They will have to justify in the courts why whites aren't treated same as other
Dave_Anderson
I don't see how this can be Constitutional unless they go after ethnic advocacy organizations for every other demographic too. Race is subject to the strictest legal scrutiny, with ethnicity not far behind. As corrupt as the courts are, this seems beyond the pale. Maybe we can finally get a decision saying either no group can have advocacy organizations or all can.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democra…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
15 comments
Latest
I see I'm not the only person who was reading that with a question mark lol. Just goes to show people have more depth than the Internet typically reveals in tweet-sized chunks.
How can you justify targeting one racial or ethnic group for significantly worse treatment or monitoring by the government than others?
“Since the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) first formed in 1865, white supremacist groups in the United States have propagated racism, hatred, and violence. Individuals belonging to these groups have been charged with a range of crimes, including civil rights violations, racketeering, solicitation to commit crimes of violence, firearms and explosives violations, and witness tampering.
Nonetheless, white supremacist groups––and their extremist ideologies––persist in the United States today.”
No james, you're the confused one!
Because as we all know words always have the exact same meaning in every context and all throughout history 😄😄
Like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood ski only practices in the court of the absurd
"I think you're confused who the current Nazis are"
Yeah, okay. This post won't be about "Nazis" per se, just about your general line of reasoning, and that of the leftie leaders you worship so blindly.
Yesterday, China spy lover Eric Swalwell (who should be ousted and subjected to enhanced interrogation, but instead remains on the House Intelligence Committee) was selected by Pelosi to testify at the so-called "hearing" on impeachment. During his imbecilic rant, he compared Donald Trump to Osama Bin Laden. His "reasoning" was that Bin Laden never set foot on American soil during the 9/11 attacks, and therefore he simply "influenced" the event, just as Trump "influenced" the assault on the Capitol building.
Put aside the question of whether or not Trump's fiery rhetoric "influenced" a few dozen nut jobs to storm the Capitol. For argument's sake, let's say it did. Does Swalwell understand that Bin Laden not only specifically ordered the attacks of 9/11, but he was intricately involved in the planning, execution and financing of it? (Which by the way, took years of preparation.) No matter what you think of Trump's demeaning personality or his policies, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows this is not an accurate comparison. Yet they spew it out, and you eat it up.
If you've ever taken the SAT or GMAT, you should be familiar with verbal reasoning questions. (I'm not a lawyer, so I never took the LSAT, and I understand the logical reasoning section is a lot more difficult.) Every word of Swalwell's rant fails any of those tests. Why? Is he uneducated? Umm, no... he's got a JD. So why in hell would he make such a losing argument? Because he tailors his words to the idiotic audience he's addressing. That's you, morons.
“Among recent books on Nazism, the one that may prove most disquieting for American readers is James Q. Whitman’s “Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law” (Princeton).”
“In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had “gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” When he spoke of Lebensraum, the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind.”
“How American Racism Influenced Hitler”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyork…