Brief analysis of Equal Protection in the USA

Long before black people began selling each other to whites in return for technology, especially weapons — God made all mankind in his image.[1]

Much later, many statutes and much common law actuated the slow, steady cyclism of Equal Protection in United States jurisprudence.[2] The purpose of that Equal Protection was to provide equity, thus equanimity, among dueling factions of aristocrats as they built New England in the form of old England — but with a cast and castes that better suited themselves.

Proceeding from that unequal Equal Protection, coffers swelled for centuries in the land by rampant slavery, including by the thousands of black slave-masters whose legacy would throw a wrench in the modern sanctimony of racialized pseudo-history, if only any part of the tenuous cacophony were noticing any other part.[3]

Then Abraham Lincoln, et al. voided the nation that had been based on voluntary association;[4] declared war on those newly-minted traitors who had sought to act upon the previous, unilaterally rescinded rule of law[5] — to secede; suspended due process;[6] conscripted poor people into a war for rich people that rich people could pay to avoid;[7] symbolically freed the slaves of his enemies while leaving in bondage those slaves in the states actually under his authority;[8] articulated clearly that slavery and abolition were morally irrelevant to him — that his only aim was to “save the Union” (i.e. the Union that his terrorism and malevolence had manifestly destroyed);[9] then salted the earth of the Southern states, figuratively and literally, in a myriad ways — laying the groundwork for the deceit-dripping, slave-driven gulags of perpetual war that would plague the world for centuries thereafter.[10] Or, as they say in the venally curated tomes, and on the pitifully vaunted tombs, of vapid hero-worship: “Lincoln freed the slaves.” Then God sent the angel of death to reward Lincoln in kind for Lincoln’s tyranny.[11]

Decades later, an octoroon insisted that the Constitution bequeathed by Lincoln’s leprous legacy vested the octoroon with a constitutional right to avoid consorting with lowly black people.[12] Thereafter, more than few political-prostitutes reimagined racist octoroon Homer Plessy as a black hero fighting for civil rights.

Decades later, as pale and sickly conspirators were imploding countless black families by conscripting countless black fathers into wars built on lies, white supremacists on the United States Supreme Court avenged heroic black civil rights hero Homer Plessy — declaring graciously that blacks are inherently inferior to whites and desperately in need: not, to be sure, in need of justice, respect, and, where appropriate, redress for generations of stolen labor that built the nation — rather, the court declared that lowly blacks wither and “retard” without vain, sanctimonious white pity and charity, especially the benevolent gifting of white presence. Thus, a Court of condescending, quintessential white supremacists reversed that decision which had been a bane to racist, well-to-do octoroons everywhere.[13] Meanwhile, countless conscripted black fathers and leaders who could have been fine teachers for those brow-beaten, “retarded” black children: the black men were, instead of teaching and leading, condemned to being the conscripted-cannon-fodder tip of the spear of United States’ military adventurism (i.e. terrorism) throughout the world. Thence countless black men would, for generations, be caged by white devils for refusing to kill for white lies.[14]

Then the nation’s first gay mulatto president,[15] whose white mom was beaten and abandoned by his black dad[16]: the mulatto declared that equal protection constitutionally required the removal of the draft-exemption for morally disabled men who have addicted themselves to choosing a life wasted on mimicking procreation with other men’s rectums.[17]

Then five robed, anti-marriage maniacs decreed that everyone is constitutionally required to celebrate the bastardization of marriage (whereby suicidal rectum-addicts join with divorce-addicted pseudo-Christian adulterers[18]) to render culturally meaningless the institution of marriage.[19]

Thus, just as Socialism brings the equality of making people equally poor — so too more than little of modern U.S. bureaucracy satanically tempts, as best it can, that people should strip themselves of their God-given right of free association,[20] and instead revel in spending their lives indoctrinated into a series of compelled associations that suit the manic machinations of the wretched, flailing pseudo-kings during this blink of God’s eternity.[21]

References

1. Genesis 1:27
2. See, e.g. U.S. Const. Amend. 5 (“No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).
3. See Henry Louis Gates, Did Black People Own Slaves? (The Root 2013).
4. See generally Lysander Spooner, No treason: The constitution of no authority (1870).
5. See Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (1863).
6. See The Habeas Corpus Suspension, 12 Stat. 755 (1863).
7. See Michael T. Meier, Civil war draft records: Exemptions and enrollments (National Archives 1994) (“many [non-poor men] avoided military service [during the War of Northern Aggression] by simply taking advantage of [a] section of the Enrollment Act of 1863 allowing draftees to pay $300 to a substitute who served for them”).
8. See Abraham Lincoln, Emancipation proclamation (1863) (all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free) (emphasis added).
9. See Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greeley (1862) (“[m]y paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union”).
10. See, e.g., Pat Paterson, The truth about Tonkin (US Naval Institute 2008); see generally, Smedly Butler, War is a racket (1935).
11. See Matthew 10:29
12. See Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 541 (1896) (“The petition for the writ of prohibition averred that petitioner was seven-eighths Caucasian and one eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to every right, privilege and immunity secured to citizens of the United States of the white race”).
13. See Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483, 494-95 (1954) (“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. . . ., [thus,] [w]e conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate [black] educational facilities are inherently unequal [inferior]”).
14. See, e.g. Clay v. United States, 403 U.S. 698 (1971) (Muhammad Ali was convicted of the crime of refusing to contribute to USA’s lie-laden terrorism against Vietnam, et al.); see generally Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1917) (a case recklessly remembered all but only for the “fire in a theater” ramblings of mediocre child-murder advocate Oliver Wendell Holmes — a case where a unanimous Court declared that freedom to speak ends at the point when one wishes to whisper against the wars of one’s oligarchic taskmasters: “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight”).
15. See Timothy Patrick McCarthy, Barack Obama: America’s First Gay President? (Harvard University 2009).
16. See generally Dugald McConnell and Brian Todd, Obama’s father was an abusive alcoholic, his half-brother says (CNN 2013).
17. See Elisabeth Bumiller, Obama Ends Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy (New York Times 2011); see also Palm Center, Architect of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” favors ending gay ban if draft returns (2003) (“instituting the draft would require ending all forms of the gay ban. You can’t use a gay ban with a draft because that would make it too easy for people to get out [of being forced into war]”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
18. See Matt. 5:32 (“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”), ESV.
19. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___.
20. See, e.g., Prov. 1:10-19; Rom. ch.1.
21. But see Rom. 1:19-21, 24, 25, 28-32 (“[T]hat which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them[:] His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. . . . [t]herefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. . . . [f]or they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them”), NASB.

Roe v Wade, Justice Byron White dissent (410 U.S. 221)

*Note: Since the Supreme Court dissent of Democrat Justice Byron White in Roe v Wade has been all but disappeared from the internet, I republish it here. As you read it, imagine the kind of pro-murder maniacs who would religiously seek to hide Democrat Justice White’s Roe v Wade dissenting opinion, while trumpeting everywhere the pro-murder mandate created by Republican Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion. Republican Harry Blackmun’s decision in Roe was simple: “Child-murder ‘should be’ a human-right.” Democrat Byron White’s dissent was also simple: “Child-murder is not a constitutional mandate.” If Blackmun, and the two other pro-murder Republicans who joined his majority decision, had instead signed on to Democrat Byron White’s dissent — then Roe v. Wade would have ended in a 5-4 decision for federalism and constitutionalism, instead of a 7-2 decision for child-murder and the exaltation of Judicial Review: A judicial monarchy. And those maniacs who hide Democrat Byron White’s Roe v Wade dissent are the same maniacs who have normalized child-murder to the point where, in the U.S. alone, 10 times as many children have been murdered in the real holocaust since Roe than the “six million” pretended in the fake holocaust against Jews in Nazi Germany. Get triggered. Meanwhile, more than a million children are being murdered each year — by the government — through “Planned Parenthood,” as a tool for exterminating poor people.
—Russ Lindquist

[410 U.S. 221] MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.*

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women [410 U.S. 223] whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.

Likewise, because Georgia may constitutionally forbid abortions to putative mothers who, like the plaintiff in this case, do not fall within the reach of § 26-1202(a) of its criminal code, I have no occasion, and the District Court had none, to consider the constitutionality of the procedural requirements of the Georgia statute as applied to those pregnancies posing substantial hazards to either life or health. I would reverse the judgment of the District Court in the Georgia case.

“Torture your kids to Harvard!” Life-advice from Chinese sociopaths continues to charm the worst parents in the USA and beyond

On her Facebook, a friend posted a video of an Asian girl “dancing beautifully.” Rather than crushing the spirit of my friend’s post with harsh facts, I will place those facts here.

Child-abuse as a parental life-hack

Long story short: Asians “excel” in academia (etc.) often for the same reasons that slave-class Mexicans “excel” at contract-negotiation in the Southwest United States:

Slave-class Mexicans are allowed (indeed encouraged and expected) to forgo standards of decency (and law, such as maximum-occupancy restrictions on dwellings), even as their would-be competitors obey those same laws and standards, leaving the would-be competitors at a disadvantage in negotiations for labor (slave-class Mexicans can afford to “charge” less than market-value for their labor — because they break laws and live in squalor).

And likewise Asians are allowed (indeed encouraged and expected, now, by such sociopaths as Amy Chua) to ignore standards of decency and law regarding the treatment of children — so more than few Asians berate and beat their children into “success” (else mediocrity and suicide).

Continue reading

Living up to L’RACIST: The importance of blaming Mexican slaves for our problems

USA’s modern prison-systems are unconstitutional modern-slavery, at least until good people force bad people to remove profit-incentives from the systems that lead predictably (and actually) to overcowding — to the point of being torture of prisoners.

Anything short of removing those profit-incentives is, eventually, only hypocritical platitudes: empty lies.

For example, prisons in California are run by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR for short. And the CDCR names its Core Values as: Leadership, Respect, Accountability, Collaboration, Integrity, Service, and Trust — or L’RACIST for short.

Continue reading

Conservatives and Liberals: The importance of political factionalism

The major political figures of American life all believed that liberty and freedom is impossible without virtue.[1] Moreover, George Washington, the twice-unanimously-elected former-president and the country’s founding lead general, was the greatest American — without any peer: There would be no United States of America without George Washington.[2] John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Dickenson — all said that George Washington was the greatest man who ever lived.[3] And Washington chose that much of his final words to the nation, beyond general reflection and well-wishing, would be words foreshadowing the doom which political factionalism and foreign entanglement bring — that those to come after him ought to “discountenanc[e] whatever may suggest even a suspicion that [cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to the immense value of national union] can in any event be abandoned . . . [without] enfeebl[ing] the sacred ties which . . . link together the various parts [of the union].”[4]

Continue reading

Misogyny extends far beyond woman-hating sodomites

There are plenty who, addicted to criticizing people who are addicted to sodomy, fail to recognize the extent to which the men of a culture may “leav[e] the natural use of the woman, [and] burn[] in their lust one toward another.” Romans 1:27.

Of course sodomites define their lives by their hatred and fear of women. But just as much misogyny exists among those patriarchs who, hating women, resolve to cram cotton up their daughters’ vagina — then hurry the girls off to a life of desk, after desk, after desk.

And then there are those who, out of vain retaliation against such patriarchs, choose to idolize women and worship the functions of women: “As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, ‘Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.’ He replied, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.'” Luke 11:27-28.

As seen on TV: Six sizzling tips for hotter STD-swapping

IT’S THE WEEKEND! TIME TO ACCIDENTALLY SWALLOW PUKE AS WE CRY-LAUGH!

We’ve all been there: you’re an empty, desperate person who smiles to keep from sighing, and laughs to keep from crying — so you go to bars or clubs hoping to find someone with standards low enough that they are willing to spend the night swapping STDs with you.

But you’re shy about asserting confidently the high standards you hold about your masochistic self-destruction.

TV told you that everyone has most diseases, so you know that there is no sense in worrying about any but the most major diseases. Yet so many questions still remain.

However, you know that to be anything like the fun, lovable characters on TV, you must confess that truth is relative, that life is disappointing, and that the only way to be happy is through gossip, alcohol, and casual sex.

But self-destructive escapism is less fun nowadays: Less fun for women because every man is probably a rapist (except for the cute guy at the office whom you wish would rape you!); and less fun for men, because TV has trained so many women among the new generation of club-bitches & bar-whores — that falsely accusing men of rape is a fun, easy, safe way to win the attention and pity to which the women are entitled and addicted.

So obviously no one wants to be raped by a homicidal maniac, and no one wants to be falsely accused of rape by a suicidal maniac.

But there is even more: modern self-destruction requires careful management of your STDs and reputation: Some people have super-AIDS — and other people even judge! It’s like freedom from speech is not sacred anymore!

All these worries almost make failing at life seem less glamorous and empowering than television has obviously proved failure to be. But TV has never steered us wrong before, so we should continue obeying and advocating TV’s perspective.

And after all: Science has proven that God is a myth, that nothing is right or wrong, that having the wrong opinions is wrong, and that there is nothing at all “unnatural” or “unhealthy” about being frantically unnatural and unhealthy! Amen.