What made her such a bad person in the eyes of communists?  She supported men.

​If they are in the country legally, they get a hearing to determine if they can recover.

And people who don't like communism are the enemy.

​In all cases, communism must be presented as a good thing,

In fact, they might even try to kill the president.

Would you give this woman 

an apartment ?

Would you sendniggers to College?

That means that white guys are going to fuck black girls; so it's even.

The key to the whole program is deciding who gets euthanized, when, and how.

If America is going to get cleaned-up, it will take some real men to do the  job.  But what is a real man?  That's a hard question to answer, especially when the waters are polluted by men who claim that 'being a man' means catering to women:

But if we're going to get rid of black people, once and for all, we need to talk about philosophy.

​And their communist bullshit.


If you read the newspaper at all, you can see that there are many issues in the United States that are coming to a head in the near future.  One of them is the issue of homelessness.  Whatever the reasons for this, the end result is that we get streets and neighborhoods that are clogged with homeless people.  Everybody disagrees on how these people should be treated, but no one disagrees on the fact that they should not be allowed to remain where they are.  Which leads us to a question:  where should they go?

In my opinion, the homeless should be euthanized.  Why?  For four reasons:

1. Citizens have a right to clean, safe streets and neighborhoods.
2. Homeless people are often crazy, and/or dangerous.
3. There are almost no homeless people who recover, and become sane again.
4. We can’t afford to support millions of homeless people.

The reason that all blacks will have to go is because of their utter hypocracy.  They fuck like rabbits, spread AIDS everywhere, and then blame white people.  It's amazing.

Now we have to look at another problem.  It is not the intent of the communists to win at the polls.  It is the intent of the communists to trap people in a series of logical syllogisms from which there is no escape.  

And to dress these syllogisms as an iPhone directed drama.

Personally, I don't think they will.

One major problem is that the military has a lot of black people, and they probably don't want to get euthanized.

Federal Incentives Make Children Fatherless

by Phyllis Schlafly    
May 11, 2005
Why has Congress appropriated taxpayers' money to give perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced couples.

Americans have finally realized that providing generous welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left the home, illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers, and children were worse off.

AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and housing if they have an illegitimate baby. "She doesn't need me, she's got welfare" became the mantra.

Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the famous Republican Welfare Reform), and 1999. Unfortunately, these laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers who never abandoned them.

As Ronald Reagan often said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't. When welfare agencies collect child support, the money actually goes to the government to reimburse for welfare payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal budget (which, of course, is never reduced).

In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment which required the states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments. In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory, along with criminal enforcement, and gave the states less than a year to comply.

The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by an HHS consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation's largest private collection companies making its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages.

The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to interact with government in order to pay or receive child support. This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments.

The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states' administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.

In addition, the states share in a nearly-half-billion-dollar incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.

However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectible. Most are either unemployed or earn less than $10,000 per year.

So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states.

The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 states were holding $657 million in UDC (Undistributed Child Support).

Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs, and fatherless girls are twice as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school twice as likely to end up in jail.

We can no longer ignore how taxpayers' money is incentivizing divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government's complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without their fathers.​

Here's the question: If Marshall Law is declared because of black rioters, will black soldiers follow orders?

But even talking about blacks, feminism, and manhood​ is difficult, because women are determined to

​control the narrative.   And euthanizing all the negroes is definitely not part of the narrative.

In San Francisco, for example, Police responded to 50,000 homeless-related calls last year.  You can hardly walk downtown anymore without getting accosted.

But there’s another, more serious reason to euthanize the homeless.  The UN is pressuring America to declare access to housing a “human right.” So far, America has resisted, but if this ever comes to pass, it will be the beginning of a communist takeover.

In fact, there is a distinct possibility of a communist military coup.

​Therefore, the only way to solve the problem is by eliminating the homeless.  Here’s what I recommend:

When a person first becomes homeless, he or she gets sent to a recovery camp for evaluation.  If they are in the country illegally, they immediately get chipped, and deported.  If they return, it's the death penalty.

Would you like it if people crapped in front of your apartment?

But bringing them in won't be easy.  There will have to be special teams.

And since virtually all black people have to be euthanized anyway, they should not receive a hearing.  They should go directly to the gas chamber.  This includes black children, as well.