Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Appeals Court Judge James Ho: “if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too”

Appeals Court Judge James Ho: “if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too”

Responding to Georgetown Law cancel culture: “I stand with Ilya on the paramount importance of color-blindness.  And that same principle should apply … [to] receiving an appointment to the highest court in the land…. And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too.”

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudgeJamesHo.jpg Public Domain

I don’t know if Georgetown Law School Dean Bill Treanor will be so foolish as to fire Ilya Shapiro over the tweets criticizing Joe Biden’s decision to restrict the pool of potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Stephen Breyer to black women.

Shapiro’s suspension severely damaged Georgetown Law and Dean Treanor more than Shapiro, who quickly became a free speech and academic freedom hero — even for people who are from the left and disagree with his politics and tweets. We covered the hysterical cancel mob and some of that pushback in our prior coverage:

Outside of the academic bubble, most Americans agree with Shapiro that it was wrong to limit the pool based on race and gender.

Many students object to the cancel mob, but of course, some speak out only anonymously to avoid becoming a target themselves (sounds familiar). Shapiro also received support from over 100 alumni:

And Shapiro just received support from U.S. Court of Appeals Judge James Ho, who should be at or near the top of any SCOTUS short list for the next Republican president.

Judge Ho has been a critic of cancel culture, particularly based on racial equity dogma. I covered his position in Appeals Judge Slams Critical Race Theory: “Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race”. From Judge Ho’s concurring opinion (emphasis added):

I concur in the judgment and in all but Section III.A of Judge Haynes’s opinion. With respect to the intentional discrimination claim, we all agree that this case turns on geography, not race. With respect to the disparate impact claim, we all agree that remand is appropriate. I write separately to explain why I share Judge Jones’s concerns about unelected agency officials usurping Congress’s authority when it comes to disparate impact theory.

Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination—not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001) (“[§ 2000d] prohibits only intentional discrimination,” not “activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups”).

There’s a big difference between prohibiting racial discrimination and endorsing disparate impact theory. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 78 (1994) (disparate impact is “a significant leap away from” intentional racial discrimination). It’s the difference between securing equality of opportunity regardless of race and guaranteeing equality of outcome based on race. It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory. Compare Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have A Dream: Address to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (Aug. 28, 1963) (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”), with Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Anti-Racist 18 (2019) (“A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.”); see also ‘When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.’ Discussing Race, Gender and Mobility, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2018), available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/27/upshot/readerquestions-about-race-gender-and-mobility.html?smid=tw-share.

Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite: It forces us to look at race—to check for racial imbalance and then decide what steps must be taken to
advance some people at the expense of others based on their race. But racial balancing is, of course, “patently unconstitutional.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 723 (2007). Accordingly, “serious constitutional questions . . . might arise” if “[disparate impact] liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.557, 594–96 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).

***

So these are not frivolous concerns of discrimination that we’re talking about here. In fact, for disparate impact advocates, requiring discrimination may not be a problem—it may be the whole point. To quote one leading critical race theorist, “[t]he only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” and “[t]he only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi, supra, at 19.

***

It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That’s why we have laws on the books, like Title VI, that simply forbid the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race”—no matter what our intentions. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part)….

***

So public officials may sincerely believe that race-conscious policies are beneficial rather than corrosive. But the American people have never been the blindly trusting sort. Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.

In an appearance at the Georgetown Law Federalist Society, Judge Ho gave an impassioned defense of Shapiro, as first reported by Nate Hochman at National Review:

Federal judge James C. Ho delivered a robust defense of Ilya Shapiro on Tuesday in a speech at Georgetown Law, which recently suspended the respected legal scholar over a poorly worded tweet.

“I stand with Ilya,” Ho declared.

The subject of his address was a surprise to the audience. The judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had been slated to give a lecture titled “Fair Weather Originalism: Judges, Umpires, and the Fear of Being Booed,” in an event organized by the law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society. At the outset, according to prepared remarks exclusively obtained by National Review, Ho said he “was scheduled to talk” about originalism, “but I hope you won’t mind that I’ve decided to address a different topic today instead.”

Ho continued, “I’m going to spend my time today talking about Ilya Shapiro.” …

The first half of the speech defended Shapiro’s right to make controversial comments on the grounds that the freedom of speech is “the foundation of our entire adversarial system of justice,” in Ho’s description. “You must understand your opponent’s views in order to fully understand, and thus powerfully defend, your own views,” he said….

But the second half of Ho’s speech went a step further. Ho defended the substance of Shapiro’s tweets, maintaining that equality of opportunity — which he described as “fundamental to who we are, and to who we aspire to be, as a nation” — was the principle that Shapiro was originally defending. “Ilya has said that he should have chosen different words. That ought to be enough,” Ho said. “I have no doubt — zero doubt — that Ilya did not intend anywhere near the worst interpretation that has been applied to his remarks.”

I have obtained the full prepared text, which apparently will be published at some point. Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

First, what should Georgetown do?

I’ll begin with this observation:  There are many, many people who love this country deeply—who want it to succeed, and to continue succeeding—who abhor racism with every fiber of their being—and who fall on both sides of this debate.

I would submit that, if I were a law student today, and I strongly disagreed with remarks made by someone who had just recently been hired by my law school, the last thing I would do is to call for that person to be fired….

The natural response, of course, is to point out that Georgetown is a private institution—not a government actor subject to the First Amendment.  And that is obviously correct.

But freedom of speech is much more than just a constitutional principle.  It’s also a cultural principle.  And even more than that, it’s the foundation of our entire adversarial system of justice—one that each of you as law students is spending good money, and certainly a whole lot of time and heartache, to be a part of.  And that system is premised on the principle that, in any dispute, both sides deserve zealous legal representation.  Because that is the best way to ensure that the truth will out.[fn]

So cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture and our American culture.  It’s completely antithetical to the very legal system that each of you seeks to join.[fn]

* * *

I will now turn to the substance of Ilya’s remarks.

Let me begin by saying that, if you’re looking for evidence of racism and bigotry in the world, unfortunately it’s not difficult to find.  In my own life’s work—and in my own life—there have been plenty of situations when a person has made the deliberate and unfortunate decision to express disrespect and even outright bigotry toward another person, based on nothing more than their race, or religion, or sexual orientation.  And when faced with such situations, I’ve spoken out about it—both before and after I joined the bench.[fn]

But it’s precisely because I’m so aware of such stark examples of bigotry and racism that I’m also sensitive to the fact that there are other, very different kinds of situations, when there are two sides to the story.

Ilya has said that he should have chosen different words.  That ought to be enough.

After all, compare what he said to what courts say when they talk about the case for color-blindness.

To take just two examples—although there are many others:  Look at what Justices Rehnquist and Brennan said in their dissent from the denial of cert in Ashley v. City of Jackson, 464 U.S. 900 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from the denial of cert).  Or what Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote on behalf of the Court in Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989).

In both cases, the justices were describing lawsuits challenging racial preferences.  They said that the employees objected because the employers were choosing, and I quote, “less qualified” individuals of a particular race—and that they were doing so precisely because of their race.[fn]

So make no mistake:  If there is any racial discrimination in statements like these, it’s not coming from the speaker—it’s coming from the policy that the speaker is criticizing.

That’s the unfortunate irony in this whole discussion.  If you asked Ilya, I am sure he would say that he’s the one standing up for racial equality, and that his opponents are the ones who are supporting racial discrimination.  You don’t have to agree with him—but it’s obvious that’s where he’s coming from.  And yet I don’t hear Ilya trying to punish others for taking a different view on racial equality.

I’ve known Ilya for over 20 years.  We graduated from the same law school.  We first met because we were both honored to receive the same scholarship from a wonderful organization known as the Tony Patiño Fellowship.  And our paths have crossed repeatedly ever since.

I have no doubt—zero doubt—that Ilya did not intend anywhere near the worst interpretation that has been applied to his remarks.

* * *

I don’t say this because I think race is no longer an issue in our country.  I’ve received racist hate mail and racially disparaging remarks because of positions I’ve taken in my career.  I’ve been treated differently because of the race of the woman I’m married to.  And I also remember, back in high school, my college admissions adviser telling me that my grades, SAT scores, and activities were all strong enough to get me into my top choice of schools—if I wasn’t Asian.

Now, I’m not saying any of this here to complain.  Whatever negative experiences I’ve had, they pale in comparison to my many blessings living in this great country.  I was not born an American.  But I thank God every day that I will die an American.

My point is just that I don’t come to my views because I think racism is behind us.  Rather, I come to my views precisely because racism is not behind us.  The last thing we should do is divide people by race.  The last thing we should do is suggest that the racists are right.  We don’t achieve equality of opportunity by denying it to anyone—we achieve it by securing it for everyone.

So make no mistake:  It would be profoundly offensive—and un-American—to tell the world that you’re restricting a judgeship to members of only one race.  It’s offensive to people of other races.  And it’s offensive to people of that race—because you’re suggesting that the only way they’ll get the job is if you rig the rules in their favor.

* * *

So let me be clear:  I stand with Ilya on the paramount importance of color-blindness.  And that same principle should apply whether we’re talking about getting into college, getting your first job, or receiving an appointment to the highest court in the land.

Racism is a scourge that America has not yet fully extinguished—and the first step in fighting racial discrimination is to stop practicing it.

That’s all Ilya is trying to say.  That’s all he has ever tried to say.

And so, if Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation, then you should go ahead and cancel me too.

Thank you for listening.  I’m honored to be here.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“It would be profoundly offensive—and un-American—to tell the world that you’re restricting a judgeship to members of only one race.”

Uh oh. Don’t tell me Biden just did that!

Because, “It’s offensive to people of other races.”

Well duh!

    Americans, or, in the modern, politically congruent (“=”) model, People of Asia (Russians etc. excluded), Asian-Americans (i.e. 1/2 Americans), are waking to the woke religion (i.e. ethics, morality), and recognizing the forward-looking risk of denying individual dignity, individual conscience, and intrinsic value. #HateLovesAbortion

If you step back, and look at where we are, we are in the final days of the American nation. Literally. Inflation is finally going to kill it.

Plan for secession, because it’s coming – either that, or a shooting war, with the new “Karens” infesting the US armed forces pointing their guns at you and I.

    What we see here is the culmination of the right’s acquiescence to the left’s 75-year “march through the institutions.” They’ve now all fallen.

    Secession – there is ZERO chance our Communist slave masters will let the people go. What fun is it to be a Communist if you can’t put your jackboots on the peoples’ throats? To inflict death, pain and suffering while Feeling Good About Yourself (TM) and Making The World A Better Place (TM) is one of the main attractions of being a Communist.

    Civil war – history has shown that civil wars rarely cure the conditions that supposedly caused them. Often a civil war spawns a hundred new evils no one ever imagined.

    It is safe to say that thanks to the rancid, putrid GOP our chances of avoiding totalitarianism at the ballot box are equally grim. Mitch McConnell and his fellow Franz von Papen Republicans will ship you to a concentration camp as an “insurrectionist” before crossing their Commie BFFs in Congress. They will cut to ribbons any outsider like Trump or DeSantis who does not bow the knee to the Swamp.

    The great weakness of Communism is its total inability to produce food and keep the lights on. Economic collapse is coming, whether we want it or not. That is the only thing I see that will finally slay the Communist beast that torments the world.

      How dim witted do you have to be to think Jeff Bezos, or Sandar Pichai are communists?

      How stupid do you have to be to call the owner and operator of a vineyard who produces and sells a cheap product with a low profit margin while keeping his business above water (CA gov) a communist?

      We don’t have a communist party arrayed against us, and your delusions are not the basis of anything.

        Fatkins in reply to Danny. | February 18, 2022 at 6:20 am

        Thank you Danny, I appreciate that you haven’t fallen into the communist smear trap. Its really irritating.

    “Literally. Inflation is finally going to kill it.”

    Inflation is just step 1.

    Visa International Service Association patent for DIGITAL FIAT CURRENCY:

    “7. The method of claim 1, wherein causing the removal of the physical currency from circulation [in the process of converting it to digital currency] includes physically destroying the physical currency, the physical currency being fiat currency….”

    H.R.6321, Maxine Waters (didn’t pass… yet):

    “Not later than January 1, 2021, all Federal reserve banks shall make digital dollar wallets available to all citizens and legal permanent residents of the United States and business entities for which the principal place of business is located in the United States…”

The marxists of the democrat party have a narrative problem.

To them at least, Asian people are just smarter White people. They still however want their cake and eat it too.

Commie narrative dictates that anyone with any melanin whatsoever is oppressed, but Asian people have some melanin and they are sucessful.

The epic success of Asian people puts truth to the big lie of marxism, and that cannot be allowed. That only explains the political class though.

All of the Asian people being murdered recently though? This is entirely black on Asian crime, and to any marxist this can never be admitted. Their entire worldview comes to an end if they do.

    I don’t think you actually understand what the lefts view on the issue actually is, nor do you know what a Marxist is.

    The view is that black’s have for the majority of the history of the USA been subject to slavery or Jim crow laws, and in the context of this background have suffered a disadvantage in many walks of life. Whilst Asians have suffered from similar issues its no way near the same extent as blacks.

    “All of the Asian people being murdered recently though? This is entirely black on Asian crime, and to any Marxist this can never be admitted. Their entire worldview comes to an end if they do.”

    Bullshit there is plenty of examples of Asians being murdered by white supremacist and anti Asian sentiment – partly due to DT’s covid rhetoric

      Obie1 in reply to Fatkins. | February 17, 2022 at 9:04 am

      Methinks you should fall off your high horse and take an English class. “Lefts,” “black’s,” “there is”? It’s hard to take the illiterate seriously.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Fatkins. | February 17, 2022 at 10:24 am

      Plenty of examples? According to the Department of Justice statistics (google it) about 75% of crimes committed against asian-americans are committed by black-americans. So while I can challenge you to cite ‘plenty’ of examples, you’ll have to ignore the obvious, something that asian-americans know — most of the crime committed against them are committed by one race. That’s a simple matter of statistics.

      Then, perhaps you can explain how Mr. Trumps “covid rhetoric” is responsible for anti Asian sentiment — that should be entertaining.

      CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 17, 2022 at 10:51 am

      Fatkins,

      You state ‘..blacks have for the majority of the history of the US been subjected to slavery or Jim Crow..’ and use that obvious truth related to a group historical experience as the foundation for current disadvantage. Would you care to list which members of this group alive today experienced slavery in the US? How about Jim Crow? Obviously no one alive today experienced legal slavery in the US. Jim Crow was ended in the mid to late 1960s; nearly sixty years ago.

      Anyone who experienced Jim Crow as an adult is well past working age much less university age; an 18 year old in 1965 would be 75 today so past retirement age as well. In fact an 18 year old in 1965 would have lived their adult life under the protection of the major civil rights and voting rights acts. Moreover, they would have been the beneficiary of strong middle class cultural upbringing which existed at the time but less so today; see the Moynihan Report, as well as much more effective public school education at the time.

      Since the launch of the d/prog great society programs the economic, educational, family formation among other markers of success, have decreased in the black community. The reason is a host of d/prog shenanigans aimed at ‘equity’ which have proven to have disastrous consequences in the communities the d/prog claim to help. In fact the negative effect has spread throughout our culture so that the current levels of these things in the white community are greater than the black community in 1965 which the Moynihan Report chronicled and which caused great alarm at the time.

        You won’t get a response he is here to troll nothing more.

        I would simplify that to pointing out Nigerian Americans statistically outperform Whites in most economic indicators.

          Fatkins in reply to Danny. | February 18, 2022 at 4:54 am

          You do realize the Nigerian American population came over from Nigeria in the 60’s right. That population was in part from scholarships sponsored y the then Nigerian government to come over. Thus this population was already elite in some respects both in terms of intelligence and background. That same reasoning is why many immigrant populations in the modern era out perform on average, they tend to be wealthier , more intelligent and more motivated without the historical baggage the existing populating has (which is the point really).

        Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | February 18, 2022 at 4:51 am

        Commochief

        “You state ‘..blacks have for the majority of the history of the US been subjected to slavery or Jim Crow..’ and use that obvious truth related to a group historical experience as the foundation for current disadvantage. Would you care to list which members of this group alive today experienced slavery in the US? How about Jim Crow? Obviously no one alive today experienced legal slavery in the US. Jim Crow was ended in the mid to late 1960s; nearly sixty years ago.”

        Its a good question and there are numerous aspects to it.

        1) Redlining meant that blacks were restricted to certain districts, had poor housing and in effect created poverty localized to these areas. Getting yourself out of poverty in the American system is hard. The place you live has high crime rates, low educational prospects, and you are two steps back when it comes to affording higher education or medical bills. Which in the US are insane.
        2)Education is based on property tax and therefore impoverished areas which are dominated by blacks are in effect disadvantaged from an educational point of view
        3) There is a link between poverty and crime which has meant that the legal system disproportionately criminalizes blacks. That’s in a addition to a number of other issues with the criminal justice system
        4) Distrust in American institutions, there have been a number of pretty disgusting historic examples of abuses of blacks (for example experimenting on them for disease cures) that has caused a reduction in participation in the vaccine for example. That’s not been borne out of an anti vax sentiment but rather a reading into there own history and how they have been treated.
        5)The above is also further evidenced by the wide disparity in how the criminal justice system punishes blacks. Case in point is the in voter fraud of 2020. Practically all of the fraud discovered has been of republicans and they have been punished with probation; however the case
        6) There are examples of distinctly unfair laws holding over from the Jim Crow era such as the stripping of the right to vote if you have been convicted and are still denied the right to vote on release. That’s an issue dependent on the state you are in. But these laws were written precisely to deprive blacks of the ability to vote. Again this links with other aspects noted above.
        7) Then there is the inherent disadvantage of having no wealth. That’s a big problem in America (again linked with redlining). The analogy I’ve heard which works quite well is this imagine you are playing monopoly. The rules are the same for everyone right. That’s fair but what isn’t is the starting capital. The other white players have a number of properties already and the blacks well don’t.
        8) I’m sure there are other issues but that seems a good starting point

        In response to your other para’s these issues are not going to be fixed overnight they are deeply entrenched difficult issues which will take generations to resolve.

          CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 18, 2022 at 11:17 am

          Fatkins,

          You make a good attempt at sidestepping the issue. Not interested in those until you acknowledge the fact that every group was better off economically, in family information and importantly staying married as well education attainment provided by the then functional public schools and universities.

          The fact is under those measurements all groups in the US were performing better then than now. The great society programs and a host of other socialist claptrap presented as charity of spirit and otherwise wrapped in language to appeal to western religious notions of love thy neighbor and succor the stranger were abysmal failures in their stated goals.

          Getting ahead in the US is very simple. Do these things and one has 85%+ rate of success in entering the middle class:
          1. Graduate HS
          2. Get a job
          3. Only leave that job for a higher paying job
          4. Don’t have children outside marriage
          5. Get married and stay married

          Everyone can choose to do those things no matter what their circumstances other than divorce, it takes two to tango.

          Gosport in reply to Fatkins. | February 18, 2022 at 3:45 pm

          “the legal system disproportionately criminalizes blacks.”

          No it doesn’t. The legal system doesn’t criminalize anyone. People committing crimes do. Regardless of their race, sex, creed, address, or bank balance.

          Attempting to wave a magic wand and remove responsibility of any group or individual for their own actions is, by definition, acting with prejudice towards them and is a huge part of what is wrong with the US today.

      donewiththis in reply to Fatkins. | February 17, 2022 at 7:24 pm

      Actually FatAss, I do.

      “The View” is only “Your View” because you believe you have any say in anything. You do not.

      Black people in this county did experience racism originally, but as others below have pointed out that ended about 60 years ago. And it’s been about 160 years since there was any slavery.

      What I know about you marxists is this.

      Under marxism-leninism you attempted to use class to devide the citizens so that you could take totalitarian control. Capitialism however in the west made this difficult for you, as all people’s lives were lifted up and pretty good. Even black people in the south were doing as well as they ever had been doing when their families were intact, the father at home, and all was well. Blacks were business owners, had their own lives and it was okay.

      Then again come marxist assholes like you. You bastards figured out that there was no way to bring world communism into place with the “Workers of the world unite” theme, since the workers were doing pretty good, so you decided to change the rules to “Racism”.

      And since then we have been fighting this fight. To me, I want my next President to swear that his or her first order of business will be to absolutely destroy the marxist fifth element in this nation. You bubblewrapped crybabies have been allowed to fester for too long.

      It’s time for all of you to go.

        If you knew what Marxism is you would have defined it – now go and google it so you know what it means.

        I’ve responded to commochief with respect to para 2

        I’m not a Marxist – the fact you think I am based on the comments I’ve made is telling. You have no way near enough information about me to know what my political beliefs are. Well done you’ve proven my point making a blind assertion to attempt to smear a someone with a different view.

        “marxism-leninism you attempted to use class to divide the citizens so that you could take totalitarian control”

        That’s a particular type of Marxism characterized by the experiment of the USSR. Western lefties don’t endorse this view. Technically it wouldn’t be totalitarian as the ruling class would be the working class ruling through the state party system.

        “Even black people in the south were doing as well as they ever had been doing when their families were intact”

        Err in context of no longer being lynched by the KKK sure they were doing better that doesn’t translate as parity by any stretch of the imagination.

        I’m a social democrat so any changes id propose would be through free and fair elections.

        Workers are doing well eh? Tell that to actual workers. one of the principle reasons Trump did well in 2016 is because he tapped into the working class condition they feel alienated, impoverished, not listened too. Its precisely because Hilary Clinton was and is a corporate democrat representing the same monied interests that she did so badly. She was possibly the shittest candidate in the history of candidates.

        For your amusement (its an anti HC skit)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

        “so you decided to change the rules to “Racism”.” You mean I acknowledge reality – are you seriously contending the blacks are anything other than second class citizens in America

        “I want my next President to swear that his or her first order of business will be to absolutely destroy the marxist fifth element in this nation”

        Since you conflate every person who has different view than you as a Marxist you’ll have a lot of people to destroy.

        “bubblewrapped crybabies” Irony indeed, the fact that I’m pointing out the horrific reality of Black life in America that seems slightly absurd.

This was a great speech by a great judge

We could have had this guy and instead, are now stuck with Kavanaugh for the next 35+ years.

Thank you, Judge Ho!

Exactly. Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry e.g. Marxism), Inequity, and Exclusion breeds adversity. Lose your Pro-Choice “ethical” (i.e. relativistic) religion that denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable commodity.

at base, marxism is about control–how can this possibly exist alongside liberty which is the foundation of our way of life in this country?–have heard ” equal opportunity ” all my life and have seen at close range how that “effort” has played out–with mixed results at best–to now insist and promote ” equality of outcome ” is, to any sentient adult, absurd–regardless what nebulous/nefarious justification is employed, the demand that everyone’s efforts(or lack thereof)produce the same results is to deny reality on the one hand and,on the other, to eliminate the premise that every single human on this planet(especially here in our great country)is a unique individual with their inherent gifts and faults

    donewiththis in reply to texansamurai. | February 22, 2022 at 6:07 pm

    I think I might be shadow banned texansamuri, but I will answer your question. Marxism and Captialism cannot exist together. There is no way that it is possble.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode