WNBA Player Criticizes America Following Supreme Court Ruling On Affirmative Action: “Our Country is Trash in So Many Ways”

 If this Anti American Scumbag thinks this Country is Trash then SHE needs to Getthefuckout!!

 

WNBA player Natasha Cloud (Source: ESPN)

In response to the recent Supreme Court ruling deeming affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC unconstitutional, Washington Mystics guard Natasha Cloud took to Twitter with her criticism of America.

Her sentiment, calling America “trash in so many ways” and arguing that the country continues to “oppress marginalized groups,” seems to fall into an unfortunate trap of misunderstanding the very essence of this court ruling.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard and UNC’s affirmative action programs were unconstitutional.

The recent ruling against them is rooted not in prejudice, but in upholding the principles of equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

 

The court decision strives to ensure that no student is discriminated against on the basis of race. This decision is, by definition, the opposite of oppressive. Rather, it seeks to level the playing field, promoting the idea that individuals should be assessed on merit, not the color of their skin.

7 Reasons to Stock Up on Long-Term Storage Premium Beef Right Away

Supporters of the ruling see it as a move towards fair treatment and equality, while others, like Cloud, view it as an attack on marginalized communities.

Cloud’s vehement response on Twitter painted the country as a place of continuous oppression against marginalized groups.

40 Historic Figures Who Were Actually Photographed

Livestly

Three Massive Banks Are Paying Record High Interest - See the List

Savings Pro

10 Unique Animals You Won Not Believe Exist

Animal

In her series of tweets, the 31-year-old WNBA player suggested that the country wastes its potential on “hateful ideologies” and “weaponizing religion.”

“Our country is trash in so many ways and instead of using our resources to make it better we continue to oppress Marginalized groups that we have targeted since the beginning of times,” Cloud wrote on her Twitter account.

“Black/brown communities& LGBTQ+ man we are too powerful to still be attacking issues separate,” she added. “There is power in numbers.”

Can Dogs Eat It?

Article Insider - Pets

1 Simple Trick That Cuts People’s Electric Bill by Up to 90%

Trends Consumer Club

The Best Walking Shoes Suitable for Elderly People to Wear All Day

Sursell

“We need to continue to lead with love and light. The inhumane savagery way is a very American/European ideology. We’re above that. But we do need to fight,” she said in response to another’s tweet.

“Imagine having all the power and resources to be great. I’m talking about everybody eats. Then imagine wasting it on hateful ideologies. Imagine weaponizing religion,” she wrote, adding, “That is America. We are a hateful disappointment. That’s the truth. We have the potential to be great.”

“And we waste it. Waste it trying to control what we don’t understand.”

Cloud’s bleak outlook on the country’s future included a prediction of a potential civil war, and her comments about possibly leaving the country.

Around the Web

Boost Your Savings with National Banks Paying 5% Interest

Savings Pro

A 80-year-old Grandmother Designed a Bra for Women That is Popular All over

Aailsa

10 Photos That Can Scare Anyone

Scare

“I feel like im gonna see a civil war in my lifetime,” she wrote.

She discussed potential places to move to saying, “I’m feeling somewhere with human rights, healthcare, and no mass shootings.”

Around the Web

If You Have Toenail Fungus Try This at Home (So Simple!)

Trendifyer

The Sandals for Standing All Day Without Discomfort

Sursell

Amazon Hates When You Do This, But They Can't Stop You

Online Shopping Tools

One user commented and told her to leave anytime, and then Cloud responded, “I will be lolol gladly.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/wnba-player-says-america-is-trash-so-many/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/cnns-van-jones-has-meltdown-scotus-rulings-claims/

Caught on Video: Trans ‘Woman’ with Erect Penis Allegedly Photographs Women in Women’s Restroom

 Here is one Ugly Perverted Sick SOB

In an incident that incites repulsion and demands urgent action, a video recently surfaced from Burlington, Massachusetts, showing a transgender ‘woman’ with an erect penis waiting to use a cubicle in a women’s restroom.

The individual in question, caught on camera, is seen glancing toward women who can be heard in the background. He then shifts his camera, seemingly preparing to take a covert photo of the women present.

This grotesque action by the transgender woman is profoundly disturbing and raises serious concerns about the safety and comfort of all biological women using public restrooms.

WATCH:

 

The current law in Massachusetts protects the rights of transgender people to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

 

“Acts of 2016 Chapter 134 gives transgender people the right to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identities, and includes language to provide “legal action [against] any person whose assertion of a gender identity is for an improper purpose,” according to the state’s official website.

However, this incident starkly highlights a disturbing misuse of those rights. The shocking incident in Burlington has underscored the necessity of revisiting the design and management of public restroom facilities.

If you have more information on the video, please get in touch with us at tips@thegatewaypundit.com.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/caught-video-transgender-woman-erect-penis-allegedly-photographs/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/kevin-spacey-trial-first-day-called-sexual-bully/

Democrats Don’t Care About Democracy

 Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Democrats and their media lackeys have crafted a narrative that they, and only they, are defenders of democracy against encroaching fascism, authoritarianism, and institutional racism. They have also complained about the anti-institutionalism of “MAGA Republicans” who supposedly threaten America’s institutions and rule of law. Of course, this is a big lie considering the constant demeaning of the Supreme Court as “illegitimate” and “not normal.”

To Democrats, democracy means getting everything they want and making sure conservatives, Republicans, and especially Christians never get anything they want. Democracy is simply a magical abracadabra word, having now taken on sacred and mystical feeling, to be utilized as a bludgeoning force of bloviated rhetoric to legitimize their totalitarian impulses and policies. They want to strongarm the Court with threats to rule in their favor. If the Court does so, no problem.

The hypocrisy of Democrats is nothing new. But it cannot ever be set aside. In the war for our democracy’s future it is not the Democrats but the Republicans who, if they should be courageous and not cowardly like Paul Ryan, are standing up for a free, prosperous, and individualistic future. Reading some Alexis de Tocqueville is illustrative on this point.

In the 1830s, the French aristocrat who came to America to report on the prison system ended up writing his most famous work about his travels across America’s political and cultural landscape. Democracy in America was an instant success and has since become a classic text that analyzes the uniqueness of America in comparison to Europe.

For Tocqueville, democracy meant the individual was free to improve his life -- morally, economically, and spiritually -- without the fear of state coercion or even collective coercion from the masses. Democracy existed within the republican framework of laws and institutions. In fact, it was precisely this reality of free individuals existing within a republican legal framework with which Tocqueville was most enamored and considered the pillar of American democracy:

Nothing is more striking to a European traveler in the United States than the absence of what we term the Government, or Administration. Written laws exist in America and one sees that they are daily executed; but although everything is in motion, the hand which gives the impulse to the social machine can nowhere be discovered.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 majority that was established because of the Trump Presidency, has been ruling in accord with the best democratic principles and ideals that inspired the world from Tocqueville to today. The Court is restoring free individuals under the Constitution to live in liberty without the coercive collectivism of “the Government or Administration,” the managerial bureaucracy (“social machine,” per Tocqueville’s language) erected from the New Deal and Great Society agendas of FDR and LBJ, imposing its singular vision over life.

By upholding religious freedom from government coercion per the First Amendment, by upholding the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and by returning critical issues to the states per the 10th Amendment, the Supreme Court is ensuring democratic freedom for individuals instead of the subjugated collectivism of the “social machine” which is the current woke bureaucracy and their mass of lawyers, teachers, and activists who dominate American cultural and institutional life.

Because a conservative Supreme Court is defending democracy and ensuring American liberty instead of the collective totalitarianism of woke progressivism, which totalitarian Democrats call “democracy” and “freedom” to obscure their true purposes, Democrats and their sycophants in the media (and especially social media) are in a rageful hysteria demeaning the Court, attacking Clarence Thomas, and constantly asserting the Court’s rulings make it illegitimate. So much for defending democracy and democratic institutions! We cannot let their narrative campaign win.

Since the failure of the totalitarian revolutions of the 20th century which captured the hearts and minds of most intellectuals -- as Czesław Miłosz explained -- the new totalitarians who dream of utopia have had to make public peace with democratic capitalism. But this is just a mere façade, a veil, to hide their continuing totalitarian desires. Deep down, they still desire to control you, destroy your family, and eliminate as many individual rights and freedoms as possible.

In order to save democracy, “screw your freedom!” In order to save democracy we must end religious freedom, or what totalitarians call “religious discrimination” and “Christian nationalism.” In order to save democracy we must end economic freedom. In order to save democracy, we must become a totalitarian uniparty state where that uniparty knows what is best for everyone!

Democrats have been fomenting rage against America, American institutions, and American law for decades. They have been slowly destroying American democracy from the inside by claiming it is racist, sexist, and patriarchal. And then they lie about being the saviors of democracy.

Standing up for the legitimacy of the Court is imperative. If the totalitarians succeed in indoctrinating people into thinking the Court is illegitimate, then the last bastion of the rule of law, democratic freedom, and the Constitution which protects us from government collectivism, will be overthrown in a soft coup d’état. This, however, is the intention of Democrat totalitarians and their enablers. Thank God the Supreme Court, because of Trump’s appointees, is standing against them.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/democrats_dont_care_about_democracy_.html

Michelle Obama rage-tweets about blacks being oppressed -- from a fancy Greek yacht vacay out in the Mediterranean

 For most of us, Grecian island vacations and private yacht parties with the jet set are pretty much the purview of those with lives of idle privilege.

Not for Michelle Obama, who had plenty of complaints about the Supreme Court's rulings back in the states while on this sort of vacation.

According to this tweet:

 

 

So there she was, living the post-presidential luxury life out in the Mediterranean with the billionaires, same as Jackie O and her Aristotle Onassis once did on their yachts, and instead of just enjoying it, she puts out this furious statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision to end race-based affirmative action admissions at colleges and universities:

 

It was an odd statement indeed, given that the opening paragraph gives the exact reason why affirmative action ought to be scrapped. Why should a black kid of merit get sidelong looks about being an affirmative-action admission when he most certainly would have gotten into the school he goes to on his own in a color-blind application process?

 

Michelle explains it away with "The fact is this: I belonged," not citing who says so, and then veering off into comparing affirmative action admissions in colleges with legacy admissions a few white students get (rest assured, those need to be scrapped, too) as if all whites are alike, and athletic admissions, an apples-to-oranges argument made even more ridiculous by her suggestion that no black kid ever got a basketball or football scholarship, and white kids having money for test preparation, as if black kids never use those services and the success they produce is solely a matter of money, rather than that and motivation. Perhaps she can find out why public schools run by teachers' unions are failing to the extent that so many black kids and kids of all colors have to pay for these services?

 

Worse still, she ignored the issue at hand -- that Asian-American kids of merit were getting stiffed by the all racial box-checking which was overriding their merit because there were "too many" of them. They don't exist, you see, despite the suit being actually brought by them before the Court.

 

But perhaps worst of all, is the news that she was out there living her best luxe life on the yachts with the movie stars and the disruptions of the locals, all while doing her tweets about black oppression. (PJMedia has more thoughts on that here.)

 

There were these complaints from the local Greeks in their own towns about how the Obamas' positively regal security detail disrupted their daily lives, which included forcing non-disclosure signatures from locals as they went about their business.

 

It was all because the Obamas were just too, too, important.

 

Local sources said that the couple had arrived in Greece on Friday, travelling incognito on a private jet, and were eventually seen on Saturday in Naousa, a picturesque fishing village on Paros island.

The Obamas are most probably being hosted by their friends, Hollywood actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, who own a holiday home on the adjacent island of Antiparos.

Barack and Michelle Obama were reportedly accompanied by over thirty American security agents who followed their every step as they went out to dine at a gourmet fish restaurant in Naousa, Paros.

According to Greek newspaper ProtoThema, they were sat at a remote area of the restaurant, while the restaurant owner was asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement and staff were required to remove their smart watches and put away their phones until the former presidential couple of the United States had left.

...

The only photo leaked so far from the Obamas’ Greek island vacation was shared by a Twitter user who felt annoyed at how “the whole island was disrupted” by their stay on Antiparos.

 One even refused to put up with that royalty schtick:

 

 

Private jets? Jammed traffic? Non-disclosure agreements? Did they pay these people for that 'service,' or did they just demand it?

I think we can guess who the privileged ones are here. But no matter -- as Michelle said in her earlier statement "we belong," which is a fancy way of saying "we're entitled." And just like the affirmative action privileges Michelle laments the demise of, the Obamas are comfortable with other privileges, living the textbook life of the jet-setting idle rich.

Give us a break.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/michelle_obama_ragetweets_about_blacks_being_oppressed__from_a_fancy_greek_yacht_in_the_mediterranean.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/are_obamas_deliberate_and_malicious_leaks_emnotem_mishandling_of_classified_information.html

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/update-michelle-obama-spotted-having-lunch-m-hanks/

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/affirmative_action_diversity_is_a_sham.html

Misleading the Public on Law

 New York University (NYU) Law professor Rick Pildes is among a partisan academic group of colleagues, including Bob Bauer who worked for the Obama administration, and Richard Revesz, who is on leave to run Biden’s  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).  

Pildes recently wrote a Guest Essay in the New York Times (one of many) where he opines on the SCOTUS decision concerning state voting procedures, and whether state legislatures are excessively independent in determining voting and election rules (he prefers that courts have excessive judicial review powers to unilaterally override legislators, depending of course on who is running the legislature). In so arguing, he adds to the long list of law school professors who are deliberately misleading the public on law, the Constitution, the nature of American government, and their own rights and interests.

There are some formal issues to consider in this case, including the Court’s dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the concept of “mootness,” but I’d like to leave those technical and law factors to others, and focus on what Pildes does in his NYT essay: deliberately twist the law in order to serve the DNC, and by so doing, abandon law’s professional standards. 

Recall what actually happened in 2020: COVID was used as a pretext to go into states with legal teams hired by the DNC (largely directed by political strategy law firm Perkins Coie) to intimidate judges by asserting an “emergency” which necessitated a sudden, and undisclosed, change in voting procedures. A chorus of law professors, such as Berkeley Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky, provided a nearly nonstop running media narrative, asserting that exceptions to nearly all voting rules needed to be suddenly accepted, due to the “dangers” of showing up at a voting station in person, or being burdened with restrictions on voting time and place, or even to provide proof of voter eligibility.  COVID was used to completely bypass the Constitution.

A strange thing about the NYU law professor’s argument is that he suddenly criticizes legal ambiguity, and fears that vague language will make voting rules set by legislature harder to challenge, while exposing the court to endless accusations of overstepping its authority.

This is quite a leap in constitutional doctrine: But the law professor wants to have his cake and eat it too: vague legal language serves him just fine when the issue may be legal “workaround” ploys in voting policy, but for the federally centralized voting authority that the Left craves, it puts them in a position of disadvantage: the Left is really bad at explaining its political rationale, or justifying its authoritarian impulses. It prefers using courts to simply make rules, and public consent be damned.

The centerpiece however, of Pildes’ legal disingenuousness is when he brings up Wisconsin:

“For illustrative purposes, let’s say in 2024 the Wisconsin state legislature passes a law establishing deadlines for requesting or returning absentee ballots, but a state court rules those deadlines unconstitutional because they contradict the state constitution’s guarantee of the right to vote. The losing party will now turn to the federal courts and argue that the state court has gone “too far” in its interpretation of the state constitution.”

Readers may remember that Wisconsin was one of the most corrupted states in 2020 (where a number of NY DNC-affiliated lawyers parachuted into towns in order to “oversee” voting and counting).  DNC operations created just enough time and uncertainty in ballot collection and counting, to deny Trump its electoral votes. 

Indeed, the Wisconsin chief justice at the time, Patience D. Roggensack, wrote one of the most insightful, damning dissents in Wisconsin legal history when she put her finger on what was allowed to happen in her state, in Trump v. Biden, et al: “Four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”

Pildes appears to invoke Wisconsin as a mere random example, but he clearly knows that what happened in 2020 with illegal absentee ballots and delayed vote tallying, has to occur again in 2024 and beyond -- and he doesn’t want the state judiciary accused of overstepping its boundaries if it too liberally interprets a “right to vote” as an opportunity to defraud.

This is why the Supreme Court’s recent ruling is something he calls “dangerous” because it leaves open the use of the federal courts to reasonably review election fraud claims from the states, but also protects the principle of separation concerning legislation. This is a double whammy for Pildes, because what he and his client, the DNC, desperately want, is tighter language around how the courts may preempt state legislative initiatives, while selectively using the courts to override legislation they don’t like.

Pildes also gets away with an unbelievable about-face when he declares:

“Elections benefit greatly from clear rules laid out well in advance of Election Day. Such rules minimize voter confusion; bolster the ability of election officials to communicate clear, consistent messages to voters.  Clear rules specified in advance are all the more important in this era of pervasive distrust and suspicion concerning elections.”

This mendacity, given the DNC’s explicit, engineered use of a “pandemic” to influence 2020 elections, should be instructive to readers as to what extent the progressive Left will go, and making law professors into something other than trusted sources of knowledge and judgement.

Pildes' NYT essay ends as a “moot” point itself, because he not only misunderstands and misrepresents the “independent state legislature theory,” but doesn’t seem to have contextual awareness of both the Election Clause and the Electors Clause of the Constitution.  He also seems to misunderstand the position of the Chief Justice: he did not “endorse a weaker version of the independent legislature theory,” but merely reminded anyone paying attention that judicial review is a fairly routine procedure, and that it simply performs in a “reasonable” manner if it is to stay within constitutional bounds of separation: the Chief Justice advances a strong separation theory, not a weak independent theory.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/misleading_the_public_on_law.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/do_the_current_conservative_decisions_show_an_activist_supreme_court.html