Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Trending: Sarah Sanders Laughed In CNN Host’s Face After Catching Him In SICK Lie During Live Interview

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

HUGE: Supreme Court About To Put Smack Down On Large Lib Tech Giants – Facebook And Twitter

Published

on

...

* By

The leftists are totalitarians. They demand absolute power. To dissent is verboten and dangerous because the truth shines light on the tyranny of fascism.

Section 47 CFR covers this. These companies are “communications systems” as defined by that law. They are NOT allowed to censor messaging on those platforms. Time we stop allowing dems to censor free speech. Sue them!

From The Gateway Pundit:

For over a year The Gateway Pundit has spoken out about how the tech and social media giants are censoring and eliminating conservative publishers and conservative content.

*** In September The Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft testified to Congress on Facebook targeting of conservative publishers and content.

The Gateway Pundit has repeatedly reported on tech giant censorship of conservative content.

These powerful tech firms act as gatekeepers and prevent conservative content from being shared online.

In 2016 we were one of the few conservative sites that supported candidate Trump – along with Breitbart, The Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse. We are proud of our efforts to report the truth that led to Trump’s historic win.

In 2017 Harvard and Columbia Journalism Review found that The Gateway Pundit was the 4th most influential conservative news source in the 2016 election.
Because of this we were targeted and have seen our numbers related to Facebook and Twitter decline dramatically.

In February Facebook launched another algorithm change to their platform. With the changes we saw our traffic dwindle even further.

The algorithmic change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%.

Facebook is doing this to a number of top conservative sites.
A recent Pew Study found that 71% of Americans see how tech giants are censoring political content.

A Gateway Pundit June study of top conservative news outlets found that Facebook eliminated 93% of traffic to top conservative websites.

Facebook began eliminating conservative content after the 2016 election.

Here are the full results from our study.

We have another study on Facebook censorship coming out in July.

Report: Facebook Eliminates 93% of Traffic to Top Conservative Websites by Jim Hoft on Scribd
But there may be some hope for conservatives and free speech advocates.

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case on whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.

CNBC reported:

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.

The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.

The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country’s largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.

That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet’s Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.

The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation earlier this month.

Continue Reading

Trump Just Slapped Back HARD At AP For Deliberately Misleading Readers With Sick Headline

Published

on

...

* By

It never ends with these leftists. When do they ever not lie about things? This is the democrat way. Bravo to President Trump for not backing down to these lying, fake journalists..who are pretty much leftist activists.

They hate Trump because he won’t cower to them. These parasites will never go away. But never back down when they are spreading fake news.

From CDP:

During an interview with the Associated Press on Tuesday, the President outlined his upcoming midterm election strategy and later blasted the fact that the AP deliberately misinterpreted his words to create a ‘fake news’ headline.

He said they ‘couldn’t help themselves’ from spewing propaganda, and many Americans agree after reading the article.

When speaking from the Oval Office, the President said he felt voter enthusiasm currently rivaled 2016, and was optimistic that his loyal supporters will vote.

When faced with hostile questions about GOP chances, the President said, “No, I think I’m helping people,” Trump said. “I don’t believe anybody’s ever had this kind of an impact.”

AP reported the President, “spoke on a range of subjects, defending Saudi Arabia from growing condemnation over the case of a missing journalist, accusing his longtime attorney Michael Cohen of lying under oath.”

When journalists asked if it was appropriate to insult a woman’s appearance, referring to the fact that Trump called porn actress Stormy Daniels ‘horseface,’ Trump responded, “You can take it any way you want.”

When pressured to call Saudi Arabia to account for the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, President Trump stated, “Well, I think we have to find out what happened first… Here we go again with, you know, you’re guilty until proven innocent. I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh. And he was innocent all the way.”

As expected by many people, the AP journalist also brought up the possibility of democrats calling for impeachment if they win the House, but the President said he’d ‘handle it very well.’

And although he reiterated his frustrations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the special counsel investigation, aka ‘witch hunt,’ the President said, “I could fire him whenever I want to fire him, but I haven’t said that I was going to.”

A number of conservatives believe that the so-called feud between AG Sessions and Trump is really just a blind to distract the propaganda wing of the left in America, and that there is plenty of behind the scenes activity being carried out against the scandal-plagued previous administration.

The president remained strong on debated climate change saying, “scientists on both sides of the issue.”

“But what I’m not willing to do is sacrifice the economic well-being of our country for something that nobody really knows,” Trump correctly argued.

He added, “I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”

Repeatedly reminding journalists of his remarkable, in fact, historic achievements during the first two years in office, the president confirmed he’d be seeking another term because there was “always more work to do.”

“The new motto is Keep America Great,” President Trump said. “I don’t want somebody to destroy it because I can do a great job, but the wrong person coming in after me sitting right at this desk can destroy it very quickly if they don’t do the right thing. So no, I’m definitely running.”

This journalist, when reading the AP story was struck by a few things: the snide insinuations that President Trump has not achieved historic numbers in unemployment and economic growth, the way they called him a liar about climate change, and the fact that they rarely (perhaps once) actually used ‘President,’ insultingly calling him Trump throughout the article.

Most people think it’s ‘great’ that President Trump called them on their headline deception.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend