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates, since buffalos gives off methane in a way that cows do.] I have watched how long it takes to make buildings and houses and to make additions to buildings and houses, and the country has countless buildings and houses, many of which have been standing for decades, and the time needed to redo the buildings of America would go way beyond ten years and twenty years and thirty years and forty years and fifty years--the country has at least 80-million buildings (covering all types of sizes). Where are enough people going to come from to redo the buildings? Where are enough people going to come from to, for instance, get on roofs and install solar-panel equipment? Where are the materials going to come from to redo the buildings, given such materials as insulation and solar panels for more than 80-million buildings will have to be made? Where are all the trucks and vehicles going to come from to transport the buildings materials? More trucks will have to be made, and those trucks will need energy to move, and where will the energy come from? More truck drivers will be needed. Factories will have to be set up to make materials, such as solar-panel units with support structures, and a lot of energy will have to be used to make the materials? Where will the energy come from to run factories to make all the new materials that will be required? Where will the natural resources come from to make the materials, such as insulation and solar panels? While all the mobilization is going--on pushed along by the government, which will have to have more soldiers to enforce the nonsense and pressure people to work--who will be doing the other things that have to be done to keep communities alive, such as grow food, move food, clean streets, make clothes, clean clothes, make more tools to get resources to make such things as solar panels and insulation, make more switches and circuit breakers, build electrical panels, repair trucks, fix roads, repair trains, make more train cars to move materials, et cetera. By the way, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates are pushing to have much travel done by trains and high-speed trains and not be airplanes and cars and such. The problem with trains is the paths for them are highly restricted, because trains much use train track, and train track cannot be set up between all places are within existing cities or be set up so that all cities are linked so that people can get about easily, and to have more trains in the country, means a lot of money will have to be spent on putting down train track and building trains and passenger cars, and then SUV's and cars and such will still have to exist so that people can get to and from--really--the few train stations that can possibly exist to their homes and businesses, vice versa, and it will take decades to set up the train systems, which will not be cost-effecdtive and will be inefficient. [Consider--If you look at only Detroit (Michigan], which covers a large amount of land, it is not possible to set up trains to get people moved around--trains cannot be set up to get to every place.] Remember--the goal of the New Green Deal is to be done ten years, or the planet will die (they say), so a lot of people will have to leave their professions and jobs and take up work forced on them by the government. By the way, how much time would it take to redo or retrofit a single small building? It could take days or weeks. The amount of money needed would be incredible for the whole New Green Deal, but, of course, Democrats are people who think that money grows on trees and means nothing (so they will simply print money endlessly, which will have no real value or have little value). I can see that the cost of redoing even a small house could be $10,000 or $20,000 or more, which would cover such things as a new heating plant (a furnace or a heat pump or whatever, which would have to be electricity-based and not natural-gas based, given Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates are working to get rid of all carbon-based systems) and a solar-panel system (which would only be used a portion of the year because of the weather, such as clouds), and old equipment would have to be taken away and disposed of. If 74,000,000 single family homes have to be redone, I can see the cost at--$375,000,000,000 at least [Note: It seems very like to me that my estimate is well below what it should be.]. And I have not even considered more complex buildings, such as motels and hotels and condos and apartments, each of which could take millions of dollars to retrofit. Of course, money would have to be spent to repair newly installed stuff that breaks down over the next few years at least. Since furnaces and boilers related to oil or coal or natural gas or propane would be abandoned, a lot of electrical energy would have to be produced to fire up, for example, heating coils in heating units, and a few solar panels could not do the job for even a single furnace or whatever, so more electricity-generating factories will have to be set up in the country, and each could take decades to design and build and put on-line [Note: Such things as furnaces have to be provided with enough power for heating coils and fans (blowers).]. Electricity-generating factories can be windmill farms, so hundreds and hundreds of thousands more windmills will have to be made and set up in the country, and more copper lines (to carry electricity) and transformers will have to be made and installed to get electricity from windmill farms to buildings in the country, and the amount of carrier line would have to be in miles and miles and miles and miles. It takes about ten years to construct a simple nuclear-power plant, but I have to say that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her associates want to get rid of the nuclear-power plants that exist and have no more built. It is not possible to set up enough windmill farms to keep the country thriving! In addition, there is the incalculable cost of the New Green Deal. In the effort to make the goals of the New Green Deal become a reality, the pushers of it will disrupt lives of millions based on idiocy and the big lie (which is that man is killing the planet with carbon dioxide and that the planet will die in twelve years or so)--people will have to change schedules in their ways of life, and people will probably have to have their homes and businesses shut down for a while so that retrofit work can be completed, which means people will have to spend money at motels or whatever for a while, and some people will probably be forced to leave their homes forever and be forced to move to new locations (which might involve moving to communities or neighborhoods that the pushers of the New Green Deal want to meet their definitions of diversity), and people will have their careers interrupted. The people of the United States of America will be enslaved to the idiocy of the pushers of the communistic New Green Deal. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a mind that is highly sick and defective and dangerous, and I say that her mind is not fixable--it will be hellish for others forever. [Note: Through Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's even suggesting that the "New Deal Green" themes should be followed shows Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's commonsense ability is bad, very bad, and since her commonsense ability is very low, everything that she will probably uphold or push for while in the U.S. Congress will be screwed-up stuff, and that means the good people in the United States of America will end up with shit--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has no qualifications to run anything, especially in government.]
...Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with--
(1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population....
...Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustice (referred to in this preamble as "systemic injustices") by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as "frontline and vulnerable communities")....
That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(1) it in the duty of the Federal Government to crate a Green New Deal--(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the "Green New Deal goals") should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the "Green New Deal mobilization") that will require the following goals and projects--
(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States...
(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as "frontline and vulnerable communities")....
(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies....(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects--
(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including....
(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification....
(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation....(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries....
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people in the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment
Governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer gave her first "State of the State" speech related to Michigan, on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, and it was broadcast by, for instance, a number of television stations in Michigan. I mostly avoided watching the event, aware much of it would be flap doodle and idiocy, given I was aware of the nature of Gretchen Whitmer. However, for a few minutes, I happened to see and hear a bit of the speech while flipping through the television channels, and I caught Gretchen Whitmer around the time that she said--"...This is not happening because Michigan kids are less talented. It's not happening because our kids are less motivated. It's not happening because our educators are less dedicated. It is happening because generations of leadership has failed them....". Gretchen Whitmer's theme was about how the children of Michigan are rated very low in the country in relation to educational results. I state, for the most part, operators of teachers unions and teachers and school administrators are to blame, since many of them are supporters of socialism and communism, as history shows. I have had a friend for years who had worked in the teaching industry in Michigan for about 45 years, and she often tells me how schools dropped or reduced teaching grammar, such as sentence structure and parts or speech, in the late 1900s and reduced teaching children to memorize the multiplication tables and such, which is important is training the brain in memory, and she notes how the "whole-word method" of reading is crap and led to crap. I pass along to my friend how I think, for example, Sesame Street has been bad for the children in the country, since it has taught teachers and children that learning has to be fun and happy-happy and has to be presented in fun ways all the time, such as with games, and I say that that has led to children--a couple generations of children--balking at dealing with reading and learning if it is not presented to them in a fun and childish ways, which leads to them not being trained in having stamina to tackle long pieces of writing. In the recent decade, the educational community has adopted the crappy ways of "Common Core." During the portion of the speech that I caught, Gretchen Whitmer worked to greatly praise teachers, but, in a way, Gretchen Whitmer was attacking the socialistic and communistic educators, though she may not have been aware of that, given she is really unaware what the problems in the educational system are. Of course, Gretchen Whitmer--a "Democrat" (a socialist at least)--pushed out the idea that more money is needed. I quickly turned away from watching the speech, knowing more idiocy was on the way.
Here I have to talk about economics and hatred "Democrats" have for people who make money, especially make money that results in the people being richer than politicians are [Note: Politicians who are "Democrats" are highly jealous people, and they will, in essence, kill people who have more status and such in society than they have.]. Pretend there is a business existing in a city called "Cortez." The business pays taxes on earnings--business taxes or corporation taxes--to the city, and employees of the business pay taxes (income taxes) to the city. The operators of the business want to expand the business in the city by making more building space, which would in the long run result in more people working for the business and more people (employees of the business) paying taxes to the city. Remember--Cities get money to run from the citizens. The more citizens who work that a city has, the more tax revenue the city gets, and when a business gets bigger in a city and gets more earnings, the city in which it exists get more tax money (business-tax money). On February 14, 2019, it became public knowledge all over the country that Amazon (a business) was not going to increase the size of the headquarters of the company in New York City, New York, because, for one, the city balked at a deal with Amazon for Amazon to get tax breaks to expand. One person who was happy that the deal fell through was Democratic Socialist and U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (related to New York), and, for example, she said publicly on February 14, 2019, in relation to Amazon's giving up on its plans--"...It's incredible. I mean it shows that everyday Americans still have the power to organize and fight for their communities, and they can have more say in this country than the richest man in the world....". Hold it! Here is some more information that you have to see before I present more nonsense talk from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated with honor and praise in 2011 from the College of Arts and Sciences of Boston University in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics. In addition, when a business gets tax breaks from a government, it means that the business does not have to pay as much in taxes, and that is usually allowed because the business is in the long run is going to be paying more taxes to the government for having expanded, such as by hiring more people to work in the community and pay taxes, and what a tax break does not mean is the government pays money to the company. A government does not pay money--any money (which I will call "tax-break money")--to a business when the business gets tax breaks. Generally speaking, when the Amazon/New York City deal got shut down, it was estimated that New York City was going to lose about $27-billion in new tax revenue over 25 years, and the community was going to lose 25,000 to 40,000 new jobs, and the community was going to lose some 1,300 construction jobs [Fredericks, Bob, and Carl Campanile and Ruth Brown. "Amazon pulls out of $3 billion deal to bring HQ2 to NYC." newpost.com, 14 February 2019, 11:05 a.m..]. Now look at what else Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said--in her little-girl voice--about the shutting down of the deal--"...If we were willing to give away three-billion dollars for this deal, we could invest those three-billion dollars in our district ourselves if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers. We can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money if we wanted to.....". Do you see how utterly ignorant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? There is asnd was no three-billion dollars; that is, the city was not possibly going to give Amazon any money if the deal went through. Amazon was only going to pay about three-billion dollars less in business taxes over 25 years, and the city would have gotten dozens of billions in new business tax from Amazon and more income taxes from people, getting the new income taxes from more people working and paying taxes. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reminds me of Idi Amin, who was the communistic/socialistic dictator of Uganda from 1971 to 1979 and who killed the economy of the country, such as by pushing business people (who happened to be of Asian descent) out of the country, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reminds me of Hugo Chavez, who was a communist/socialist and who was the president of Venezuela from 1999 and 2013 and who took over businesses and who led the country into economic collapse, where it is today. Like all progressives and communists and socialists and liberals, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who publicly calls herself a "Democratic Socialist" while smiling and feeling good about it) has a defective mind and a screwed-up mind, and screwed-up minds kill cities and states and countries, as history shows.
When a country does not have borders, then the country is no country. For years, at least since Barack Hussein Obama became the U.S. president, Democrats in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere in government, such as state government, have worked to make it so that the country has no defined borders or borders that are set up so that foreigners are blocked from just entering the country at their own will, which is commonplace for countries all over the world. In January 2019 and in early February 2019 at least, the U.S. Congress worked to set up new budget bill, and U.S. President Donald Trump wanted money to be allocated in the bill to help make a more secure border between the United States of America and Mexico, and one reason for that is, since Barack Hussein Obama was elected to be the U.S. president for the first time, it has been commonplace for thousands and thousands of foreigners--immigrants--from places south of Mexico at least to head in to the United States of America in mass on a yearly basis at their own will--Barack Hussein Obama encouraged the event. On February 15, 2019, a bill was finished in the U.S. Congress and passed through the U.S. Congress completely, and although a good person knew the bill was rotten--purposely having been made that way by the enemies in the U.S. Congress, which include all the Democrats and many of the Republicans--U.S. President Donald Trump (even though he seemed to know the bill was rotten) signed the bill into law. Also on that day, U.S. President reported that he was going to take action--emergency action, as granted to him in U.S. law--to get the wall built. One of the enemies of the country is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, around 2015 and 2016, was the head of the Democratic National Committee (or the DNC) and who was involved with Hillary Rodham Clinton (a hard-line communist) to corrupt the primary election process for the Democratic Party in the United States of America and allow Hillary Clinton to beat U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (a hard-line communist) for the nomination spot for U.S. president of the Democrat Party [Note: Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a U.S. Representative for the 23rd District of Florida from 2005 to 2013 and was the chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to 2016.]. On February 15, 2019, Debbie Wasserman Schultz showed off her rotten mind even more while talking on CNN (a communistic news network) with Kate Bouduan (a news anchor) about the action that U.S. President Donald Trump was going to take to get a wall built, and, for instance, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said--"...I find it hard to believe that the generals told him that it was more important to build an unnecessary border wall than it is to make sure that we have defense intelligence, ah, defense intelligence centers built around the country at our military bases. Kate, Congress appropriated these funds specifically for these readiness projects, and the president is essentially saying--Nope, I rather build a border wall, this is not important, and I'm just going to take this money that Congress previously said, in coordination with our military leadership, that was more important. He is jeopardizing our readiness! He will jeopardize the safety and security of our troops. And he will steal money from our troops who are defending our, our border in order to make sure that he can build this border-wall boondoggle. It's unconstitutional, outrageous, and we are going to use every tool that we have at our disposal in Congress to make sure that he can't do it....". The material within quotation marks is bullshit. How is building a wall at the border going to "jeopardize our readiness"? A border makes it harder for enemies to enter the country. How is building a wall going "jeopardize the safety and security of our troops"? For one, a person is safer behind a wall than not behind a wall. A wall poses no physical threat to a soldier, especially if the solder is in one of the so-called intelligence centers scattered around the country, which are far from the border between Mexico the United States of America. Yes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed out illogic, and she was working to make the country less safe for the citizens of the United States of America--all to benefit the ways of communism and communints. It must be remembered U.S. President Donald Trump was only asking for about four-billion dollars, and it must be remembered Democrats in the U.S. Congress have been overspending for years and have been spending money on a lot of rotten things. A good person must keep in mind--Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an enemy to good people in the United States of America. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is yet another evil woman--a communist and socialist and progressive. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has the mind of a killer!
Here is a paragraph that shows why the action of the attorney general of Michigan around February 18, 2019, shows the attorney general should be thrown out of the country and sent to a communist country to live, where the attorney general would fit in well as another "enslavist." The attorney general of Michigan around February 18, 2019, was Dana Nessel, and around this date, a number of communists and socialists in the state governments, such as a number of attorneys general of states, one of whom was Dana Nessel, got involved in a lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump in relation to U.S. President Donald Trump's emergency declaration about getting barrier set up between Mexico and the United States of America to make it harder for foreigners to come to this country at their own will and against federal law and come in to the country regular groups of thousands. For years, "Democrats" in the U.S. Congress have worked to block setting up a barrier at the border between Mexico and the United States of America, which would secure the country, as the walls of the house help protect the people in the house from intruders, and the "Democrats" have spent and spent and spent so much government money for decades that the country has an incredible amount of debt--in the trillions of dollarse--and yet they balk at spending some five-billion to have a barrier set up at the border between Mexico and the United States. It is the duty of the U.S. president to protect the country, and laws, such as The U.S. Constitution and a 1976 federal act, give the U.S. president the ability to take emergency action, and I state that, having thousands and thousands and thousands of people flowing in to the country unrestricted, is bad and has to be stopped. Around February 18, 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel pushed out this message through a "tweet"--"This fake emergency is a publicity stunt that will raid our federal funding and cost us millions. We cannot in good conscience stand by while our president seeks to undermine our own efforts to keep our residents safe and our military strong. Proud to stand with these AGs today." [Fritze, John. "Michigan among states suing Trump." Detroit Free Press, 19, February 2019, p. 11A.]. What Dana Nessel passed along is jackass-female bullshit! For one, a good person has to wonder how not having a barrier keeps people in the country safer than having a barrier. In addition, what "efforts" do Dana Nessel have to keep American safe? Or what efforts do Dana Nessel have in use that will be shot down if a barrier is built? [Note: A good person has to wonder how Dana Nessel has any "standing" with respect to any court case, given the border is not directly tied to the State of Michigan.] Also a good person has to wonder, if U.S. President Donald Trump's action is a "publicity stunt," what does U.S. President Donald Trump gain from the stunt. And I have to talk about cost. Dana Nessel's action of putting Michigan into the mix of states fighting against U.S. Donald Trump means Michigan taxpayer money is going to be wasted on a court case, of which a good person knows U.S. Donald Trump should be seen in the right. Yes, Michigan taxpayers now have to pay for Dana Nessel's defective mind and rotten mind. To me, Dana Nessel is working against the good people of the United States of America (as set up under The United States Constitution) and working for its enemies, those outside the borders who are trying to get in freely, such as to do harm and be given stuff for free.
When a country is set up so that the federal government--or government--is the sole determiner of health care for the citizens, you have a shit country, because that allows government people to decide who lives and who dies and who actually gets care and who does not. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made law by the federal government--the progressives and liberals and socialists and communists in the federal government--as a step toward putting the federal government in complete control of the health care of the citizens of the United States of America; it was a law enacted through corruption and deception and lies. In February 2019, U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (a hard-line communist and a Democrat associated with Michigan) put forth a plan or bill to expand Medicare to people who are at an age between 50 and 65 years. It was and is another step to put the federal government in charge of the lives of the citizens and another step that will lead to the citizens not being able to avoid bad health care--when the government controls health care, there is no alternative for people who wish to bypass the bad decisions and bad work of government people. Also in February 2019, another plan was unveiled by communists and such in the federal government to expand Medicare. The plan was publicly introduced by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (who is a Democrat related to the State of Washington). Hold it! Although Pramila Jayapal is now a U.S. Representative, she can be considered a foreigner, given she grew up in Indian, which is a country with a "caste" system, where people are born into a certain level of society and are supposed to stay there and are even forced to stay there, which is not the way of the United States of America--it seems to me Pramila Jayapal is bringing the crap of India to the United States of America. The proposal put forth by Pramila Jayapal would put every citizen (and probably illegal aliens) under Medicare, and the proposal would purposely kill all private-insurance health-care insurance plans and kill the private health-care insurance business in the country within two years of the proposal becoming law. In other words, U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal is pushing for a "single-payer" health-care system for the country, and U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal was pushing forth the idea that there would be no premiums and be no deductibles and be on copays. Does not free death sound great? [Note: For years, I have called "Debbie Stabenow"--"Debbie Stab-you-now".]
Between January 1917 and March 2019, the American people heard and saw endless news reports and statements from Democrats (progressives and communists and the like) that U.S. President Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to win the office of the U.S. presidency, but a good person--such as I--understands it is all crap. In the United States of America, for the most part, each state controls how the election process for the U.S. president will be conducted within the state, and in each state, all types of people, such as Democrats and Republicans, are involved in watching over an election, such as at each precinct, to put down corrupt and reduce or eliminate corruption, such as the changing of votes, and there are election rules that must be followed, such as about counting votes. There is no way in which Russia could have changed votes in the election for U.S. president in November 2016 and made Donald Trump the U.S. president. Remember--The federal government of the United States of America was set up by the states, and in the United States of America, the election process for the U.S. president is not controlled completely by the federal government (though it can set procedures). Because of the way in which the election process is set up today, if there is some corruption or cheating in one state, there are 49 other states that are unaffected. If the control of federal elections or national elections in this country were in the hands of the federal government completely, corruption in national election would increase, because defective ways and corrupt ways of the federal-government people would affect the entire country. Only corrupt people push to have, for one, elections for the U.S. president--a federal job--completely in the hands of the federal government. On March 8, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives, which was in the control of "Democrats" (that is, communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists) passed a bill--234-yes votes to 193-no votes--called "H.R. 1 For the People Act" [Note: To a smart and good person, the title smells of something that would be pushed through by communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists--the set of words is, in essence, communistic in nature and form, and it is like the name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the name for which is a lie in relation to what it really does [Note: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made law by Democrats.]. On March 8, 2019, it seemed very likely that "H.R. 1 For the People Act" bill would never become law because it would not get passed by the U.S. Senate (which was controlled by Republicans) and would not get signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump (a Republican), but the passing of the bill showed off what Democrats would do if they were able to--and that would be to put the federal government in complete control of the federal election process. For example, if the bill were to become law, the federal government would determine congressional voting districts (the land areas), and, for one, that would give the elected officials in federal offices a way in which to help insure they would be elected in the future. Another provision of the bill would be to allow a person to register to vote on the day of voting or, really, probably, the time of voting, and that would give election officials no time in which to prove or disprove whether or not a person showing up to vote is a legal citizen of the United States of America. Another provision would set up the process for automatic registration related to state databases, such as driver's license databases, and that would lead to more illegal aliens getting on to voting lists. There are many more rotten things about the bill, but I shall not go into them here [Note: By the way, for over a decade, most of the members of the Democratic Party in the United States of America have supported the idea of not having voter identification cards with photographs of the holders, saying such crap as the cards are racially discriminatory, which is bullshit and which shows they are working for a corrupt system of elections.]. The important point here is the bill was and is highly rotten, and it was Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who were instrumental in passing the bill, and the people who signed to bill showed that they were working and would work in the future to make the federal government in complete control on the federal election system so that the election process could be made corrupt. Some of the people who voted for the bill were women in the U.S. House of Representatives, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal, and Ilhan Omar, which is not surprising to me. Yet another of the rotten women to vote for the bill--which is designed "To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes." [a theme of bullshit from the communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists, who are enemies of the country and should be treated as enemies of the country]--was U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (a Democrat related to Michigan), who, in essence, had inherited her seat in the U.S. Congress from her husband, John Dingell (a communist and a person instrumental in getting the communistic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 put into law), who had had the seat for about fifty years and who had inherited the seat from his father--it is a dynasty of bad people (and dynasties related to politics are always bad, because, for instance, the son or the daughter of a man (father)--even a good man--will very likely not have the same thinking abilities and skills as the man (father) has and will not be suited to the same type of work. A lot of women in the U.S. House of Representatives voted for--"yea"--"H.R. 1 For the People Act," and that shows there were a lot of rotten and evil women in the U.S. House of Representatives. [Note: Incidentally, an entity called the "League of Women Voters" (a socialistic-type nationally known entity) pushed for the passing of "H.R. 1 For the People Act," which shows the true nature of the entity, which is a defective "feminist" entity.]
Every March, there is a music-industry-related event held in the country that is called South by Southwest, and in March 2019, the event was held in Austin, Texas, and one of the guests for the event was U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who taught crap to the attendees on March 9, 2019, by giving her thoughts. For example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in public--"...Capitalism isn't--to me--is, it's an ideology of capital. It means we seek and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost....". To me, the statement is idiocy. Remember--The music industry is made up of record companies and corporations, the operators of which seek to make money. Why do the people at the record companies and corporations try to make money? If they do not make money, their businesses go out of business, and the operators and employees then do not make wages, which can be used to pay rent, purchase clothing, buy food, et cetera. Profit is only that which remains from all money earned after expenses are taken care of. For example, to make a record or CD, a record company has to pay engineers, pay accountants, pay for studio time, pay for paper to send letters, pay to have record presses or CDs run off, et cetera. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also said at the event in Austin, Texas, to an audience--"...And to me that ideology is not sustainable....". What does that material within quotations is the previous sentence mean? It means nothing! It is more idiocy! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was teaching that making "profit" by a person or company or corporation is not sustainable. There would be no businesses or companies--big or small--if they did not make a profit. If a company or business or corporation does not make profit, it is unsustainable. Without businesses and companies, how do people get wages and how do things get made? Remember--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist, and socialists, like communists and progressives and Shariaists, believe government should do everything and control everything. By the way, Barack Hussein Obama was a supporter of socialism and communism and progressivism and Sharia (a form of government or a political system based on Islamic law, which is rotten), and while Barack Hussein Obama was the U.S. president, the U.S. economy stalled, and the current and recent rulers of Venezuela have been socialists or communists or progressives, and Venezuela is a dead country now. Also, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, while trying to dispel the idea that communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists, like her, are working to change the country into, for example, a communistic country, that the gathering of music-related people, such as gangster rappers, who are rotten people--"...We should be scared because corporations have taken over our government....". Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushed a lie by using the words contained within the quotation marks of the previous sentence. What company or corporation has taken over the government? Was it a record company? What is a waste-disposal country? What is a plumbing company? Was it a taxi company? Was it a dress-making company? Was it a car-making company? Was it...? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--a truly stupid woman and a killer of good societies--passed along bullshit at South by Southwest, and that is the way of every socialist and communist and progressive and Shariaist, all of whom are to be hated by good people!
Incidentally, in March 2019, the Attorney General for the State of Michigan--Dana Nessel (a supporter communism)--showed signs to me that she is working to help put down people who might call out the rottenness of Sharia and Shariaists (the pushers of Islamic law) in Michigan by setting up a state-government entity that will be thought of as a hate-crime unit, and that hate-crime entity could be involved in saying that any speech against people related to Sharia are involved in promoting hate and should be punished, even though Sharia is not compatible with true democracy or The United States Constitution, and the entity could be involved in shutting down entities that disagree with the hate-crime entity's beliefs, and, also, Dana Nessel was putting down groups that had been defined as hate groups by an entity known as the "Southern Poverty Law Center," a communistic entity based Montgomery, Alabama, and one such group was the American Freedom Law Center, which is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which, for one, does not support having court systems in the State of Michigan cite foreign law in law cases, a form of law practice supported by Democrats (communists, socialists, progressives, and Shariaists). [Note: I say that Sharia is rotten and evil, and it is to be hated by good people, and Sharia has to be knocked down in this country--Shariaists have proven to the world that they want to put down or enslave or skill people involved with Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christian religions.]
I state--There is nothing good about a woman who stands with and for the ways and beliefs of the Democratic Party in the United States of America today!
P.S.: And there are so many more women whom I could talk about in this document, examples of whom (in 2019) are U.S. Representative Brenda Lawrence (of Michigan), U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin (of Michigan), and U.S. Representative Haley Stevens (of Michigan).
P.S.: Killers must be treated as killers.
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on December 13, 2018.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/women.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatives and
The United States Constitution Versus
Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism,
Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
be reached by using this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The "Enslavers" Want
Your Retirement Plan or Pension Plan,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-
Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and
Barack Obama, which can be reached by
using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.
Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.
To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now: