Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Welcome to my blog!

Female HS Student Says She ‘Felt Violated’ After Seeing Trans Student’s Penis In Locker Room
Posted:Mar 21, 2019 7:52 am
Last Updated:Mar 22, 2019 6:17 am

A Pennsylvania student attending Honesdale High School has filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights after her school administrators allowed a trans woman, a biological who feels he is a woman, dress and undress in the female locker room.

The student said she felt violated and scared when she looked across the aisle in the locker room discover a member of the opposite sex in his underwear. In a video released by her legal team, she says it was obvious he was biologically , as she “could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.”

“It was the first period, and I had gym class,” said the student, “And I walked in with all my friends, and while I was putting on my pants, I heard a man’s voice, so I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me.”

“I glanced down and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear, and what was beneath it.”

She added that having a man apparently gawking at her while in various stages of undress made her feel unsafe.

“When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated, and very scared,” she said. “Especially looking at me while I am getting dressed.”

Her attorney said that this should be considered a form of sexual harassment in the eyes of the law.

“Opening up restrooms and locker room facilities to members of the opposite sex is sexual harassment,” said Andrea Shaw, the high school student’s attorney, “And like many forms of sexual harassment the girls in this school have little power over their situation.”

The attorney also notes that the school’s only attempt to remedy the situation was to allow the female high school student to wait to change until the biologically male student was finished, making her chronically late to gym class.
According to local media, the school district’s superintendent claims he is not able to comment on the case, but stated that the school is following the letter of the law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to take up the case, otherwise biologically male students will continue to be allowed to dress and undress with biologically females.

I first saw this on Big League Politics, did some checking and found it was also on Christian News, Lifesite, as well as Yahoo. Now I don't think the "male" has any business whatsoever in the ladies locker room.
Democrats want to change American institutions so they can regain power - whatever it takes
Posted:Mar 20, 2019 4:42 am
Last Updated:Mar 21, 2019 7:25 am

We don't live in a democracy, we never have. John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.” Some advocates of more democracy even have gone so far as to call for abolishing some of our American institutions. These proposals range from getting rid of the Electoral College, to blocking the confirmation of “unpopular” Supreme Court justices, to tying representation in the U.S. Senate to state populations, rather than retaining equal representation. Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris to name a few support these ideas. The majority of Americans think we should consider the United States a democracy whenever a minority of citizens decide the presidential vote. Never mind that this minority represents more than 80 percent of the counties in this country.

Despite what many of today’s activists would have us believe, the anti-democratic institutions of the American Republic are just as vital now as they were over 200 years ago.

For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency don’t only have the support of the population-heavy coasts, but broad support throughout the entire country. The function of the Electoral College is to respect and represent the states as sovereign entities within our federal system.

As Lincoln noted in an 1856 speech: “Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.” Thomas Jefferson lamented that “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule."

The advocates for increased democracy would do well to remember Lincoln’s wise warning. Their demand for more democracy may stem from genuine concern and a desire for “progress.” But in seeking to undermine or cast aside the less democratic institutions of the American system, they show a vast misunderstanding and lack of appreciation for our unique system of government.

In the United States, the people rule, but only through institutions designed to protect the individual and minority from the tyranny of the majority. That system is worth protecting and preserving.
So This Is Why The FBI Couldn't View The Clinton Foundation Emails On Hillary's Unauthorized Server
Posted:Mar 19, 2019 4:25 am
Last Updated:Mar 21, 2019 11:41 am

I know it’s a story that isn’t as dominating as the 2020 contenders, the college admission scandal, or the horrific shooting in New Zealand, but the Department of Justice/FBI meddling in the 2016 election is still news. We all had suspicions that there were top-level folks screwing around. I mean, we just had revelations that top officials at the DOJ were discussing ways to remove Donald Trump through the 25thAmendment. These people weren’t elected. This was coup talk. Period. Now, we have ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page saying that there was an order handed down from the DOJ to the FBI, telling them not to charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured server from which she did all of her officials business when she served the Obama administration as secretary of state. And now, there was supposedly a deal between the DOJ and the Clinton camp that prevented the FBI from viewing Clinton Foundation emails (via Washington Examiner):

Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congress last year that the agency "did not have access" to Clinton Foundation emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server because of a consent agreement "negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton."

That agreement was revealed in newly released congressional transcripts from Strzok's closed-door testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2018.

When asked by then-majority general counsel Zachary Somers if “the Clinton Foundation was on the server”, Strzok testified that he believed it was “on one of the servers, if not the others.” But Strzok stressed that due to an agreement between the DOJ and Clinton, they were not allowed to search Clinton Foundation emails for information that could help in their investigation.

The FBI would have been investigating Clinton's emails in 2016, when former President Barack Obama was still in office and when Clinton was running for president against then-candidate Donald Trump.

Somers asked in the 2018 hearing: “Were you given access to those emails as part of the investigation?”

Strzok replied: “We were not. We did not have access," according to the transcript.

The allegations lobbed at the Clinton Foundation have been pervasive as well, with many noting that it was a virtual slush fund for the power couple. A political favor bank where the wealthy and well connected to drop a donation and could expect very good things to benefit them in their economic lives at some point down the road. And it wasn’t just liberals who were writing about how this little system was rather slimy. In August of 2016, Guy noted that the DOJ rejected an FBI request to look into the Clinton Foundation. At the time, who cares, right? Clinton was going to win anyway.

For years, the liberal media and the Democrats have alleged that there was Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to tilt the 2016 election. So far, there’s been zero evidence to substantiate that allegation that’s rapidly becoming a clown show. It’s embarrassed the media for peddling stories on this beat that was not just straight trash, but totally wrong. Now, with more light on the FBI, DOJ, and Clinton campaign’s antics, the collusion call is coming from inside the house. Remember the Steele Dossier on Trump that was compiled by ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele was a Democrat/DNC/Clinton funded the venture.

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had a months-long extramarital affair in which they shared tens of thousands of anti-Trump texts, alluding to an insurance policy against the then-candidate, worried that the bureau might be going too hard on Hillary during the email probe, with Strzok explicitly saying that they would find ways to stop a Trump presidency. He reportedly was told that the Clinton server may have been breached and did nothing about it.
Strzok was a top counterintelligence agent at the bureau prior to the revelation of these texts. He was transferred to human resources before being fired, but not after he was involved in the Clinton email probe and signed off on the counterintelligence investigation into Russian collusion in July of 2016; an investigation now being helmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Page resigned, but in a closed-door session with Congress said the anti-Trump texts meant what they said. This story about the Clinton Foundation emails having a shield thanks to the Obama DOJ shouldn't shock us, but it's part of a pattern. So, when it comes to collusion, the Robert F. Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover buildings seem to be a point sourc
SFFs liberals Tolerant, No I don't think So
Posted:Mar 18, 2019 4:33 am
Last Updated:Mar 20, 2019 2:09 pm

For centuries, we have associated the word “liberal” with open-mindedness. Liberals were people who were supposed to be tolerant and fair and who wanted to give all sides a hearing. They cared about everyone, not just their own kind.

Sadly, the kind of liberalism we used to know is fast disappearing from America. While the intolerance of the far right is well known, its manifestations on the far left are less known and often not fully acknowledged.

All too often, people who call themselves progressive liberals are at the forefront of movements to shut down debates on college campuses and to restrict freedom of speech. They are eager to cut corners, bend the Constitution, make up laws through questionable court rulings, and generally abuse the rules and the Constitution in order to get their way.

They are supposedly great haters of bigotry but sometimes speak of Christians in the most bigoted manner imaginable, as if Christians were no better than fascists. American liberals are, in short, becoming increasingly illiberal. They are surrendering to the temptations of the closed mind.

We have been invaded here at SFF with what is called illiberalism. Conservatives are called idiots, Dunces, Fraud, nincompoop, non-college educated white males, radical, and the favorite of so many RACIST. I personally have been attacked over "my upbringing". Exhibit 1:
'Your inability to recognize any of this should should cause some consternation over your upbringing. It appears your parents spent their parenting time pouring false or misleading information into your consciousness rather than forcing you to actually think about issues and arrive at a cogent position." To attempt to set this person straight, first off you know nothing of my upbringing or of the things I was taught by my parents. I was taught not to make accusations I have no evidence of.

A note to those who have participated in this behavior, I hope you recognize yourself. I said I would not name names.
Another example of Why Socialism don't WORK
Posted:Mar 14, 2019 5:05 am
Last Updated:Mar 16, 2019 6:06 pm

We have become a society in which there are an awful lot people who have no idea that

Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung all came into power promising the same kind of things that

Ms Ocasio-Cortez is promising. And it led to mass murder, it led to dictatorships. It led to genocide.

These promises are old promises and they invariably lead to BAD things.

Ben Stein
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushes tax myths that will bring economic disaster
Posted:Mar 13, 2019 3:50 pm
Last Updated:Mar 15, 2019 6:58 pm

Do you pay enough taxes? What is enough?

When asked on “60 Minutes,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t seem to have a specific tax rate in mind, but then she said, “back in the ’60s ... you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

Suddenly, 70 percent tax rates are a progressive plan, although Rep. Ilhan Omar added, “We’ve had it as high as 90 percent.”

She’s right.

That was the top tax rate when I was a kid, and today, many Democrats say if we’d just raise rates on rich people, government would have plenty of money to pay for our wonderful programs.

But it’s a myth. What progressives don’t say, perhaps because they don’t know it, is what economic historian Dr. Phillip Magness explains in my new video: “No one actually paid anywhere close to those rates.”

For more than a decade, Magness has researched old taxes.

He discovered that America’s 90 percent tax bracket didn’t bring in much extra money. That’s because rich people found loopholes.

Then, because of that, and because the high tax rates discouraged work, President Kennedy backed a bill that lowered the top rate to 70 percent.

But it turned out that the 70 percent rate wasn’t very real either.

“A millionaire on average would pay 41 percent,” says Magness, because of “all these deductions and exemptions and carve-outs that are intentionally baked into the tax code.”

If you look at newspapers of that time, you see ads promoting things like free $2,499 ocean cruises.

"Basically take a vacation around the Caribbean,” explains Magness, “but while you’re onboard the ship you attend, say, an investing seminar or a real estate seminar, and then write off the trip.”

Some rich people bought musical instruments for their kids and deducted the cost because, say, a clarinet would supposedly provide “therapeutic treatment.”

Instead of investing in ideas that might create real wealth, rich people hired accountants to study the tax code.

“Who can afford the best accountants? It’s always the wealthy,” says Magness.

Today, our top tax rate is 37 percent. A dozen years after President Kennedy’s tax cuts, Ronald Reagan proposed reducing the 70 percent rate, saying, “Our tax system could only be described as un-American.”

“Democrats actually agree with him,” recounts Magness. “Reagan goes to the table and says, ‘Let’s make a deal ... cut the rates ... and in exchange, we’ll consolidate the tax code.”

They did.

Surprise -- the lower rates brought in just as much money.

It turns out that tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product stays about the same no matter what the top bracket is. Higher tax rates don’t necessarily get rich people to pay more taxes.

“They’ll change where they earn their income,” economist Art Laffer told me about what he’d once said to President Reagan. “They’ll change how they earn their income. They’ll change how much they earn, when they receive the income. They’ll change all of those things to minimize taxes.”

President Trump, who in some years paid zero income tax, understands that. Before he became president, I asked him about a proposed tax hike. “Look, the rich people are going to leave -- and other people are going to leave!” he told me. “You are going to end up with lots of people that don’t produce. And then, that’s the spiral. That’s the end.”

That happened in Europe, recounts Magness: “France attempted a massive tax on its wealthiest earners. ... the business people left in a mass exodus from the country.”

But today’s progressives are selective when they look at history. On TV, Ocasio-Cortez said, “Under a Republican administration ... Dwight Eisenhower, we had 90 percent marginal tax rate.”

I asked Magness what would happen if the U.S. were to return to those rates -- while also eliminating the deductions that came with them.

“You’re asking for an economic disaster,” he answered. “I ask the question: Do we leave (wealth) in the private sector where the market decides? Or do we subject it to corrupt politicians?”

Please, let’s leave most of America’s wealth in private hands.

by John Stossel
Not your Daddys Democrat Party
Posted:Mar 13, 2019 5:43 am
Last Updated:Mar 16, 2019 1:40 am

The Democratic Party's "loudest voices" cannot be seen as denigrating the United States and its economic system. Some of the new voices in the party - including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) - are putting forth policies that are unrealistic.

The government simply cannot afford everything they’re promising. ... Who’s going to pay for it? You can’t get enough money out of the top one percent to pay for this. It’s going to be the middle class.

Work and "earn it" are NOT dirty words!!! Our economic system has worked for most of the American people. It's working for most of the American people today. Unemployment is at a very low level.

Ask not what can your country do for you, but ask what can you do for your country.....

The BEST thing to do for your country is to REJECT the message that this country OWES you more than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It don't OWE you a living wage
It don't OWE you a free college education
It don't OWE you healthcare
It don't OWE you an income, even if you won't work.
It don't OWE you some of other peoples money.
It don't OWE your payoff of college debts.
Now She Has the Labor Unions in a Uproar
Posted:Mar 12, 2019 7:16 pm
Last Updated:Mar 14, 2019 1:11 am

The largest organization of labor unions in the U.S. slammed the Green New Deal for combating climate change by threatening the livelihoods of millions of Americans.
The AFL-CIO sent a letter on Friday to Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, the two lawmakers leading the Green New Deal push in Congress. The labor group demanded a larger role in crafting future solutions, slamming the current proposal as “not achievable or realistic.”

“We welcome the call for labor rights and dialogue with labor, but the Green New Deal resolution is far too short on specific solutions that speak to the jobs of our members and the critical sections of our economy,” the letter, signed by 10 national labor unions on the AFL-CIO’s energy committee, says.

“We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families,” the letter says. “We will not stand by and allow threats to our members’ jobs and their families’ standard of living go unanswered.

The Green New Deal calls for an end to fossil fuel use and heavy investment in renewable energy technology such as wind and solar. Meeting the resolution’s goals would require a massive restructuring of the American economy.

Electricity production from fossil fuels makes up about 64 percent of the United States’ total energy demand. Nuclear energy, a clean energy left out of the Green New Deal, makes up about 19 percent of the U.S. energy mix. Wind and solar energy make up just over 8 percent, according to 2018 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” Ocasio-Cortez told a crowd at the South by Southwest festival Saturday in response to a question about the threat of automation to jobs, according to The Verge.
“We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited by it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die. And that is, at its core, our problem,” Ocasio-Cortez said, pushing for further automation to free up time for people to be creative and “[enjoy] the world that we live in” instead.

By Tim Pearce
The Green New Deal would lead to the 'end of civilization'
Posted:Mar 12, 2019 3:51 am
Last Updated:Mar 13, 2019 11:21 am

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, a vocal critic of the Green New Deal, appeared on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Monday to make the case that the sweeping plan introduced by Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., would be a disaster for mankind.

Moore warned that the implementation of the agenda being promoted by prominent Democrats, including several 2020 candidates, would lead to the “end of civilization” because of the goal of phasing out essential energy sources like coal and nuclear within 10 years.
“Basically, they are opposed to approximately 98.5 percent of all the electricity that we are all using and nearly 100 percent of all the vehicle and transportation and ships and planes that we are using,” Moore told Carlson. “So when I tweeted the other day and had a huge response- over 3 million impressions on Twitter, when I said ‘You don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels or get the food into the cities where it’s needed. That requires large trucks, and there’s not going to be electric trucks anytime soon hauling 40 tons of food into the supermarkets.”

Moore predicted that if fossil fuels were banned, “agricultural production would collapse” and that starvation would spread in cities across the country, and “half the population would die” shortly after. He also believed that there would be no more trees on the planet since humans would have to rely on that for fuel and called the banning of airplanes “insanity.
Ocasio-Cortez Blames Reagan For Racism In America
Posted:Mar 11, 2019 7:44 am
Last Updated:Mar 13, 2019 11:21 am

Here we go… Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke at the annual South by Southwest Conference (SXSW) in Austin, Texas on Saturday. The mostly illiterate Socialist told Briahna Gray from The Intercept about racism in America.

The self-declared Democratic Socialist also criticized the treatment of minorities throughout American history, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan’s policies, which she said “pitted” white working class people against minorities in order “to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.

Of course, there is absolutely NO PROOF that Reagan pitted blacks against whites or that racial tension increased during his time in office.

Obama, on the other hand, inflamed race wars across America from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland.

Ocasio-Cortez is not bright enough to see this.

From Fox news .

To link to this blog (bigblock46) use [blog bigblock46] in your messages.