NY professor claims "white families" support white supremacy just by existing

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10069

By now it's well-known that the socialists, militant feminists and marxists (all of whom cunningly call themselves "progressives") who rule universities hate white people.  They also hate white families.

Naturally you think that's hyperbole:  You can't imagine why anyone would hate the justly-praised concept of "the family"--the basic building-block of civilized society.  I understand.  It's crazy--which is par for the course for these wackos.

So click here to see for yourself as a sociology professor at the City University of New York argues that “the white-nuclear family” perpetuates racism.

Jessie Daniels--a self-described “expert on race”-- begins by declaring that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy.”

This malevolent, evil orc believes raising and providing for children is deplorable, even though study after study shows that children raised in intact, well-adjusted families are far more likely to be productive, well-adjusted adults.  They're far less likely to commit crimes or abuse others.

Nevertheless, marxists, fans of black power and militant feminists demonize white families.  Marxists see the family as reducing the power of the totalitarian State.  Militant feminists hate the classic family because it relied on a confident, competent father--something militant feminists hate.

You'd think that rational blacks would support the idea of the nuclear family because of its obvious advantages in raising well-adjusted, functional children.  But by all appearances militant blacks seem to denigrate the idea of family, probably for the same reason so many moronic, angry black thugs ridicule blacks who study hard and do well in school:  They view it as "acting white."

Similarly, one could speculate that militant blacks hate the idea of the nuclear family simply because whites support the idea.  Thus any black person who supports the idea of the nuclear family is demonized for "acting white."


Twisted freaks like this female professor are trying to destroy the family.  Her co-religionists in academia or militant feminism may believe they're doing this in the insane belief that this will make a better world.  I think that's clearly nuts, but in any case their reasons for trying to destroy families don't matter to me at all.  These people are enemies of civilization. 

And crazy.

Another New York horror story

In the cesspool of crime and dysfunction that is New York City, three "teenagers" armed with a machete yanked open the door of a cab and began swinging the weapon at the passengers.

The cab driver reached out to try to protect one of his passengers--and the attackers cut off his thumb.

The injured man is disabled for life.

So what happened to the attackers?  They were caught, and booked.  Then one of New York's infamous liberal judges did what they do:  he let the attackers out on a minuscule $200 bail.

Does anyone anywhere think this could possibly serve as even a tiny deterrent?  What have the attackers learned?  That you can attack people with a deadly weapon, and cut off a person's thumb, and spend just a few hours in jail before being released, with less inconvenience than a traffic ticket.

It's insane.  Oh wait--it's liberal judges in New York.  So of course it's insane.

NY Times calls Manson a "harbinger of the far..." WHAT?

After the long-overdue death of the ghastly Charlie Manson, the NY Times ran the following:

To claim Manson was "a harbinger of today's far right" is absurd, and shows how eager the Left is to lie about historical facts to advance their narrative among their moronic followers--including coastal university students.  Manson repeatedly claimed he wanted to "kill the pigs," and the rich--as did leftists Bernadette Dohrn, Obozo's pal Bill Ayers and the leftist/communist "SDS." It was a constant refrain.

Of course no one under 30--so none of today's college students--has any idea what Manson was really about, since they weren't born when he ordered his followers to murder Sharon Tate and the Labiancas.

Typical Leftist revisionist-history.  Thanks, Times.

Three males rape 14-year-old at gunpoint; only one mainstream media outlet covers it

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/23/three-high-school-football-players-rape-14-year-old-girl-gunpoint-outside-pa-fair/891492001/

When Donald Trump makes some silly tweet, the Lying Mainstream Media will have that all over the airwaves for two days.  But when a crime is committed that hurts The Narrative--the one pushed by socialists, liberals, Democrats and their allies in the Lying Mainstream Media--you almost never read about it in the mainstream media.

By contrast, if a small hometown newspaper or TV station fails to report a heinous crime, they get lots of heat from subscribers and viewers, which translates into lost income that can hurt the paper or station.  So the "locals" are essentially forced to cover and broadcast stories the national media is rarely interested in telling you about.

Before the Internet, Americans living outside the reach of the local paper or station had no way of learning about such crimes.  But now lots of sites exist that get "feeds" from local stations and let you see what's really happening.  And guess what?  It's vastly different from the bullshit the mainstream media is feeding you.

Latest case:  Two months ago a 14-year-old girl at the local county fair was raped at gunpoint by three black teenagers.  All three went to the same school, and she knew all three and identified them by name.

All three were picked up, charged, and released on ridiculously low bail ($25,000).

After they were released the victim said she received a picture on her cell phone from one of the attackers showing him holding a gun she believed was the one used in the assault.  She also said one of the attackers texted her telling her to "stop lying."

With that background, a local reporter asked school officials if the now-released rapists would be allowed to attend the same school as the victim.  This was a concern because the attackers had already threatened the victim via cell phone picture and texts.  The head of the local school board said he didn't know, and that the reporter should ask the superintendent.

This was already an outrage, now compounded by the school board never even considering the fact that if the attackers were allowed to attend their normal school they would continue to intimidate the victim.  "Not a problem," the board seemed to say.  Or at least, not *their* problem.

The members of the school board are idiots.  Morons.  They're totally unconcerned about putting this poor 14-year-old at risk of being intimidated for *months,* and possibly attacked *again,* because the board members weren't willing to buck their virtue-signalling peers.  Speculation?  Well, here are the alleged assailants:

There's a war going on in the U.S.

There is a war going on in this country.

It hasn't yet gotten to dead bodies--not many, anyway--but nevertheless it is real war.  It’s a war for the future of our nation, and it will affect everyone.

The war was started by the Left, to seize power and eliminate anyone who would teach that their philosophy is awful.  They seek to change the entire workings of our country.  They want to remake every institution they can, with themselves in control. 

They believe all power should rightfully be theirs because in their minds they're morally superior to conservatives an Christians, and that their ideas and programs will produce superior results.

They believe nothing is off-limits in this war because they must win to root out what they believe is the injustice inherent in our country’s institutions and the roughly half of its people who Hilliary described--with the total agreement of everyone on the Left--as "deplorable."  

The war began in the 1960s, pushed by the radicals of the Frankfurt School, furthered by the activities of Herbert Marcuse, Howard Zinn, Bill Ayers, and the leftist academic institutions we send our children to.  They have taken over institution after institution in a long, calculated preparation for this war.

First the universities and Hollywood, then the major media outlets such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, most journalism schools, all the major television networks, and most cable news outlets.  They took over the entire education system, public and private. 

They control the Democrat party and have thoroughly infiltrated the RINO wing of the Republicans.  Despite winning the presidency and nominal majorities in both chambers of the rightfully-despised congress, deep-state leftists control every one of our government institutions (bureaucracies).  And they hate conservatives and Christians.

Obviously not every member of these institutions is a hard leftist, but the left has managed to seize control of *all of them.* 

Examples of the current battles in the war:
    Demanding unlimited immigration (open borders)
    Junking the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land"
    Black lives matter, NFL kneeling, and the war on being white
    The absolutely correct belief that "connected" people can violate the law with impunity (i.e. two sets of laws, one for them, one for "ordinary" people)
    Powerful Hollywood males preying on children
    The war on traditional families
    Demands by the Left that society bow to transgenderism
    Demands by the Left that the military not only accept transgender enlistees but also pay for their sex-change operations!
    Demands by the Left that radical parents be allowed to encourage their confused kids to undergo "gender reassignment"
    The left's attempt to kill our economy based on bogus claims that we're causing the planet to warm by a worrisome amount
    The Left seizing control of health insurance, and trying to extend this to all healthcare
    Intentionally racking up a $20 Trillion deficit
    Supporting radical Islam but demonizing Judeo-Christian culture
    Teaching that socialism is a great idea, while demonizing capitalism and free markets.
    Teaching our youth that the U.S. is evil

It's important to understand that all these battles are going on simultaneously.  We aren’t just fighting on two fronts, but dozens at once.  It’s a strategy designed to overwhelm the Left's opponents--us-- into giving up.

Unfortunately, we on the right don't have a good organization to counter the tactics of the left.  The party we thought was opposed to the Left and represented us doesn’t even know we’re in a war.  Half of them are actually working for the Left.  They think leftists are their friends, because they invite the nominal Republican leaders to parties.

The lack of conservative leadership on the part of the Republican party is at least partly responsible for why--except for Trump's miraculous election--conservatives haven't had a single policy victory since Reagan.

Far too many nominal Republican congresswhores--McCain, Flake, Corker, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and many others--are indistinguishable from Democrats.  They don’t support any goals of conservatives.

This brings us to the next battle:  The Left and their RINO allies are trying to impeach Trump.  One by one they're peeling off nominal Republican congresswhores, and when they believe they've got a one-vote majority to impeach, they'll force a vote.  And if that succeeds, the odds are great that they'll be able to convict in the senate, which is even more infiltrated with Democrat plants on the Republican side than the House.

This war isn't metaphorical, and the consequences of losing won't be confined to esoterica like "net neutrality" or tweaks in the tax code.  Rather, the battle is for whether the U.S. stays relatively free, with free markets, or goes full socialist.  Because the left has convinced America's young people that socialism is good, and that free enterprise and capitalism are evil.

And each battle is absolutely filled with lies from the left.  It’s their M.O.  Tokyo Rose is their model.  Hillary is their face.

Think the results of losing will be esoteric, along the lines of who wins the superbowl?  Think again: Take a look at Venezuela.  From having the highest per-capita income in South America 25 years ago, now they're starving. 

25 years ago their base currency unit--the "bolivar"--had about the same buying power as a dollar.  This past January it took 3,100 bolivars to buy a dollar.

On November 1st--a bit over three weeks ago--it took 41,000 bolivars to buy a dollar.

A scant three weeks later--i.e. two days ago--the bolivar had fallen to 84,000 to the dollar.

Unless you're a student of foreign economics you probably don't have any idea why this happened, but the short answer is that Venezuela's socialist leaders promised freebies to voters while simultaneously imposing killing regulations on businesses.  With much of the economy killed, tax receipts fell sharply.  The socialists couldn't pay for all the things they'd promised.
 

If we fail to defeat the "deep state" created by the left, we'll be doomed to follow Venezuela.  I don't know if there are enough Americans remaining who believe in freedom to win the day.  But if we lose, you can't say you didn't know there was a war going on.

Matthew Dowd--ABC "political analyst"--defends sex assault as long as the perp is a Dem

Matthew Dowd is "chief political analyst" for the ABC network. You probably haven't heard of him, but you need to know him to understand how thoroughly the Lying Media and the self-styled "elites" hate conservatives, Christians and America.

As more women came forward to accuse Democrat moonbat senator Al Franken--once amusingly billed as a "comedian"--Dowd told idiot moonbat readers that in essence,assaulting women wasn't a big deal IF the assailant was "working for the common good."

And who gets to define that term? Why, liberals, of course--people like him.

Got it?  "Huge difference."  I.e. double-standard.  But it's okay, citizen, cuz he's a Democrat/liberal.

And in that vein, what do you think he'd say about the wholesale murder of Christians by Muslims throughout the world?  Take a look:

How often is a Muslim murdered in the U.S?  But according to Dowd, this a "bigger problem" than Muslim murders of Christians--which happen about every week around the world.

But always remember what the Dems and the Lying Media tell you, citizen:  There is absolutely NO bias in the media.

Lying rat-bastards.

MSNBC leftist host laughs that the ambush of Rand Paul "might be one of my favorite stories"

A couple of days ago a leftist MSNBC "news" hostess--apparently eager for ambush-style assaults and then presumably civil war--did a very short piece about the blind-side ambush of senator Rand Paul by a socialist asshole (but I repeat myself) in which she laughed and said "I think this might be one of my favorite stories." 

Naturally you can't believe even a moronic, assault-loving Leftist would say something that awful on a nationwide cable channel.  So take a look at the vid below.

The mainstream media--and the Left--hate you.  They hate Trump, and God, and conservatives, and Christians.  And all while they have the gall to proclaim how utterly, faaabulously tolerant they are.

Utter hypocrites.  And scum.

Newsweek compares Trump to Charles Manson

Newsweek was once a weekly magazine left-wing propaganda rag along the lines of Time Magazine.  Their relentless anti-American propaganda turned off lots of folks--too many, as it turned out--and the company that published the rag ended up being sold for...one dollar.

I don't mean the magazine sold at news-stands for a dollar, but the whole company ended up being sold for a single dollar.  Seriously.  They decided they could save money by not publishing a paper copy, and the rag is now on-line only.

Sorta like they're blogging, but getting paid more.

You might think they'd have learned from the debacle, but of course they're leftists so they're simply not capable of learning.  I suspect a great many communists who got on the sh*t-list of the ruler continued to believe communism--and the ruler--were both jus' f'ing wonderful right up until the very moment the bullet penetrated their skull.

So the day after infamous crazy bastard Charlie Manson went to his just reward, the sleazy, Trump-hating rat-bastards at Newsweek tweeted a pic of Manson with the caption

How murderer Charles Manson and President Donald Trump used similar language to gain followers.

Naturally you can't believe even a bunch of insane, Trump-hating Leftists would really do that, so click here to see their tweet.

The Left really does hate you, and Trump, and America as you know it.  They pose as virtuous, claim to be tolerant, but they really want open borders and communism (though they'll charmingly say "socialism" instead, because "communism" has...um...vaguely disturbing associations for people over 40 or so.)

And they're slowly winning:  Polls show more east-coast college students would rather live under socialism then a capitalist system.

Explains SO much, eh?  The "elites" know who they can influence most.

Oh, and a bit of trivia for the moron leftists at Newzweak:  Manson actually wasn't a murderer.  Didn't kill anyone.  Really.  He just did what "leading" leftists have done for over a century:  he talked some useful idiots into killing people for him.  But no one with an IQ over two digits would expect anyone one the left to do any actual, y'know, research before publishing.

Typical.  And this is what they call "journalism," eh?

What do current trends tell us about the future of the United States?

As some of you may have noticed, a big chunk of American 25 to 30-year+olds have either moved back in with their parents, or have never left home by that age.

In big cities young people are waiting much longer to get married, and even longer to have a first child.  And it makes sense:  It's more fun to hang with your friends and vacation in pricey locales.  Hard to do that when you're married.  And with a huge percentage of marriages ending in ruinously expensive divorce, why risk it?

But the malaise goes far deeper.  Since 2000, teens have become considerably less likely to drive, have an after-school job and date. By the early 2010s 12th graders were going on dates less often than 8th graders did in the 1990s."  As some have phrased it, 25 is the new 18.

An increasing percentage of young people are living with their parents--nearly twice the percentage of 1964.  The phenomenon is even worse in Europe, where almost half of 18-29 year olds are still living with their parents, with young men most likely to find themselves living at home."

The elites are writing reams of articles on the likely cause of this and whether it's anything to be concerned about.  Most of those on the Left seem to be pleased with this trend:  they hate capitalism and freedom and have long believed there are too many people in the relatively affluent west.  If western nations die off, they've achieved their goals. 

Certainly one obvious result of this trend is that birth rates in almost all developed nations--and particularly in western Europe-- are now either at or below the replacement level

Let me repeat that: Not a single EU member country has a birthrate high enough to keep their populations from shrinking.

To the extent the Left notices the phenomenon at all, it's to use it to claim that it's all due to the alleged evils of capitalism.  Some have charged that the reason today's young people are living at home is that they can't find good jobs--a problem the Left blames on capitalism, never on waves of illegal immigrants produced by open borders and a relatively strong economy.  

First, jobs are available.  But so many young people have been coddled and spoiled to the point that they don't want to take a minimum-wage job, but will hold out for one that will pay 'em what they amusingly think they're worth.  Unfortunately they're helped in this delusion by the fact that big companies hire "diversity coordinators"--or even diversity vice-presidents, fer cryin' out loud--at enormous salaries.

I suspect that in the U.S. and most European countries the real reason youth unemployment is high because the welfare policies of socialist governments have made it possible for single people with no children to live fairly comfortably without having to work.  While one would have a hard time supporting a wife or family on a welfare budget, for a single person living in public housing, in a city where you don't need a car because of good public transit, it could be fairly comfortable.

In which case, why would a cool, personable, attractive single person want a minimum-wage job when you can hang with your friends all day playing video games and then hit your local bar at night?  And this again mitigates against getting married and starting a family.

When a guy has a family he has a far higher motivation to get and keep a good job.  It's the cliche of "I may not want to do this but I have to or my family will suffer."  But with the welfare state this changes to "If I don't want to work, why should I have to?"  That strikes me as a very profound shift.

Ignorance--it's not just for Democrats!

In the wake of the totally-ignored-by-the-Lying-Media corruption trial of a Democrat senator for New Jersey, a professor from that state made an interesting observation:

My college freshman students in NJ didn't know last Thursday [the day the trial ended in a hung jury] that their Sen. Menendez had been on trial for corruption.  Even more unsettling, almost none knew Menendez is a U.S. senator for their state.

The Lying Media have done a great job--at least from the Democrat standpoint--of ignoring Democrat lawbreaking and corruption.  The vast majority of college students know nothing of major political current events.  But they know every detail of the Kardashians' latest idiocy.

Talk with your kids.  Ask 'em what they think of...anything of importance.  Find out what they believe.  Then tell 'em what the Lying Media won't.

The difference between Democrats and socialists explained

Actually this isn't quite accurate, cuz socialists are *very* comfortable with using deadly force against anyone they see as their enemies. But close enough!

U-Minnesota adminishits lie to cancel conservative student radio show for saying ___ on-air

There's an old saying--coined by the poor souls who suffered under communist regimes in eastern Europe--that if you want to know who rules you, find out who you're not allowed to criticize in public.

That actually seems like a pretty sound maxim.  A couple of student radio hosts at the University of Minnesota found out that the Powers That Be at their "university" (actually a marxist/socialist cesspool of lying scum using taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate naive kids) has decided you can't say "tranny" on the air.

Moreover, the scum-sucking, rat-bastard pencil-neck "powers" at that university didn't have the guts to say "We just made that decision cuz we have the Power and you don't," but instead lied, telling the radio guys that saying "tranny" on-air violated Federal Communication Commission rules governing broadcasting.

That was a total, bald-face lie, worthy of Stalin or Goebbels or Al Franken or Harry Reid.  But hey, why would anyone with an IQ above double-digits believe a single thing uttered by any university adminishit or muckymuck anyway, eh?  Those people are chronic liars and utterly worthless.  Lying rat-bastards who hate the country we grew up in and instead love socialism, gays, transgenders and similar.  It's why they got their panties in a twist when the two radio hosts said "tranny" on-air.

The two radio hosts had a weekly show called “Deplorable Radio”--an obvious reference to Hilliary's claim that Trump supporters were/are a "basket of deplorables."  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that the university had these guys on a hit-list, since university adminishits hate Trump and everyone who supported him.

The two were doing a riff on Antifa when one used the allegedly-forbidden word "tranny."  “About fifteen minutes later,” one of the hosts told The College Fix, “the student station manager came into the studio with a [campus cop] and told us to leave. She said we had violated FCC law by saying a word that was never allowed on air, ‘tranny.’"

The university adminishits would lie about the exchange, but as it happens there's a video.  The "manager" says “Hey guys, I am just going to have you leave. You said a couple words that break FCC violations.  So for today I am going to have you stop your show. Specifically tranny. That is a hate slur.  It is not allowed on radio. I need you to leave.”  “That is a specific hate speech word never allowed on radio,” she says.

Small problem:  Saying "tranny" on the air doesn't violate any FCC rule.  But because the Powers That Be prize political correctness, and to get rid of a show the Powers didn't like, they simply...lied.

Without consequence, of course.  Cuz the Powers can lie with impunity.  Sorta like Barack and Hilliary both lied about Benghazi being a "spontaneous demonstration caused by an internet video."

Two weeks later the Powers cancelled the "Deplorable Radio" show.  Mission accomplished.

During the meeting when the Powers announced that they were canceling the show, university adminishits told the hosts they had “received complaints about our show and threats to file a report to the FCC, which could end up costing the station (which is a University-funded organization) thousands of dollars.”

One of the hosts told The College Fix that board members admitted that the FCC didn't have any rule barring anyone from saying "tranny" on-air.  With this admission, they then switched Narratives, claiming they had gotten complaints that the week before the hosts uttered the allegedly forbidden word, "it sounded like [they] were under the influence, which is an FCC violation.”

I know you'll be shocked to learn that it's not a violation of FCC rules to 'broadcast under the influence.'  So that was another lie, uttered because the adminishits' first lie had been exposed as crap, and they needed to have some "cover" so no one would realize they were simply doing away with a show that broadcast views the adminishits didn't like.

If you wanna know who rules ya, find out who you're not allowed to criticize in public, eh?

Oh, a commenter found something that sheds a lot of light on this entire episode of PC bullshit:  A pic of the "station manager," Torri Jordan.  Ah-yup.

French professor proposes creating a separate Muslim state in France--says that will bring peace

http://www.westmonster.com/french-academic-create-a-muslim-state-within-france-to-avoid-civil-war/

Some professors seem to be among the dumbest people on the planet.  Case in point:  A French professor (probably of "transgender studies" or some such) has noticed that a "second society" has formed in France.  He oh-so-carefully describes this second society as “A branch that wants to settle their lives on religious values and is fundamentally opposed to the liberal consensus on which our country was founded."

Catholics?  Mormons?  Amish?  No, think "We stone women to death, and cut off the heads of apostates." 

Got the answer yet?

Yes, professor Christian de Moliner claims that France cannot possibly take what he declares are "unimaginable measures in democracy (remigration, forced evictions of the most radical)," so why not establish a dual system of law in France?”
 The professor’s proposed ‘solution’ is to create a state with one government, but two sets of rules: non-Muslims would live under the usual French laws while Muslims would have "Qur’anic status," by which he seems to mean sharia law.
 
He stipulates that this will make polygamy legal, at least for Muslims.

Then, using that wonderful liberal, academic version of logic, he claims that any conflicts between Christians and "believers"--his euphemistic term for Muslims--will remain the responsibility of regular French courts. 

Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature will immediately reaize that the chance of this arrangement being accepted by Muslims is zero.  But no matter--surely these minor details can be worked out once we've agreed to surrender half of French territory to the, uh..."believers," eh?

Our charmless moron also notes that this dual system would require schools and hospitals reserved for, uh..."believers."  He doesn't say whether French Christians will simply give the...believers...40 percent of existing hospitals and schools, presumably regarding such decisions as trivial details that can easily be negotiated once we've given the "believers" 40 percent of France.

Certainly.

Either this guy is a total moron, or he could be one of those folks in the Legion of the Perpetually Aggrieved, whose objective is to destroy the entire existing order, in the amusing belief that this will make things way, way better.

As an aside for readers under about 30:  Just before the beginning of WW2, liberals were trying to make deals with Hitler that they claimed would bring "peace in our time."  A British politician by the name of Neville Chamberlain unilaterally agreed to give a big chunk of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, since Hitler wanted it. 

Of course Chamberlain didn't bother asking the Czechs what they thought of this proposal, and Britain certainly didn't own that land Chamberlain so generously gave away.  So one might well wonder what made Chamberlain believe he had the authority to give that land to Hitler. 

Ah, well...what made Barack Obama think he could simply make or violate U.S. laws by picking up a pen?  Because...no one stopped him.  So...all good liberals and socialists will soon agree that the "solution" to the problem of Muslim violence against the citizens of France is...give them 40 percent  of French territory to rule as they wish. 

Sure, that'll work!  I mean, it worked for Chamberlain, right?  His gift to Hitler avoided WW2, right?

Oh, wait.  I forgot.  One year to the day after Chamberlain betrayed the Czechs, Hitler invaded Poland and the Netherlands and WW2 started.  Hmmmm.....

An architectural disaster

Once upon a time South Africa was a first-world nation.  As such, it had the usual quota of goofy urban architects determined to "make a bold statement."

One such "statement" was Johannesburg's Ponte Tower--the tallest apartment building in Africa at 53 stories.  That alone was...um...highly unusual, but the really bizarre thing about it was that the structure is a hollow cylinder or tube.  So on the ground floor you're at the bottom of a 53-story atrium.  The view is scary.

It's hard to imagine that anyone ever thought this was a great idea, but before the former white government turned the country over to the communists of the ANC the building attracted high-end tenants and was reasonably well maintained.

With the takeover by the ANC, things changed quickly.  The downtown area quickly became a hotbed of crime, especially against whites.  The result was a mass exodus of whites.  The new management...well, here's a short video of the thing.  If you're short of time just watch the first two-and-a-half minutes.

Short answer:  After two years the bottom of the atrium was a trash pile three stories high.

The film-maker focuses on one white guy who lives in the place, who claims everything is fine now.  I'm skeptical, but it's possible.  But in any case that building is way, way ugly and depressing.  And again the question:  Who in their right mind could ever have thought this was a good design?

Epic BLM fail...

Not sure if this is a spoof but it looks like the infamous anti-white hate group Black Lives Matter--whose knickers are *always* in a twist about Trump--posted a poll question:  "Do you approve of President Trump's job performance?"

They naturally assumed that the poll would overwhelmingly show "disapprove."

Surprise--it was showing 69% "approve" vs 27% disapprove.

So naturally...they pulled it down!

Epic.

No surprise, @usblm couldn't handle the truth so they deleted the poll.
When #Trump's supporters unite, the Left doesn't stand a chance.

The masses support 🇺🇸@realDonaldTrump❤️
We reject #BlackLivesMatter👎

You should've left the poll up#BLM 👉#Liars #Cowards #Cheaters pic.twitter.com/5kYiSbnBae

— Ann (@SprayCanAnn) November 16, 2017

Another victory for virtue-signalling, and a defeat for logic and good results

Political correctness always produces bad results.  And it's getting worse.  But sometimes those results are subtle and not always apparent.  Example: 

Portland, Oregon, has a serious problem with drug addiction--specifically to heroin, meth, and opioids.  It's been a problem for decades but has gotten a lot worse in the last few years.

To try to formulate an approach to reducing addiction a good-government citizens' group--the City Club of Portland--convened a committee of civilian volunteers to research addiction and possible ways to reduce it.  Anyone in the club could volunteer to serve on the committee.

 

Not one person of color applied to serve on the addiction-research committee.

The committee met twice a week for six months, interviewing numerous experts and reviewing over a hundred published studies.  Toward the end of July the committee submitted a draft report to the officers of the club.

By October, the club's officers hadn't approved or commented on the report, so one of the members of the research committee asked the club's president what the problem was.

The president said that the club's board of governors would not release the report--because all the members of the research committee were...white.

The fact that no non-white had volunteered to serve on the volunteer committee was ignored.

Also, the committee had been meeting for six months.  At any point the board of governors could have dissolved the committee and saved everyone's time.  But they didn't.

So...thousands of volunteer man-hours were wasted, thrown away because of an official's fear of appearing to be politically incorrect. 

So if Portland ever decides what to do about the ocean of misery caused by drug addiction and addicts, it'll take 'em another year to figure it out--if indeed they ever do.  Because my guess is that all the members who had the time, education and inclination to volunteer to spend over six months doing the research already volunteered--only to have their work trashed.  

How many of those people do you think will be eager to sign up for more fun like that?

Sacrificing competence and unbiased conclusions to virtue-signalling and political correctness can't possibly have a good result.  But snowflakes haven't learned that, and won't until too late.

You surely know people like this:  They'll eagerly swear that 2 plus 2 equals 5 if they think that's the popular thing to do.  They are a curse and a cancer on a sane society.

Of course big swaths of the U.S. no longer fit this definition.

A European analyst looks at the trends on floods of African immigrants into Europe

Hungary is one of the few nations in Europe that seems to understand the existential threat posed by mass immigration of Africans to European nations.  And they've decided they don't want to go along.

In case some of my student readers may not be acquainted with the term, an "existential threat" is one that, if you don't counter it, has a good chance of killing you--or your society, which some Americans feel would be a bad thing.

(Interestingly, I'm seeing signs that growing numbers of white Americans have bought into the "Whites are evil so we should just kill ourselves" bullshit.  There's a serious existential threat right there..)

Recently a Hungarian analyst explained why his analysis pointed to the dire nature of the threat of mass immigration:  First, if present trends continue--which is certainly open to debate--the number of Africans illegally entering Europe each year could approach 2 million.  And there is no indication that any of the EU politicians or national leaders (except Hungary, Poland and possibly Austria) are willing to reduce this flood.

But there's a bigger problem than immigration alone:  The birthrate for native Europeans has been falling for years, and is now far below replacement level of just over 2 children per couple.  It's now about 1.4.  By contrast Africans-almost all Muslims--are having 4, 5 or 6 children per woman.  
Unless you're a science or math or finance major this may not strike you as being very significant--but it is.

This is easily seen in the well-known equation for "exponential growth:"  It's P(t)=P(o)e^rt where P is population, r is the growth rate and t is time.

A few minutes of playing with this equation will show that the "doubling time" for African immigrants could be as short as 17 years.

Also, following the trend in every advanced nation, European women are waiting longer to have their first (and often only) child, partly because many want to finish college and grad-school, and partly because they want to have fun and be free for a decade or so before settling down.  This trend shows no sign of reversing.

By contrast, Muslim women and girls--few of whom enter post-secondary education, and even fewer being allowed by medieval Islamic rules to be "social butterflies"--have their first child at a much younger age, which contributes to a higher overall "fertility rate."

Short answer:  Many EU countries are likely to be majority-Muslim by 2050.

And given typical apathy among voters, well before then Muslims will be able to elect either Muslim or pro-Muslim politicians.  When that happens, any tiny moves to reduce the immigrant flood will be dismantled.  Sharia law will become the norm.  Increasing numbers of government employees and officials--particularly in police and intelligence agencies--will be Muslims.

If you're fine with that for your kids, no problem.  Surely they'll be able to adjust, right?  And for liberals, Democrats, socialists and marxists, living under Islam is certainly a more attractive notion than living in a Christian society.

Another victory for snowflakes in the polygender-pronoun wars

And further to the endless, sad saga of how liberal-Democrat-enforced gender insanity is turning formerly competent nations into reality-denying morons, there's this:

Ten days ago the pencil-neck metrosexual wusses who seem to infest big cities ordered train operators on New York City's subway system to stop prefacing announcements with "Ladies and gentlemen..."

The reason was to avoid offending the 586 new "genders" invented by the special snowflakes.

Oooh, wait:  Newer trains have recorded announcements.  Oooh, what to do?  Easy: The PC morons simply ordered train operators to override the prerecorded message with the new, gender-correct ones until the agency gets around to changing the automated messages.

The bulletin also warns train operators that managers and supervisors will be monitoring them to make sure they don’t slip and use the forbidden phrase.

H/T Moonbattery.http://moonbattery.com/?p=89692http://moonbattery.com/?p=89692

Teacher suspended after accidentally saying "Well done, girls." Mom complains her kid has...

A teacher in the U.K has been suspended and could be fired after he accidentally called a transgender pupil a girl in class when the female student has said she wants to be called a boy.

When Joshua Sutcliffe saw two girls working hard, he said "Well done, girls."  The girl-who-wants-to-be-a-boy corrected Sutcliffe, who apologized.  But six weeks later, after the girl’s mother lodged a complaint, he was suspended from teaching.

If you commit the horrible offense of accidentally referring to a girl as a girl when her mother wants everyone to pretend she is a boy, apologizing won’t save you.

Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.

Sutcliffe has also been accused of another offensive behavior:  referring to the student by name rather than using masculine pronouns that the insane PC morons demand he use to refer to a girl.

And here is the key to the entire transgender jihad:  It isn't enough to merely stay quiet--the trans-jihadists demand that everyone actively reject sanity and agree, in effect, that 2+2=5, by using biologically wrong pronouns. 

Once they get you to refer to Bruce Jenner or Bradley Manning as “she,” they own you. You have quietly bowed to their demand that 2 + 2 = 5 if they say so, and thus have signaled your willingness to agree to any other tyrannical lunacy they may impose.

As noted at the top, this outrage happened in the U.K.  But if you think the moonbat liberals who run the schools and the Deep State government aren't trying as hard as they can to impose the same rules here, you're naive. 

H/T Moonbattery.

Muslim terror killer in NYC last week got into U.S. via "Diversity Visa Program" ?!

The federal government is accurately criticized for taking forever to respond to threats, especially ones that have only been known for, oh, a decade or two.  It's sorta' like not a single congresswhore or federal employee has the brains or balls to stand up and say "HEY, Islamic terrorists pose a huge threat to all western nations, and yet we're still letting thousands of people into the U.S. by an insane, random lottery!  We need to stop that at once!"

In particular:  The Diversity Visa Program was established by the Immigration Act of 1990.  The stated goal of the law was to "increase the diversity of the U.S. population."   Not sure why any sane people would think they needed to do that, but then I'm not a congresswhore.

Under that program, 55,000 immigrants each year are randomly chosen to get U.S. visas in an annual lottery.  It started in the mid-1990s.

Astonishingly, it's still going on, issuing visas to Muslims from known terrorist-supporting nations.

Yes, in the last ten years our moronic, slow-witted federal government issued nearly 30,000 visas to people from nations officially designated as sponsors of terrorism.

Brilliant, huh?

After Muslim hijackers killed 2,800 Americans on September 11, 2001, why didn't the government immediately order the morons who ran that wunnerful program to not award visas to people from threatening nations?  Well, probably because back then it wasn't clear which nations supported terrorism.

Discovering that took probably around two years.  Surely the feds would have taken action then, right?

Of course then the government didn't take action because they couldn't get the emperor to agree.  Yes, that's the same emperor who used the phrase "my Muslim faith" during an interview with George Stephanopolous on national television.  (Georgie covered for him by saying "You meant 'my *Christian* faith,' of course.")

Now, in the wake of eight more people killed by a Muslim in NYC--a man who was only able to enter the U.S. because he won one of the diversity visas--Trump has proposed ending the issuance of visas to residents of 7 countries.  But you know what's gonna happen, right?  An unelected federal judge in Hawaii will rule that he can't do that, because of the legal equivalent of "Because I said so!"

And it'll take another eight years for all the appeals to work their way through the legal system.

How many more Americans will be killed by winners of "diversity visas" during those 8 years?

Priceless: Leftist moonbats scream at the sky-- caught on video.

Infowars is pretty goofy but Paul Joseph Watson is clever and funny.  In the vid below he watches deranged leftists as they screamed at the sky a few days ago to show their hate for Trump.  This is some funny stuff!

Moronic leftist bitches that if TX shooter had been Muzz or POC, Trump would have called for...

As soon as President Trump learned about the mass shooting at the church in Texas, he posted a sympathetic statement on Twitter: "May God be with the people of Sutherland Springs, Texas." 

Of course any statement from Trump causes leftists to shriek their outrage, and invoking God or prayer makes 'em scream even louder.  Thus a notoriously moronic former MSNBC idiot by the name of Keith Olberman tweeted

"You pig, if the shooter were a person of color or a Muslim you'd be heading home calling for the death penalty."

Pretty sure that wouldn't have happened, Keefie, since the shooter was, um, already thoroughly dead.

But we wouldn't expect any former or current employee of MSNBC to know how to actually, y'know, *listen* to news reports before shrieking.

You pig, @realDonaldTrump. If the shooter were a person of color and/or a Muslim you’d be heading home calling for the death penalty pic.twitter.com/x2vaHTNwAc

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) November 6, 2017

Head of a black group calls for our national anthem to be changed, claiming it's raacist

For some years now blacks have demanded that cities and states remove all statues of Confederate generals.

Gradually, increasing numbers of virtue-signalling whites began to support this demand.  Eventually, politicians stuck a wet finger up in the air and realized they'd get more votes by agreeing to this demand than they'd lose by opposing it, and they agreed to the demand.

The next demand was that all references to Thomas Jefferson be removed.  Politicians bowed and surrendered.

Next was a demand to rename all parks, streets and schools named after the great general Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis.

Pols quickly caved.  It got so ridiculous that the morons in one school district in Oregon or Washington state changed the name of "Lee Elementary" even though the Lee family in question was unrelated to General Lee, and had simply donated a bunch of land to the city to build schools.

Next was the demand that the nation remove statues honoring George Washington.  It's my understanding that Washington freed his slaves, but I suspect that makes no difference to the screamers.

Now the latest demand is to remove the Star-spangled Banner as our national anthem.

Seriously.  The head of a black organization in California has demanded that we drop the anthem because...the third verse is raaaaacist!

Bet you didn't even know there was a third verse.  And I'll bet that before this person in California complained, not ten blacks in the whole country knew there was a third verse, let alone what its lyrics were.

Here's the verse she found offensive;
  And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
   that the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
   a home and a country should leave us no more?
  Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
  No refuge could save the hireling and slave
   from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.
  And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
   o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Ah, see?  See???  Certainly.  Screamingly obvious why she believes the anthem is raaaacist:  It contains the word "slave."  Sure.  Definitely raaaacist.

But for those who know the history of the Revolutionary War and England, the context makes it clear that that the author of the lyrics wasn't talking about American slaves (presumably black) but was referring to certain British soldiers.  The British had their equivalent of a foreign legion, mostly German mercenaries called Hessians.  Hence, "hirelings."  Similarly, some British noble families sent their "bondsmen" (indentured servants) to fight for the king.  Hence "slave."  And virtually all "bondsmen" in the U.K. were white.

So "slave" didn't refer to blacks at all--meaning the objection is unfounded.

But I don't expect this will deter black organizations from building a Movement to ditch our national anthem.

And the race to war continues.

Insane law forces building owner to pay tens of thousands of $ to graffiti "artists," for...

You need to understand how leftists pass and then use laws that take away rights to private property.  For example, most people think graffiti is unsightly, and if someone spray-paints their home you'd think they'd have the right to paint over the stuff.

Surprise.  There's a law--at least in NYC, unsure how many other places--called the "Visual Artists' Rights Act"--that makes it a crime to paint over certain graffiti.

Naturally you can't believe a legislature or council could possibly be dumb enough to pass such a law or "city ordinance" or whatever. 

That's exactly my point.

In the moral cesspool called New York City, graffiti "artists" painted the side of a building.  The owner painted the building--which you'd think was his right.

A few days ago a federal jury in New York City awarded thousands of dollars to "graffiti artists" who had painted on the guy's building, because the owner painted over their work.

The jury only deliberated for about a day, despite having to reach separate verdicts for each of the 49 artworks at issue in the case, and ruled that the owner must pay each artist.  Amounts ranged from $750 to a jaw-dropping $80,000.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Baum accused the owner of violating the "Visual Artists Rights Act."

“Ignorance of a law is no excuse for violating it,” Baum said in his closing argument Monday. He called painting over the graffiti “the worst intentional destruction or mutilation of art in U.S. history.”

The jury awarded damages for about two-thirds of the pieces. About half of the works the jury found to be “recognized stature” – meaning art experts, members of the art community or a cross-section of society recognized it.

Jurors also found the destruction of the work had been harmful to the “honor or reputation” of the artist in half the cases, even for some works that didn’t belong to the “recognized stature” category.

I mention this piece-of-crap legal case because the Democrats are well on their way to achieving the destruction of the electoral college system of electing the president, using a series of laws in each state that will award each state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the *national* popular vote.

If you think they'll pull back, you're naive.

What, you think that couldn't possibly happen without a Constitutional amendment?

Yeah?  And I'll bet that until you read about the case just noted, you wouldn't have believed that the owner of a house or building could be forced to pay graffiti hoods tens of thousands of dollars for re-painting his own damn building either.

Democrats have controlled Baltimore schools for decades. Results?

A basic principle of...well, everything...is that rational people judge the soundness of policies by their results:  If a policy produces good results, it's a good policy and vice-versa.

Most conservatives understand this very basic principle.

Unfortunately most Democrats don't.  To Dems, what matters are "good intentions," "diversity" and politically-correct thinking.

As a result, when cities have been controlled--ruled--by Democrats for decades, they almost always have crappy schools, overpaid government rulers, lousy streets, high crime--you name it.

A recent example of horrible mismanagement by Democrats can be found in Baltimore's schools:  A group named "Project Baltimore" analyzed state test results for highschool students for the academic year that ended in May.  They found that one-third of the high schools in that city had no students proficient in math.

At first I thought that had to be a typo.  But sure enough, 13 of the city's highschools didn't have a single students who tested "proficient" in math.

In six other schools only 1% of the students were math-proficient.

Of 3804 students in the lousiest schools, only 14 were proficient in math.

On the positive side, Baltimore scores very high marks for diversity:  Only 28% of the population is white.

Of course you don't live in Baltimore, so how does that city's woeful performance affect you?  Well, Democrats want to regain control of congress and the White House.  Next election, ask yourself if you want the entire U.S. to replicate Baltimore's performance.

Democrat governor of VA on Donna Brazile's bombshell: "No one cares."

Watch the video clip below.  It is the clearest, most devastating demonstration of the utter corruption of top Democrat politicians (and their supporters in the Lying Mainstream Media). 

The clip shows a female talking-head on the Dem-propaganda network MSNBC interviewing the Democrat governor of Virginia--the utterly corrupt Clinton supporter Terry McAuliffe.  The interviewer asks McAuliffe what he thinks about Donna Brazile's revelation that Hilliary took over control of the Democrat National Committee over a year before she won the nomination, and was thus able to channel funds raised by individual states into her campaign, where they should instead have been shared equally with Bernie Sanders.

It's a huge theft of the nomination from Sanders.  But watch as McAuliffe replies, "No one cares."

What he's signalling to the media and the elites is "If you're a good Democrat you shouldn't be concerned about this, and thus shouldn't give the story any air-time." 

Amazing.  Totally corrupt.  And brazen about it.  Watch this shit-head's face as he speaks.

More random black-on-white attacks, this time on a woman in Baltimore

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/05/woman-lucky-to-be-alive-as-upscale-baltimore-neighborhood-terrorized-by-marauding-bands-teens-wielding-wooden-boards.html

In Baltimore a woman said she was walking to a restaurant in an upscale neighborhood when around 10 teenagers armed with 3-foot boards ran out of an alley.  The males grabbed her and held her while the females used the boards to beat her face, body and legs, breaking her nose and eye socket.

"They grabbed the back of my vest and then held me, and then out in front of them came six young women with wood pieces that were like maybe an inch thick and about three feet long.  After several blows I fell to my knees," the victim said.

The woman would have been beaten even more brutally but for the intervention of a stranger.  When the stranger ran up, the teenagers ran away.

The so-called Baltimore "newspapers" and TV stations carefully avoided mentioning the race of the attackers.  In the past they always--always--do this when criminals and assailants are black, but it's certainly possible that this group of marauding teenagers was white. 

Certainly possible.  Really.

Will whites ever say "Enough is enough"?  Politicians never will.  Cops won't act unless ordered to do so by their political bosses, so that's out.  So I guess this is very much like the position of western nations vis-a-vis Muslim suicide bombers and truck-murderers:  Everyone simply shrugs and does nothing.

Interesting.

Did you hear? Yesterday the National Dem woman's club named Hilliary "woman of the year"!

How...fitting:  On the same day that the interim chair of the Dem National Committee--the lying, cheating Donna Brazile--revealed that she had proof that the DNC conspired with Hilliary to rig the Democrat nomination for her, the Woman's National Democratic Club named Hilliary "Democratic woman of the year" for 2017.

According to the club, this award "is in recognition of her extraordinary contributions to American politics and international affairs, as well as the inspiration she has provided to women and girls around the world.”

If you tried to make up this stuff, no one would believe it:  Most objective Americans have suspected for a year that Hilliary took over the DNC to rig the nominating process to ensure she would win the party's nomination.  So yesterday, on the same day that a Democrat woman who chaired the DNC--thus presumably had access to accurate information--revealed that she had seen proof that these suspicions were correct--the national We Love Hilliary Club named her their woman of the year.

It's priceless.  Also very accurate, since Hilliary definitely showcases those qualities that most accurately represent Democrats:  lying, cheating and raking in tens of millions of dollars from influence-peddling ("pay to play") and her bogus "charitable foundation" (whose biggest beneficiary seems to be Hilliary and Bill).

Democrats: They clearly look like the BEST people to rule the nation!

When you look at the leaders of the Democratic party, you instantly see how well-suited they are to rule the country, eh? 

This pic explains SO much!

This is so totally accurate!  In Democrat/liberal world every definition has been turned upside-down!  And they don't see it at all--like that liberal professor whining that society values nuclear families too much, and that white nuclear families perpetuate racism.  What crap!

Crazy, anti-white professors, part zillion: NYC prof claims "white nuclear families" "promote racism"

For at least a decade conservatives have been warning Americans about how thoroughly universities have been taken over by crazy, socialist, communist and white-hating professors.  Here's yet another in the endless list of examples:

Jessie Daniels--white female prof at City U of New York who describes herself as an expert on “the Internet manifestations of racism”-- claims that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,” and that families “reproducing white children” facilitate white supremacy.

You probably don't believe anyone teaching at any level would actually say such a dumb thing, so click the link and read for yourself.  I'll wait.

white people who want to be engaged in the work need to ask themselves about housing wealth.”

Daniels also complains that society considers nuclear families "sacred," saying “there’s a whole ideological apparatus to justify how f-cking sacred the family is.”

Is it just me or does this creature seem incredibly twisted?

Another applause line was “White people: do you own your home? When you die, where's wealth in that house going?  If it's to your children, you're reproducing (inequality).”

When her poisonous tweets drew lots of criticism, Daniels locked made her Twitter account private.

Liberal female judge blocks Trump, orders military to keep accepting current and future transgenders

If you don't have any connection to our armed forces you probably didn't know that your former socialist muslim emperor ordered our Defense Department to use taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations for transgender service members.

If that idea strikes you as utterly stupid, and a gross mis-use of defense dollars, join the club.  There should be no place in our armed forces for emotionally confused snowflakes, under any circumstances.

So a few months ago President Trump issued a directive countermanding the emperor's deliberate attempt to reduce military readiness, telling the military they no longer had to pay for sex-change operations for transgenders, and to stop allowing transgenders to join the armed forces.  It was a great boost to military morale.

Well...as you could guess, trans activists, leftists (all of whom hate the U.S. military) and assorted communists immediately sued to block this order, wailing that our military not only HAD to accept transgender snowflakes but HAD to pay for any trannies who demanded sex-change operations.

And yesterday--as you could also guess if you're over 20 or so--a federal judge from the cesspool that is Washington D.C. blocked much of President Trump’s directive until the lawsuit works its way through the federal courts--which could take years.

The ruling, by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (appointed by Bill Clinton) breaks new legal ground for courts in Washington, D.C., because she decreed that being "transgender" is a “quasi-suspect legal category"--a new and that entitled to heightened protections under federal law.  She declared that Trump’s policy creates an “inherent inequality” that likely violates the Constitution.

“All of the reasons proffered by the president for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself,” she wrote.

You should know that this last part is contrived:  The Pentagon is thick with homosexuals and assorted leftists, and they've produced any number of bullshit, made-as-ordered studies saying whatever Barack Hussein Obama wanted said.  But no one bothered to ask the actual troops how well transgendered persons performed.  And of course clever officers/commanders are savvy enough to "officially report" whatever they think their bosses want reported.

The judge ordered the military not to discharge any transgender troops, and to continue to allow current or avowed future trannies to enlist — though she did allow the administration’s ban on the Pentagon paying for gender-reassignment treatments to remain in place.

But Judge Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to the federal district court in Washington by President Clinton, said the new policy illegally singles out transgender troops for different treatment.  By decreeing that transgender status is a “quasi-suspect class,” this liberal judge gave transgenders a special, protected status under which any policy affecting them faces extra scrutiny by the courts.

This means the government must show a compelling purpose for any difference in the way the special class is treated — a bar the judge said Mr. Trump fell well short of.  The judge also said that even if "transgender issues" weren't considered, the president's order "broaches critical gender lines," and so would trigger heightened judicial scrutiny anyway.

“It is well-established that gender-based discrimination includes discrimination based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes,” she wrote.  “The [exclusion] of transgender individuals inherently discriminates against current and aspiring service members on the basis of their failure to conform to gender stereotypes. The defining characteristic of a transgender individual is that their inward identity, behavior, and possibly their physical characteristics, do not conform to stereotypes of how an individual of their assigned sex should feel, act and look,” the judge concluded.

Wow.  This bullshit "decree" is so horribly flawed that one hardly knows where to begin to take it apart.  So might as well start here:  Does anyone believe a convicted murderer has the right to join the U.S. military?  No?  Why not?  If one argues--as this judge did--that the overriding principle of who gets to join is "fairness," doesn't the idea of "fairness" and "equal treatment" apply to everyone?

Could a color-blind person sue to join?  Again, doesn't fairness demand...?  How about someone who requires daily dialysis?  How about a hemophiliac?  All are delightful people, but are they legally allowed to force the military to let them join?

The military has never allowed people with these conditions to join.  The reason is reduced capability.  But this liberal judge has never been in the military and obviously couldn't care less about how her decrees affect military capability and readiness.  Her interests lie elsewhere.

Next:  There is NO law giving transgender snowflakes special legal status.  All of Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's prattle giving special protected status--or as she coyly, cunningly phrases it, "quasi-suspect legal category"-- to transgenders is an effort to write "gender" into the Civil Rights Act of 1972.  But neither that law nor any other confers such status.

Wikipedia (I know) accidentally tells the truth:

It wasn't until U.S. President Barack Obama who [sic] redefined, or refocused, this law to apply to a host of things like sexual orientation, gender identity, physical/mental handicap, among others through a series of "Dear Colleague" letters that are still to this day in legal limbo.

"Accidentally" because Obozo repeatedly "wrote law" by decree, as in the case of asserting that transgenders were entitled to special status.  This is the illegal, unconstitutional peg on which this judge is trying to hang her decree.