And the Stupid Women Shall Lead--
and Lead Everyone 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
January 23, 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 updated material, which shows off more of the rottenness of the the women who are focus of this document.
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?
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: