FEMINIST CELEB: WE NEED ‘EUTHANASIA VANS’ TO DRIVE AROUND, KILL ALL THE OLD PEOPLE

PAT BATEMAN-  This is the type of deranged mentality the average Hillary Clinton supporter has in their heads.  I have no idea how empty the soul of a person who would think this, never mind say it out load must be.  If 2016 tough us anything, it showed us just how far ‘liberals’ are willing to go to ensure they still get handouts from the government at the expense of others.  Apparently killing granny to ‘save resources’ for themselves is a trade off they are willing to make.  I will always remember this year, 2016, as the year I understood exactly how Hitler, Stalin and Mao came to power, destroying my faith in humanity….

NaturalNews Reports: British television personality and former The Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins is well on her way into seniorhood, a stage of life that she recently told Radio Times means a person is ripe for termination. Old people, she says, should be put to sleep much like animals at the kennel because they’re too much of a drain on society, in her view, suggesting “euthanasia vans” as the solution.




When asked what she would do “if Katie Hopkins ruled the world,” the now-divorced shock columnist — Hopkins’ former husband left her, prompting her to apply for The Apprentice — told Michael Buerk that she would start by stamping out the elderly. There’s too many of them and it annoys her, apparently, so the best way to deal with this problem would be to send out crews of senior-killers to deliver euthanasia door-to-door.

“We just have far too many old people,” the disgruntled feminist told Buerk. “It’s ridiculous to be living in a country where we can put dogs to sleep but not people.”

Killing the elderly before their time can even be glamorous, Hopkins suggests. It doesn’t have to be done in a dimly-lit hospital room with grandma strapped down to a table and forcibly injected. Cutesy little vans filled with euthanasia workers can drive around town and deliver termination pills to seniors’ front doors, Hopkins says.

“Euthanasia vans — just like ice-cream vans — that would come to your home,” is how she described it, in her own words. “It would all be perfectly charming. They might even have a nice little tune they’d play. I mean this genuinely. I’m super-keen on euthanasia vans. We need to accept that just because medical advances mean we can live longer, it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Hopkins: people with dementia are ‘blocking beds,’ and there’s no point to their lives

Hopkins’ off-color comments weren’t made completely out of the blue. Great Britain has been wrestling with whether or not to allow assisted suicide for some time now, an idea that’s repeatedly been shot down by the Parliament. But Hopkins is tired of all this concern for human life and wants to see all those gray-hairs six feet under as quickly as possible.




This wouldn’t be the first time that Hopkins has shown such disdain for the more vulnerable members of society. A recent “tweet” she posted to Twitter openly mocked dementia patients and their propensity towards forgetting things, writing:

“Babe I’m here again, I’m here again, where have you been. Babe I’m back again. I’m back again Where have you been? Take That Dementia style.”

And just like how she views the elderly, Hopkins is of the persuasion that dementia patients are pointlessly taking up space in hospitals and care facilities, and should be put to sleep. The Mirror Online reported on a related Hopkins tweet that stated, “dementia sufferers should not be blocking beds.” It proceeded to question the point of their lives.

It’s inevitable that Hopkins will someday become one of the many senior citizens in British society that she so despises. And based on the continued regression of health throughout the West, she’s also got a pretty good chance of developing dementia at some point in the future.

Both of these factors make Hopkins’ distasteful comments rather harrowing for her own survival — who, but the most gracious among us, would repay such a vile woman with kindness in her old age? Considering Hopkins isn’t married and loves to run her mouth off at every chance possible about the merits of euthanasia, it’s difficult to see how she’ll even make it into her sunset years.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’