We’ve Long Said It: The Left Prove Themselves Wrong — All The Time


May 16, 2019

… all you have to do is pay attention!


They Reveal Their Unspoken Agenda All The Time!


Super Airhead Emily Ratajkowski (and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) Called All Poor Women… Sluts. Both Said: We Don’t Want More.


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, much beloved by the Left, admitted openly that one of the reasons she was all in favor of abortion is because it keeps “populations we don’t want more of” (read: minorities) down.  And…

Here’s bombshell model Emily Ratajkowski waxing indignant about Alabama’s recently-passed legislation outlawing abortion except in the case of danger to the mother’s health.

In her ummmm… bold move, Ratajkowski stripped down to nothing but a strategically-placed hand and leaf, in a gesture that was ostensibly meant to show us all what a beacon of courage this waif is. (Let’s face it though, it was all a charade so she could do what she really wanted to do: show us her well-formed body. Having been one, I know that all models are raging exhibitionists. It is what they do. It’s what they are.) 

In her posting, along with her, ahem, attractive picture, were words that were supposed to contain Em’s incandescent wisdom. Here are some of them:

“This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape. These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce.” (red highlight added)

Whoa! Oops!

Did Emily just admit that at least one reason for the enthusiasm for baby-slaughter on the Left is Eugenics?!?(1) Giving “women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce“?

I mean if you give lots and lots of “women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce,” why, you’ll certainly have many fewer of those.. “women of low economic opportunity!”

If I were a “women of low economic opportunity(2) — ie a poor woman — I’d know full well that the very rich Emily Ratajkowski and the very rich Ruth Bader Ginsburg were telling me that I’m too stupid to understand what reproduction is all about, or how it happens, and that I’m nothing more than a rutting animal, unwilling and unable to do what I know I control… to avoid reproducing.

To put it rather bluntly: All poor women know quite well that all they have to do to “not reproduce” is to keep their legs together. Few things are easier.

Let’s face it: Emily Ratajkowski and Ruth Bader Ginsbug called all poor women sluts.

One understands it when an obviously insubstantial, airheaded bimbo, the likes of Emily Ratajkowski, admits her desire to keep the poor childless, but when a highly-educated radical like Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits  it? That poses some questions!

Here’s Ginsburg’s direct quote:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. (red highlight added)

And, as suggested, here are some questions:

  • Question: Did Ginsburg think no one who disagrees with her would notice? Answer: We noticed.
  • Question: Did (does) she think that Conservatives are too stupid to notice?  Answer: She does; we’re not.
  • Question: Did she think the media would cover for her? Answer. She did. She was right; they did, and they allowed her to scramble, shuck and jive to try to get out from under her own grotesque words.(3)
  • Question: Was it just a slip-up? Answer: No. She thought she was with an ally. The “reporter” was Emily Bazelon of CNN. Next answer: No matter: Shouldn’t a frickin’ Supreme Court Justice consider her words more carefully before saying something she later would have to furiously walk back?
  • Question: Who’s the “we” in “populations we don’t want to have too many of?Answer: I happen to know quite well that there’s not one single demographic group in the country whose numbers any Conservative is in favor of limiting. That means that Ginsburg is confessing openly that “we” are the many people on the Left who want to limit the numbers of certain “populations.”

No matter: the point is that Emily Ratajkowski and Ruth Bader Ginsburg both think that all poor women are sluts.

It’s a disgusting, pathetic myth that the Left is all concerned for those teeming throngs of titans among the poor, who are they way are only because of the oppression of “The Patriarchy,” and if only the shackles of Capitalism could be lifted from their tortured bodies these titans would thrive, and soar to heights of nobility and achievement.

Nope.

The Left considers poor people to be manipulable, stupid, gullible half-wits, too stupid to see through the fog of leftist codswallop meant to keep them voting Democrat for the rest of their dependent days.

Why is that myth disgusting? Easy: if we were to demand more, to expect more, of the poor, and to remove obstacles to their success, then guess what… they’d rise to our expectations, and they’d succeed. In numbers vastly greater than today.

The real pernicious effect that the Left’s fraud has on the poor is to keep them poor… and voting Democrat.

An undeniable truth of life: if a poor person avails himself of the opportunity in America and becomes not poor, then he has no more “need” for the Democrats. Otherwise stated: Most poor people are poor because they’ve bought the Democrat Party’s lies, and they’ve allowed themselves to be bribed to stay poor.

And we know that the Left think that poor women are sluts. Sounds as if the Left think they’ve got themselves a Dem-voter making machine!

So, one wonders, why would the Left oppose anti-abortion laws that presumably would produce more “women (and men) of low economic opportunity?” Answer: Too many poor people makes a country ungovernable and unstable. And top leftists want nothing more than to govern, and to govern over a stable country.

Also, of course, if any one of the Left’s fictions is shown to be false, then the rest are in jeopardy as well. That’s all fodder for future posts.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) Google’s first definition:

“…the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.”

Important note: The Nazis did not “pervert” the doctrine of Eugenics. They used the already perverted doctrine of Eugenics to try to “purify” the racial composition of their population.

(2) “Low economic opportunity” is a garbage phrase that’s perfectly meaningless. The opportunity for advancement in America is what it is. No one has less of it than anyone else. “Low economic opportunity” is meant to say, without saying it, that it’s an established fact that some women — especially racial minorities — have less economic opportunity than others. This is false. It is however, an established fact that if you consider what are the actual engines of economic opportunity in America — education, access, laws, practices, procedures, rules, regulations — then the group defined as “women belonging to racial minority groups” has more economic opportunity than any other group in the country.

If the toothsome Miss Ratajkowski had wanted to use a more accurate phrase to speak of “poor women,” she might have used “women of great, but unfulfilled, economic opportunity.

(3) Here’s hard left-wing web “fact checker,” Snopes.com, providing the cover Ginsburg needed to pretend she didn’t mean what she said. Just between you and me, I’m willing to give RBG the benefit of the doubt. I recognize how frustrating it is when some left-wing doofus or other jumps all over what seems like a revelatory assertion by a Conservative who we all know is not a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, etc. We recognize the triumphal glee on the part of the Left as just an admission that they’re going to be able to use the “gotcha moment” to deflect from their own obvious shortcomings for another week or so and it’s frustrating.

When we on the Right see such opportunities, I know that we do — as we should — jump all over them, because that’s what the Left does to us all the time. And it’s important to “bring a gun to to a gun fight.”

To torture that analogy just a tad more, we on the Right know that in the gun fight of today’s politics, the Left’s “gun” is their control of the media, their total lack or integrity, their willingness to lie, slander, deflect, defraud, and weasel, while their “knife” is… their actual argument. Our knife is our niceness, our unwillingness to go deep into the gutter with the Left, while our gun — our howitzer is… our actual argument.

More succinctly:

In the gun fight of today’s politics, the Left’s “gun” is their control of the media, and their willingness to go deep into the gutter, while their “knife” is… their actual argument. Our knife is our niceness, our integrity, our unwillingness to go into the gutter with the Left, while out gun — our howitzer is… our actual argument.

 

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s