"WE" are Winning :)
- Thread starter La France Blanche
- Start date
Charles Martel
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 8,484
LucasBryant
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 290
You are absolutely wrong! There is a time to destroy and destruct. We are at war with these sick Soros liberals and it is time to fight back.
LucasBryant
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 290
T
This is sick and a demented decision and 6-3! Wow, women’s sports are completely sick and now they will not exist the same any longer.
Although this is certainly not a win, as noted above, this is a good place to put this. Here are the most likely consequences of this contorted ruling.
Horowitz: SCOTUS decision redefining sexuality will wreak havoc on society
Daniel Horowitz · June 16, 2020
A A A
Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg | Getty Images
When Anthony Kennedy discovered a right to force states to redefine marriage in the 2015 Obergefell case, he promised that religious liberty would remain untouched. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” wrote the former justice for the majority at the time.
Yeah, right.
Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.
Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.
Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court.
Forcing states and doctors to perform castrations
Forcing employers to retain gay employees and not fire them simply because of their private behavior sounds very innocuous and even laudatory. But what about forcing doctors to perform “sex change” operations and forcing states to fund them? Codifying the desires of someone afflicted with gender dysphoria into sex-based anti-discrimination law will force states and hospitals to treat anyone who believes they are really the opposite gender as that preferred gender.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already tacitly mandated this. In May, justices declined to take Idaho’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit, where the lower court ordered the state to pay for a castration surgery for a male serving time in Idaho prison for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.
Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin mandated that the Badger State use its Medicaid funding to pay for “gender confirmation” mutilations, which can include castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation.
Those radical decisions will now be backed up in all circuits. There are already numerous lawsuits suing employers to provide castration and hormone procedures under the employer health insurance mandate of Obamacare. Obamacare uses civil rights laws to bar discrimination in offering health care coverage. It would be easy for the courts to now apply Gorsuch’s interpretation of Title VII to other areas of discrimination in the ACA statute.
Will Gorsuch be there for us to overturn those decisions?
Women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and all-female sports
Barring a male who says he is a female from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 reads as follows:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It’s not even a jump to apply this ruling to that law; it’s a logical outgrowth. All separate gender school activities and private dressing rooms are out the window because the 1972 law, which liberals already felt included transgenderism, will now be so interpreted.
College dorms
As Justice Alito warns, similar lawsuits may be brought under the Fair Housing Act against colleges that have separate dorms for males and females. Also, female prisoners will be subjected to males living with them. Again, once sex is redefined, it is no longer limited to employment or animus-based discrimination. As Alito warned, “The Court … argues, not merely that the terms of Title VII can be interpreted that way but that they cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way. According to the Court, the text is unambiguous.” This wasn’t even a close call for the majority, and it will therefore reverberate across all areas of law, politics, and society.
Religious schools must become pagan
We were told not to worry about Obergefell creating a right to gay marriage because it was merely an issue of a marriage certificate and would never affect private religious institutions. Well, what happens now if a cross-dresser or a prominent homosexual activist wants to teach in a Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim school? The majority opinion blithely denied these concerns and noted how title VII protects religious liberty by offering some long-standing exceptions. However, those exceptions have been interpreted more and more narrowly as time goes on. The same way Gorsuch has evolved on the definition of a sex, the courts are evolving on religious protections, and the former will now accelerate the latter.
What about pedophilia, nudity, and the next frontier in our “evolving” society?
Justice Gorsuch dismissed (p. 30-32) the dissent’s charge that he was backfilling into the statute ideas that its crafters would regard as absurd and immoral as “naked policy appeals” and as complaints about “undesirable policy consequences.”
What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections, such as “N” for nudity and “P” for pedophilia?
“My sexual orientation is to be with children.”
“My sexual orientation is to express myself freely and be proud of my body, not to hide it.”
You might laugh, but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue, there is nothing stopping more sexual fetishes from joining the quasi “legal” distinction with a fancy acronym. The mainstreaming of pedophilia is already under way. Could employers still not fire those individuals for being disruptive to the decorum of the office the same way they can’t fire a man who walks in one day dressed like a woman, even if he has to deal with clients? Those ideals can be read into the word “sex” of a 1964 statute just as much as transgenderism can. After all, gay expanded to LGB and T, and then an undefined “Q” got added in. Others add on IAPK to include “intersex, asexual, pansexual, and kink.” It has broadly become known in those circles as “LGBTQ+.”
So, Justice Gorsuch, now that man and woman no longer mean what they mean, can you tell us what is and is not included in “sex” and why there should be protection for some fetishes or mental disorders over others? Can we lay down that marker now so that it doesn’t grow?
Freedom of speech
As Justice Alito warned in his dissent, the New York City government has already made it a criminal offense not to address someone by his or her preferred pronoun.
“After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” wrote Alito.
Supporters of this decision claim that because the court did not create a constitutional right, merely a retroactive reinterpretation of statue, Congress is still free to legislate. But who are we kidding here? The Civil Rights Act is as politically untouchable as the Fourteenth Amendment, and there is no way Congress will have the guts to deal with this fallout. State legislatures will be cut out from the process entirely.
Also, as Alito warns, the jump from codifying transgenderism into statute to into the Constitution is nothing more than a hiccup for its supporters to overcome, and the court has consistently done that in the past. There are already numerous cases percolating in the lower courts to do just that. Once the lower courts codify a new right, we have seen the Supreme Court first ignore the lower court radicalization and then downright legitimize it.
Yesterday, Mitch McConnell didn’t even mention this travesty in his press briefing. Trump bizarrely commented, “they ruled and we live with their decision” and called it a “very powerful decision.”
Very powerful, indeed. Now who will stand up for the forgotten Americans and use separation of powers to push back against this travesty?
https://www.conservativereview.com/...edefining-sexuality-will-wreak-havoc-society/
This is sick and a demented decision and 6-3! Wow, women’s sports are completely sick and now they will not exist the same any longer.
LucasBryant
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 290
T
This is sick and a demented decision and 6-3! Wow, women’s sports are completely sick and now they will not exist the same any longer.
Although this is certainly not a win, as noted above, this is a good place to put this. Here are the most likely consequences of this contorted ruling.
Horowitz: SCOTUS decision redefining sexuality will wreak havoc on society
Daniel Horowitz · June 16, 2020
A A A
Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg | Getty Images
When Anthony Kennedy discovered a right to force states to redefine marriage in the 2015 Obergefell case, he promised that religious liberty would remain untouched. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” wrote the former justice for the majority at the time.
Yeah, right.
Thanks to Justice Gorsuch’s contorted reading of the word “sex” in anti-discrimination law, you now have a right to sue for protection for biological traits you do not possess. This means that legitimate rights of others will now have to yield. Anyone who can’t see the devastating real-world effects of this decision – well beyond firing someone simply because you hate their private behavior – is clearly not paying attention.
Codifying into anti-discrimination law the concept that a man who says he is a woman must be treated according to his mental illness is not something we can live with as a society. Gorsuch might want to dismiss the earth-shattering ramifications of his opinion, but he knows well that there are already pending lawsuits to demand that men be treated as women, in very dangerous or disruptive ways that go well beyond trying to use the boot of government to stamp out mean or discriminatory behavior.
Here is an outline of some of the most immediate threats from this decision. These are not hypothetical societal and legal problems; these issues are in contention as we speak and have now been decided by this court.
Forcing states and doctors to perform castrations
Forcing employers to retain gay employees and not fire them simply because of their private behavior sounds very innocuous and even laudatory. But what about forcing doctors to perform “sex change” operations and forcing states to fund them? Codifying the desires of someone afflicted with gender dysphoria into sex-based anti-discrimination law will force states and hospitals to treat anyone who believes they are really the opposite gender as that preferred gender.
In fact, the Supreme Court has already tacitly mandated this. In May, justices declined to take Idaho’s appeal from the Ninth Circuit, where the lower court ordered the state to pay for a castration surgery for a male serving time in Idaho prison for sexually abusing a 15-year-old boy.
Similarly, a federal judge in Wisconsin mandated that the Badger State use its Medicaid funding to pay for “gender confirmation” mutilations, which can include castration, mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction, and breast augmentation.
Those radical decisions will now be backed up in all circuits. There are already numerous lawsuits suing employers to provide castration and hormone procedures under the employer health insurance mandate of Obamacare. Obamacare uses civil rights laws to bar discrimination in offering health care coverage. It would be easy for the courts to now apply Gorsuch’s interpretation of Title VII to other areas of discrimination in the ACA statute.
Will Gorsuch be there for us to overturn those decisions?
Women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and all-female sports
Barring a male who says he is a female from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 reads as follows:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
It’s not even a jump to apply this ruling to that law; it’s a logical outgrowth. All separate gender school activities and private dressing rooms are out the window because the 1972 law, which liberals already felt included transgenderism, will now be so interpreted.
College dorms
As Justice Alito warns, similar lawsuits may be brought under the Fair Housing Act against colleges that have separate dorms for males and females. Also, female prisoners will be subjected to males living with them. Again, once sex is redefined, it is no longer limited to employment or animus-based discrimination. As Alito warned, “The Court … argues, not merely that the terms of Title VII can be interpreted that way but that they cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way. According to the Court, the text is unambiguous.” This wasn’t even a close call for the majority, and it will therefore reverberate across all areas of law, politics, and society.
Religious schools must become pagan
We were told not to worry about Obergefell creating a right to gay marriage because it was merely an issue of a marriage certificate and would never affect private religious institutions. Well, what happens now if a cross-dresser or a prominent homosexual activist wants to teach in a Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, or Muslim school? The majority opinion blithely denied these concerns and noted how title VII protects religious liberty by offering some long-standing exceptions. However, those exceptions have been interpreted more and more narrowly as time goes on. The same way Gorsuch has evolved on the definition of a sex, the courts are evolving on religious protections, and the former will now accelerate the latter.
What about pedophilia, nudity, and the next frontier in our “evolving” society?
Justice Gorsuch dismissed (p. 30-32) the dissent’s charge that he was backfilling into the statute ideas that its crafters would regard as absurd and immoral as “naked policy appeals” and as complaints about “undesirable policy consequences.”
What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections, such as “N” for nudity and “P” for pedophilia?
“My sexual orientation is to be with children.”
“My sexual orientation is to express myself freely and be proud of my body, not to hide it.”
You might laugh, but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue, there is nothing stopping more sexual fetishes from joining the quasi “legal” distinction with a fancy acronym. The mainstreaming of pedophilia is already under way. Could employers still not fire those individuals for being disruptive to the decorum of the office the same way they can’t fire a man who walks in one day dressed like a woman, even if he has to deal with clients? Those ideals can be read into the word “sex” of a 1964 statute just as much as transgenderism can. After all, gay expanded to LGB and T, and then an undefined “Q” got added in. Others add on IAPK to include “intersex, asexual, pansexual, and kink.” It has broadly become known in those circles as “LGBTQ+.”
So, Justice Gorsuch, now that man and woman no longer mean what they mean, can you tell us what is and is not included in “sex” and why there should be protection for some fetishes or mental disorders over others? Can we lay down that marker now so that it doesn’t grow?
Freedom of speech
As Justice Alito warned in his dissent, the New York City government has already made it a criminal offense not to address someone by his or her preferred pronoun.
“After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” wrote Alito.
Supporters of this decision claim that because the court did not create a constitutional right, merely a retroactive reinterpretation of statue, Congress is still free to legislate. But who are we kidding here? The Civil Rights Act is as politically untouchable as the Fourteenth Amendment, and there is no way Congress will have the guts to deal with this fallout. State legislatures will be cut out from the process entirely.
Also, as Alito warns, the jump from codifying transgenderism into statute to into the Constitution is nothing more than a hiccup for its supporters to overcome, and the court has consistently done that in the past. There are already numerous cases percolating in the lower courts to do just that. Once the lower courts codify a new right, we have seen the Supreme Court first ignore the lower court radicalization and then downright legitimize it.
Yesterday, Mitch McConnell didn’t even mention this travesty in his press briefing. Trump bizarrely commented, “they ruled and we live with their decision” and called it a “very powerful decision.”
Very powerful, indeed. Now who will stand up for the forgotten Americans and use separation of powers to push back against this travesty?
https://www.conservativereview.com/...edefining-sexuality-will-wreak-havoc-society/
This is sick and a demented decision and 6-3! Wow, women’s sports are completely sick and now they will not exist the same any longer.
white lightning
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2004
- Messages
- 21,458
This is a small step in the right direction. The damages paid should be a lot higher for the outright censorship they are imposing on all of us. We used to have freedom but this is a positive step. 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-bill-targeting-big-tech-companies
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hawley-bill-targeting-big-tech-companies
werewolf
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,997
DWF Upside
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2014
- Messages
- 670
This is different than fighting back against against a real threat. This is attacking a lone “soft target” 110 lb flower child with stupid signs. Not quite the same thing as standing up to a mob thats destroying property. I stand by the statement this is gutless and made to be shown as whites being idiots. (We won the battle against a lone hippy girl though, cant take that away).
LucasBryant
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 290
Extra Point
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 6,289
Today you see things being discussed among whites everywhere that were not being discussed before Trump. Anti-white racism was a forbidden topic now it's discussed openly. You see things being discussed in the mainstream that were only discussed on pro-white sites before Trump. This is progress.
I don't know what it will all lead to but I believe most people, when they become racially aware , won't go back. And this may lead to greater action in the future.
I don't know what it will all lead to but I believe most people, when they become racially aware , won't go back. And this may lead to greater action in the future.
dolphins15
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2017
- Messages
- 385
The more people watching his show the better.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadli...me-highs-for-fox-news-channel-1202974105/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadli...me-highs-for-fox-news-channel-1202974105/amp/
Here's an article about growing sentiment for Tucker Carlson to run for President in '24. That of course assumes we'll still have a recognizable country by then.
I doubt Tucker will go that route, especially given that he's currently surrounded by a sea of cowards and collaborators among the GOP "leadership." He can play a more valuable role by helping to start and lead some organizations and institutions that actually defend patriots, as we currently have nothing, as Conservatism Inc. has proven time and again. He can also recruit explicitly anti-RINO, pro-American candidates to run for office. Current Republican officeholders need to be replaced wholesale.
I was watching actor Robert Davi on Fox last night right before Trump's mostly lethargic Mt. Rushmore speech, and he was fired up big time, denouncing the Silent Majority as the "Spineless Majority." He has leadership ability, confidence and charisma that I hope can be utilized.
It's spinelessness, but more importantly there's no organization or leadership. Telling Americans to "stand up" to what's going on without a detailed plan of action is meaningless if not counter-productive. For example, the (liberal) couple in St. Louis who defended their home and property with guns, and the White couple in Michigan just charged with crimes for defending themselves against crazy and aggressive black females, who stands up for them? Who will defend the working class Michigan couple, and who will pay for their legal fees?
Direction and organization is what's needed, and it needs to be a lot more than Tucker Carlson among public figures speaking truth to power.
Tucker 2024? Growing Chorus Of Republicans Want Fox Host To Run For President
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tucker-2024-flood-republicans-want-fox-host-run-president
I doubt Tucker will go that route, especially given that he's currently surrounded by a sea of cowards and collaborators among the GOP "leadership." He can play a more valuable role by helping to start and lead some organizations and institutions that actually defend patriots, as we currently have nothing, as Conservatism Inc. has proven time and again. He can also recruit explicitly anti-RINO, pro-American candidates to run for office. Current Republican officeholders need to be replaced wholesale.
I was watching actor Robert Davi on Fox last night right before Trump's mostly lethargic Mt. Rushmore speech, and he was fired up big time, denouncing the Silent Majority as the "Spineless Majority." He has leadership ability, confidence and charisma that I hope can be utilized.
It's spinelessness, but more importantly there's no organization or leadership. Telling Americans to "stand up" to what's going on without a detailed plan of action is meaningless if not counter-productive. For example, the (liberal) couple in St. Louis who defended their home and property with guns, and the White couple in Michigan just charged with crimes for defending themselves against crazy and aggressive black females, who stands up for them? Who will defend the working class Michigan couple, and who will pay for their legal fees?
Direction and organization is what's needed, and it needs to be a lot more than Tucker Carlson among public figures speaking truth to power.
Tucker 2024? Growing Chorus Of Republicans Want Fox Host To Run For President
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tucker-2024-flood-republicans-want-fox-host-run-president
Last edited:
Bucky
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,035
Very good article. I especially liked the comment from Jack Posobiec saying Tucker effectively exposed The Senate as a 1party system! Whether Carlson remains on Fox or decides to run in 2024 I'll support him. One of the only Men with a platform with balls to speak the truth! Very well spoken and articulate .
Amren.com
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,337
People should vote and support Trump. When Ginsburg croaks (the sooner the better) would you rather have another flat out commie like her appointed to that seat or someone like Kavanaugh or Gorsuch?
Stephen Breyer, another commie jew on the Surpeme Court is almost 82 years old. There's a good chance he'll croak or have to retire in the next four years. Sotomayer is in bad health and might die or have to retire as well. Plus there's always a chance Thomas or Alito die or have to retire for health reasons and we don't want Biden appointing more flat out commies to the SC. There's also the lower courts which are important as well. Most court cases never get to the SC. Vote for Trump and the Republican candidate for the Senate (if you're state has a senate race this year). Even RINOs are better than democrats because they usually vote for Trump's judicial nominees and almost all democrats will vote against them. Check out this resource for the 200 judges Trump has already confirmed so far...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
Last edited:
Amren.com
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,337
It makes a difference. Would you rather have nine Ginsburgs on the SC or nine Gorsuches?
Amren.com
Mentor
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,337
There is a silver lining to the increased liberal madness of the last three months. It pushes more white people in our direction. Every time there's been some manufactured liberal outrage like the Trayvon Martin incident a whole bunch of white people got pushed into our camp.
Leonardfan
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 24,386
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics...illegally-discriminated-against-whites-asians
Another small victory.
Another small victory.