They’re Coming For Your Kids: MSM Calls For ‘Abolishing Parenthood’ – Forcing Parents To Turn Children Over To The State

In a column for the VC Star, one of USA Today’s California posts, titled, “California should abolish parenthood, in the name of equity,” the outlet unapologetically states that “If California is ever going to achieve true equity, the state must require parents to give away their children.”

In the article, the author attempts to paint parents as the problem with society, claiming that they pass along privilege to their children which fosters an inequitable society. While it is certainly true that rich parents often times have rich kids, countless other children pull themselves out of their unfortunate socioeconomic paradigms on a regular basis.

What’s more, if we look at the global poverty index, there are less humans living in hunger than ever before, and — outside of the pandemic — this number improves every year.

But according to the paper, this is not enough and if we are truly going to achieve perfect communistic equality, we must make “raising your own children illegal.”

As it will take time for legislation like this to come to fruition, the author suggests not waiting for the law, and acting now by taking poor kids from their parents and giving them to rich parents or “homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.”

Abracadabra, now everyone is “equal.”

Unironically, the article completely misses the point that this would in no way foster some equitable outcome. Instead, it would simply reward poor children with the homes of the rich and penalize rich children, forcing them to be homeless. But logic and reason were not expected in such ridiculousness.

The author admits to the dystopian nature of such a proposal, but says it would be a necessary means to a collective utopian dream in which the hive mind of parentless children can be used to achieve greatness.

Perhaps such coercion sounds dystopian. But just imagine the solidarity that universal orphanhood would create. Wouldn’t children, raised in one system, find it easier to collaborate on global problems?

They’re Coming for Your Kids: MSM Calls for ‘Abolishing Parenthood’ – Forcing Parents to Turn Children Over to the State

Worker was scheduled as ‘Black boy,’ suit says. Now Louisiana meat company must pay up

A specialty meat supplier in southern Louisiana will pay a former employee $67,500 to settle allegations of pervasive racial discrimination at its two facilities outside Lafayette, federal officials said.

Don’s Specialty Meats, a purveyor of Cajun favorites like Boudin and Cracklin, is accused of allowing its general manager to routinely use derogatory language and racial slurs against a Black worker — one of two out of 79 employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said in federal court filings.

The EEOC is the federal agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and filed the lawsuit on the former employee’s behalf.

“Harassment based on race and the use of racial slurs is intolerable, and an employer must act to assure that harassment of this kind is prevented and, if it happens, is vigorously addressed,” EEOC trial attorney Peter Theis said in a news release announcing the settlement.

Lawyers and a representative from Don’s Specialty Meats did not immediately respond to McClatchy News’ request for comment on Thursday, Jan. 20.

Under the terms of the agreement, Don’s Specialty Meats has agreed to pay the employee $50,000 in damages and $17,500 in back pay, according to court documents. The company is also barred from discussing the litigation if asked for a job reference regarding the former worker and must wipe it from his personnel file.

Employees will additionally undergo training on anti-discrimination laws, and the company will revise its written anti-discrimination policies and provide compliance reports to the EEOC.

The federal agency first reached out to Don’s Specialty Meats in August after the former employee filed a charge of discrimination and the EEOC determined there was reasonable cause to believe the company had discriminated against him.

But attempts to resolve the dispute outside of court failed, the EEOC said, and a federal complaint was filed in the Western District of Louisiana on Sept. 24.

According to the lawsuit, Don’s Specialty Meats hired the now-former employee in 2018. He worked first at its facility in Scott, Louisiana, and later at its original location in nearby Carencro. Don’s was started in 1993 and opened a second location in 2005, according to its Facebook page. The meat supplier is famous for its Boudin, a mixture of rice, ground pork and seasonings stuffed into sausage casing.

The employee, whom the EEOC described as African American, was one of just two Black workers employed by Don’s Specialty Meats at each facility during his tenure.

The general manager repeatedly referred to him as “Black boy,” “the Black boy” or “little Black guy,” the EEOC said, and he was listed on the work schedule as “Black boy” while his non-Black colleagues were identified by name.

Racial slurs were also common at Don’s Specialty Meats, according to the lawsuit. The general manager was accused of routinely using the n-word and referring to another Black employee’s baby as such. When Don’s was looking for new hires, the employee was told applicants “just can’t be Black,” the EEOC said, and if trash needed to be picked up on the roadside, it was always “the Black boy” who was assigned to do it.

Things came to a head in early July 2020, when a supervisor repeatedly called the employee a racial slur and other insulting names in front of his coworkers, the complaint states.

The employee complained to management and was subsequently dismissed for the day, the EEOC said. When he returned to work, he was reportedly told the supervisor would not be punished. According to the lawsuit, the general manager then told the employee he loved him and referred to him by the same derogatory name the supervisor had used.

He quit the following day, the EEOC said, and the only discipline his supervisor ever faced was being told she couldn’t wear her Don’s Specialty Meats T-shirt for a day.

https://news.yahoo.com/worker-scheduled-black-boy-suit-222912729.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw&tsrc=twtr

Reading Josephus and the New Testament in sync

Abagond

Reading Josephus and the New Testament in sync is something I have long wanted to do. The New Testament makes more sense when I read it in historical order. So it is bound to make even more sense if I read it along with Josephus, a Jewish Roman historian from that time.

Josephus wrote:

• “Antiquities of the Jews” (c. 94) – a history of the Jews up to the year AD 64.
• “The Jewish War” (c. 75) – a history of the First Jewish-Roman War, which lasted from AD 66 to 73.

He lived from about AD 37 to 100.

He talks about King Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin, John the Baptist, all of that. Even Jesus, in passing (in a strange passage called the Testimonium Flavianum that seems to have been corrupted by Christian scribes). He lays out the history of Palestine in the time of Jesus…

View original post 589 more words

Abraham Lincoln on Interracial Marriage

Interracial Marriage

Being that Lincoln was a not concerned with racial equality or the well-being of Black slaves in the South, it should come as no surprise that he did not support the marital union of whites and Blacks. He, in 1858, remarked, “I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” Source

What did Judge Douglas and his friends see that made them think differently from President Lincoln? What made them think laws prohibiting black and whites from marrying…

View original post 33 more words